Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
www.exiledonline.com
Russia / December 5, 2011

As the videos I’m posting below show, the mood in Moscow has definitely soured since I last reported on the anti-Kremlin demonstrations there in 2007-8. Back then, anti-Kremlin democracy protests were still confined to a smaller sliver of the population, although even at that time, as I wrote, there were early signs that discontent was starting to take root among Moscow’s student intelligentsia. That’s always a sign of danger to come for Russian regimes.

Yesterday, former eXile columnist Edward Limonov was detained as he got out of his car to lead a protest against the fraud-riddled elections.

And Monday night Moscow time, the protests against election fraud swelled in size to as high as 10,000+ according to some reports I’ve read, overwhelmingly young students and post-Communist Russians in their 20′s and 30′s. Watching this video, shot near the Kremlin, makes it clear that a tipping point has been reached in Moscow: Discontent over living under oligarchical rule is spilling into the open. It’s no longer enough to be “better off than under Yeltsin”–Russia’s youth wants more democracy, more people power, and more justice. The idea is spreading in Moscow, and this has got to make Putin and the Kremlin nervous:

And here is more from Moscow’s demonstrations, the largest seen in the Putin era:

Update: For a broader perspective on the history of election fraud in Russia, including Western active complicity in mass election fraud and oligarchy-creation to ensure the re-election of their man Boris Yeltsin in 1996, read “Who Killed The OSCE? Ex-OSCE Mission Chief Reveals ‘Pressure’ To Whitewash 1996 Election” by Alexander Zaitchik and Mark Ames, published in The eXile on November 30, 2007. Also read “Kremlin Public Enemy No. 1″ by Edward Limonov about trying to march for democracy without getting pinched, published in The eXile on May 4, 2007.

Read more:, Mark Ames, Russia

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline

47 Comments

Add your own

  • 1. DeeboCools  |  December 5th, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    Right the fuck on. I sent them some youtube comment love, it’s all I could do from over here; Indignados/99%ers are now a truly global force emerging…

  • 2. Bobby  |  December 5th, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Isin’t the Putin regime the good guy here? If the current regime falls it will be replaced by neocons filth.

  • 3. Zhlobko Yebic  |  December 5th, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Eдинорос молодой
    Зачем женишься?
    Придет Нестор Махно –
    Куда денешься?

    (To the tune of Yablochko)

  • 4. Нестор Махно  |  December 5th, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Из Питтсбурга в Москву, мы посылаем нашу любовь!

  • 5. Kyeshinka  |  December 5th, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    I can’t believe Yavlinsky hasn’t died from syphillis yet.

  • 6. boson  |  December 5th, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    @Bobby: no, Putin’s not the good guy.
    internally his regime is a predatory neocon régime, coupled with a police state:
    http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Is_R_Kist_01.pdf
    http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/State_and_ec_transf_05_09.pdf

    “Strengthening the state has been a major theme of Putin’s presidency. This might suggest that the neoliberal approach has been abandoned in favor of a state directed transition strategy. However, such a conclusion is not justified by the record. It appears that the direction of the Putin regime combines increasing centralization of political power in Moscow and an increasingly repressive and undemocratic state with the maintenance of a neoliberal economic strategy. There has been no sign of a shift toward active state guidance of Russia’s economic transition.”

  • 7. Bobby  |  December 5th, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    @boson

    I don’t know about that. Putin fucked up the neocons nicely in Georgia. Took out their whole army there. What victories has any other anti-neocon scored?

  • 8. The Last Fenian  |  December 6th, 2011 at 1:47 am

    Bobby’s point is unaswerable. What Putin represents is above all one of the few successful forces DOING SOMETHING ABOUT US imperialism — rather than, say, sitting around in town squares banging drums and shouting vapid slogans until moved on by the police. The eXile’s objectively pro-imperialist line reminds me of the old SWP slogan from the ’70/’80s: “neither Washington nor Moscow”. That, of course, meant “Washington” in reality then, just as it does now. It’s called dialectics, it’ll help you, really.

  • 9. Internationalist  |  December 6th, 2011 at 3:40 am

    “Dialectics”, “objectively pro-imperialist” yadda, yadda. God save us from the cool kidz of the left and their self-righteous contrarian narcissism. They would make good banksters, in fact.

    Here’s a simple thought for you to go all dialectic about: there are growing swathes of the Russian population that are willing to protest against their oligarchs. Just like in the Middle East, America or Western Europe. How about we, you know, keep in touch and support each other, just like the global 0,1 % does? Build a common echo chamber of protest, to challenge neoliberal dogma wherever it rears its head (i.e. everywhere)?

    The Amerikan Empire is well into its autumnal stage, dahling. The much-touted “multipolar world” is right around the corner. The real question is, however, how neoliberal, how undemocratic are we going to allow it to be?

    After Richelieu and Mazarin’s defeat of the Habsburgs, the attempts by the House of Bourbon to impose its hegemony over Europe can be described as a long, protracted failure. However, even though France did not manage to, say, thwart the British or defang the Austrians throughout the XVIII century, French absolutism did become the most widespread political model of the time. By the same token, there is life for the global oligarchy after the Amerikan Empire goes out (with a whimper).

    Against this backdrop, you smug, cosseted Trotsko dickheads are worse than useless. Objectively pro-oligarchy, if you will.

  • 10. Internationalist  |  December 6th, 2011 at 3:59 am

    “to go all dialectical about…”

  • 11. Bester  |  December 6th, 2011 at 4:14 am

    Exile you’re so stupid now!!!!!!

    10’000 protesters? They were 1500 and they were astroturfing everywhere on the internet, claiming they are 80’000. Ridiculous.

    And those 1500 are American sponsored “revolutionists”, they’re not against anything, they’re just mindless hipsters with iphones.

    God damnit Exile, will you please do responsible journalism or just shut the fuck up. Fucking twats.

  • 12. John Figler  |  December 6th, 2011 at 5:40 am

    Pretty much the same as 11.

    10.000 people? That’s like the uh… 0.006% of Russia’s population (0.08% Moscow’s).

    I understand you need lot’s of self-encouragement right now after all that hard time in jail and that but, look, 10.000 people are hardly a democratic force of any size, unless you are talking about San Marino… Of course, that does make it the biggest protest of its kind in the Putin era, and the fact that they were mostly younger tusovschiki and elitny Muscovites means, in the Russian context, that this is more serious than I’m trying to make it sound–but yeah, besides that, my brain size is like 0.00000000000001% the size of your average chinovnik’s.

    Maybe, when the iPhoned hipsters grow up… (and they’ll have the chance to grow up very fast with the approaching hunger and assorted miseries…) they’ll hunt me down and shove an iPhone up my ass.

  • 13. boson  |  December 6th, 2011 at 6:11 am

    @7: 9 (Internationalist) had it right.
    how is Russian aggression and imperialism any different from US imperialism?
    internally, for Russians, the Putin régime is probably worse than a republican government for american workers, whilst externally it means botched-up imperialist adventures.
    why should lefties support any of that?

  • 14. Trevor  |  December 6th, 2011 at 6:22 am

    Good for Russia, but let’s not start seeing global unity where there’s just pissed off people. Should Putin actually get ousted from the Kremlin, I doubt what replaces him will be much better – though I would like to see how the western press would spin the annexation of Kazakhstan by a natsbol regime.

  • 15. Rehmat  |  December 6th, 2011 at 6:44 am

    The term “fraud” takes me back to Ahmadinejad’s 2009 victory – which was pronounced by Israel and its western stooges around the world as FRAUD.

    Now, we all know, is not a “Jew-hater”, but he do support anti-Israel regimes in Syria, Iran and Lebanon.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/zionists-chutzpah-and-ahmadinejad/

  • 16. Internationalist  |  December 6th, 2011 at 7:16 am

    Trevor: I’m not seeing global unity, but I’m seeing lots of people in very different places, that are pissed off for very similar reasons.

    This can add up to something, or it cannot.

    If the different protest movements get completely co-opted by their own national political processes with their own idiosyncrasies, and refuse to combine their local actions and demands with an effort to network among themselves and build a coherent “narrative” (hate the word, but it comes in handy here), *just like the “Davos elites” have been doing for years*, the second outcome is all but a certainty.

    That mention of XVII and XVIII century Europe I’ve made in a previous post is not as bad as most historical analogies tend to be. The peasants still think they are the salt of the earth, while the aristocrats exchange letters written in French and invite each other to their châteaux.

  • 17. MountainHome  |  December 6th, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Protests in Moscow…this is how the People are taking a stand around the world. I’m proud of them standing up to voter fraud.

    You might want to read this book cause it’s about a small town in America who also takes a stand & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution. It’s a thriller so I recommend it.

    http://www.booksbyoliver.com

    It will be interesting to see if there are any voting fraud nxt yr. in America. When there is a paperless tally then no one ever knows if the votes are valid or not.

    Great article!

  • 18. NeoAmerican  |  December 6th, 2011 at 8:24 am

    I wish I could stop enviously posting comments attacking people with more balls and dignity than I have, I wish I would just get a job and go to work and stop trying to fuck with people better than I am, but hey, this is what the life of an envious right-wing suckup troll is like

  • 19. mookid  |  December 6th, 2011 at 8:44 am

    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/ridus

    livestream from moscow protest today

  • 20. Brian  |  December 6th, 2011 at 9:51 am

    That SkyNews Australia piece of Limonov is lackluster reporting at best. It is rife with inaccuracies!

  • 21. az  |  December 6th, 2011 at 11:37 am

    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111205-713912.html

    It’s pretty funny how this time around nobody in America really cares and the media is only reporting on it because it would be embarrassing if they didn’t. Kind of contrasts with a couple years ago when the Washington Post was all ‘Putin is a fascist’ editorials and articles on human rights abuses. Today there’s one editorial, but it really steps around the political situation in the country, and the article on it (which didn’t even make the front page), well:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper?dt=2011-12-06&bk=A&pg=18

    On the other hand, I feel like this attitude probably helps the opposition more than the whole 2003-2008 period when the various US agencies were actively trying to foster opposition movements, which made many people paranoid about the whole thing as it should have.

  • 22. John Figler  |  December 6th, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Mmmmmm a Iphone up my ass… mmmmm… Can’t!

    Wake up when working poor Russians.

  • 23. Bobby  |  December 6th, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    I hear Hillary Rod in the Ham Clinton is supporting these pro-democracy protesters. Well fuck me, I guess this is a good thing.

  • 24. bebe  |  December 6th, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    I am afraid Moscow protests are not the same as Washington protests because both are organized from the U.S.

    If Moscow’s protests are paid for by Americans as a way of meddling in Russian elections http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28060 there is little that connects them to the wishes of the Russian people.

    You wouldn’t have supported the Occupy movement if you found out it was paid for by Chinese, would you?

  • 25. An Old Stalinist  |  December 6th, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    @Internationalist: you use a lot of words to say fuck-all. You are on the same side as Hilary Clinton: ’nuff said.

  • 26. Internationalist  |  December 7th, 2011 at 2:08 am

    @25 (Old Stalinist): Assuming you haven’t been sent to the Comment Improvement Gulag by the gracious Exiled Censor, that’s a skillful “LUL I TROLL U” post. I happen to love those so I’ll humour you.

    1) Hillary Clinton is part of the Occupy movement now? She was with the “indignados” in Madrid? Pictures, please.

    2) This is the thing that the Putin-Fellat-o-matic software(version 3.1) you guys are using will not let you type: Putin and the Amerikantsy (and the Chinese and everybody and their dog, for that matter) are just engaging in a bit of shadowboxing, a little circus to keep the masses distracted. The clash of empires is just a side-effect of the real action, the oligarchic one. You know, global wage arbitrage, financialisation of the economies, commodity speculation et cetera, et cetera. The big corporate actors and their enforcers in the political class may have their frictions, but things are not supposed to get out of hand because it’s all a big interconnected cartel. As the BRICS and their corporations gain in power, they are simply inserting themselves into that cartel, and assuming a more central position in it. They are not tearing it down.

    Have you ever heard about those obnoxious Russian oligarchs evading taxes in Switzerland and buying up stuff everywhere?

    So, in a sense, you’re also on Hillary’s side too. Objectively, I mean.

    Read this nice, informative paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5728

    or this summary for dummies: http://planetsave.com/2011/08/28/who-runs-the-world-network-analysis-reveals-super-entity-of-global-corporate-control/

    Your bosses can try to add some sentences from it to the Putin-Fellat-o-matic 3.2 software they are bound to supply you with in a few weeks.

  • 27. Internationalist  |  December 7th, 2011 at 4:59 am

    Incidentally, if you listen to Obama and Hillary these days, they’ll tell you they were with the Egyptian protesters right from the start. Of course, we know full well that endless hot, manly tears were shed in Washington as Mubarak fell.

    It is easy for the US government to give a little kiss of Judas to the Russian protesters. It amounts to fuck-all in terms of real commitment, makes them (the US gov, that is) look good, and Vladimir is probably grateful too for the little political favour.

    But I guess it’s more exciting to think that the American empire is all-powerful and that the Cold War is still on.

  • 28. dogbane  |  December 7th, 2011 at 8:16 am

    I don’t give a half a fuck if Putin has allegedly put his thumb in the eye of neocons here, there, or anywhere. A Chekist authoritarian is still an authoritarian, and I don’t truck with authoritarians.

    “Humankind will not be free until the last Kremlin commissar is strangled with the entrails of the last Pentagon chief of staff.” ~ Edward Abbey

  • 29. Rehmat  |  December 7th, 2011 at 8:17 am

    bebe -Interestingly, all American Islamophobes are against the OWS movement – from Hillary Clinton to Newt Gingrich.

    Last month, Muslim-basher Herman Cain, GOP presidential candidate called the growing OWS protesters “anti-American” and said protesters were merely jealous of those more successful. “I don’t have a lot of patience for people who want to protest”–I interrupt my Islamofellatin’ comment to remind everyone that I can’t use the comment section to spew/link to my bullshit here for free. Thank you for your time and patience, oh Almighty eXiled Moderator!

  • 30. Machak  |  December 7th, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    @27
    Excuse me, are we on the same fucking planet here?
    A “nation” of 300 million (mostly) lunatics, armed with bazillion nukes and dead-set on eating petrol for breakfast, lunch and dinner IS all-powerful.
    Besides, as long as there are Obamas, Shrubs and the rest of their ilk, there will be Putins and Jintaos and other autocratic blowhards.
    These protesters, just like OWSers, sure have balls of steel – Russian Internal Troops are well known for their casual brutality.
    But this is rather pointless. Russians will just assume that this is another wannabe “Colored Revolution”, just like that pathetic riot in Belarus a few months ago.
    Until Murkan Empire and Yurp Supremacy kick the bucket, nothing will change.
    Vova’s greatest allies are Beltway Emprah, Merkozy and other assorted fascist scum.

  • 31. Tracked & Followed  |  December 7th, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    Internationalist excellent the way you say it.But how many really get that? Or realize that they are supper?
    Further how many realize the police state is already here? She’s just waiting for her close up…Her Betty Davis moment when she terrifies the Americans into complete submission and executes the assorted lone wolves. The United States of America National Security State is like a deranged serial killer drag queen just wanting to come out of the closet and let you all have it.
    But then again some of you might enjoy it.
    Only when the snake bares fangs do the sheep run away.

  • 32. darthfader  |  December 7th, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    I knew I could count on y’all, but still, thanks so much for providing an English-language perspective on this other than “IS THIS GOOD FOR AMERICA”

  • 33. darthfader  |  December 7th, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    And may I say what a pleasure it is to see all the pro-Putin cum-slaverers lining up to suck some eXile dick in the comments above. At least they’re all admitting they were wrong, wrong, wrong.

  • 34. Rehmat  |  December 7th, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Do you think the reason I’m obsessed with Jews so much is because secretly, I was a mysterious Jewish child-princess in another life? Or is that just my wish?

  • 35. super390  |  December 7th, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    There’s Eastasia and Eurasia and Oceania, and there always have been.

    Is Balance of Power a good thing, or a bad thing?

    It depends on whether stasis between powerful empires will give time and space for people to improve their own governance, or whether it just makes our subjugation ever more absolute. Let’s look at several scenarios:

    In 1914, hip, trendy Marxists were pointing out that the empires about to go to war with each other were very similar bourgeoise crypto-democracies, and that no one in the 99% would benefit from one side winning over the other. Better for the workers to refuse to go to war, then coordinate mutual sabotage of their economies leading to global revolution. So stasis is progressive.

    But in 1938, there was no doubt among radicals that at least Hitler and maybe Stalin too were monsters, and that the preservation of stability in Europe would actually strengthen totalitarianism. So stasis is anti-progressive.

    When one bad state is far better armed and fully backed by the capitalist oligarchy, and the only thing that stands against it are a few tinpot tyrants who are trying to start their own separate oligarchies, whom do we progressives cheer for? That was the situation when it was Bush on one side and Putin, Ahmadinejad and Chavez on the other. We felt that their sabotage of NATO and NAFTA expansion was the last hope against an unstoppable US conquest of the world, so we overlooked their moral shortcomings.

    But now they’ve accomplished that old goal, the US has finally been exposed and is a collapsing power. Yet it is still full of nukes and propagandists and missionaries and schemes amongst the ruins, as dangerous as Weimar Germany. On the other hand, we no longer look at Iran (or even bin Laden) as the only alternative, after we’ve seen the people take to the streets against all the competing oligarchies, even in Israel, India and China.

    So do we want the little tyrants to carve up the US empire into stable duchies that resist outside voices, or do we gamble on a complex, anarchic world where the poor and indignant try to overthrow their local lords even if it creates the danger that China Inc walks in and takes over? It’s really a problem, because people unhappy with their own society tend to sniff abroad for a rising new power whose success seems to prove it a model for their own revolution. Right now, all the models suck, but the protestors around the world don’t have a non-state model with any credibility to unite and expand their efforts.

    If I knew for sure that the demonstrators would fail everywhere, I’d be pulling for the anti-US oligarchs to succeed in creating their own corporate empires, because we would surely be doomed to live in a world of corporate rule but at least there would be competing corporations. We all know the Wall Streeters stick together overseas, and so does Japan Inc. Once the physical spheres of influence collapse, poor countries will at least be able to play Rosneft and Sinopec and Exxon against each other and not get quite as raped as they do under the current paradigm. Take for example Cuba’s oil exploration and possible Spanish or Chinese investment, versus its likely fate if the US simply forces it to take the Miami oligarchs back and gives it a double-dose of Shock Doctrine.

    But if there’s a chance of popular uprisings actually transforming several wealthy countries, then the above strategy is a horrible mistake. The least-bad corporations might be in the states that have the most progressive populations, thus a successful overthrow there would have the most radical implications and encourage the most emulation abroad.

    There’s no way to know. We will be divided by this, and at most only one side will succeed.

  • 36. super390  |  December 7th, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    #17 is no friend of OWS.

    And small towns backed Hitler, Franco, Pinochet and George Wallace. Your revolution is Margaret Atwood’s nightmare, and she’s right.

    Good job avoiding the Exile moderator, though.

  • 37. The Last Fenian  |  December 8th, 2011 at 1:17 am

    Should anyone be interested in this latest version of the PR community’s attempts to blunt the effects of the anti-Putin protests, I’ve got this idea of labeling (how clever am I?!) critics like this paper a cross between frat boys and Jew commies, making me look like I’m the sane guy who’s neither right nor left, neither female nor male. Plus, I act like I’m totally yawning in boredom, so that other hairdressers like me will be like, “Oh no, he’s bored! If I’m interested in this, it makes me boring to this really cool anonymous troll. I better not be interested now!”

    Oh, and fuck you for everything you breathe eat and lick, spineless troll fuckwipe

  • 38. Internationalist  |  December 8th, 2011 at 3:52 am

    @30 (Machak): yes, if you’re unable to see, in 2011 Anno Domini, that the American Empire is in terminal decline then, yes, we definitely live on different planets. In different centuries, to be exact. You’re still stuck in the XX.

    There’s this famous quote by Marx in which he compares capitalists to vampires. Clever man, the bearded one, he realised the relevance of myth-making in contemporary popular culture. Now, you and your ilk seem to have taken to heart the pulpier elements of the vampire myth. Like denizens of serialised media, your imperialists never truly seem to suffer lasting defeats, they are merely temporarily thwarted, to eventually return, more powerful than ever.

    They are cool as fuck, basically. You and your ilk (aka the dickheads of the left)are inveterate romantics.

    This romanticism also taints your attitude to geopolitics. I regard the relative loss of power of America and Europe (and Japan), the rise of the BRICS and a multipolar world order, as something that is both inevitable and good. However, I have no illusions about the fact that that multipolar world will in all likelihood be as oligarchic and neo-liberal as that of the last few decades. If you think the new players mean any real change, you have seen very little of the world.

    Did you know that the world’s most obnoxious libertarians are made in India?

    Anyway, I’m off to discuss things of substance with an altogether more clever poster, below.

  • 39. Internationalist  |  December 8th, 2011 at 5:17 am

    @ super390:
    The question you really want to answer, and you seem to be struggling because of that pesky XX century intruding upon your imagination, is:

    “Will the dealings among the sub-sections of the global oligarchy be mainly congenial (conniving, collegial, et cetera) or competitive?”

    It’s a tricky question to answer, and one which the left has traditionally been very ill-equipped to tackle. The concept of “class” tells you that some people play golf while others do not, but it doesn’t tell you who exactly is playing golf with whom.

    1914 saw the cataclysmic end of a very long period of largely congenial coexistence among the sub-sections of the capitalist world. Conflicts like the Crimea war were not “existential”, and were rather meant to ensure that specific players did not overstep the boundaries. The Scramble for Africa was basically formalised over cookies and coffee in Berlin in 1884, just as the colonisation of China was a collective affair.

    This pweety, pweety picture (click it!):

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Lifeandhealth/Pix/pictures/2009/9/11/1252668529200/queen-victoria-001.jpg

    shows Queen Victoria (“Vicky”) together with her relatives Kaiser Wilhelm (“Willy”) and Tsar Nikolai (“Nick”) who’d all converged on Coburg with the rest of a “royal mob” (the Queen’s words) for some wedding or the other. This comes to show that the relationship between the oligarchs in the XIX century was much more than merely a “balance of power”, it was all a big extended mafia racket.

    Why did that bunch of inbreds come to blows in 1914? Tricky question, as I said. They probably thought they could get away with it.

    At any rate, the key idea is that congenial cartel-building among oligarchs is rather the norm than the exception. A major factor in the destabilisation of the XX century were the ambitions of the upstart Germany. Given that our era’s greatest rising power, China, is making damn sure it does not rock the boat, and that its elites are way more afraid of their own population than of the big bad outside world, I’m wagering on a continuation of the cartel-like congeniality for long decades to come, an incorporation of the BRICS into the global network of corporate control rather than its fragmentation.

    Of course, things like a shortage of key commodities can increase the heat, but much like the colonial race of yore I’d say that’s bound to remain peripheral. In that regard, the wide availability of nukes, instead of being an instrument of “omnipotence” as our LULsy romantic pseudo-leftist above says, is probably a guarantee of sound business behaviour all around.

    You say: “(o)nce the physical spheres of influence collapse, poor countries will at least be able to play Rosneft and Sinopec and Exxon against each other and not get quite as raped as they do under the current paradigm”. I’m afraid that’s not how things are panning out. First, globalisation has not abolished geography entirely, not by a long shot, which means that the “physical spheres of influence” are alive and well and that Rosneft, Sinopec and Exxon will keep on getting better access to the gravy that’s close to their respective homes. Most importantly, the ones who are playing off corporate folks against each other are local elites that will more often than not be divorced from their populations, not “poor countries” in the abstract. The behaviour of those local elites is effectively indistinguishable from that of the oligarchs placed more centrally in the global corporate ownership network. Just talk to wealthy Arabs if you ever get the chance, they have very exact ideas about their post-American future. Finally, Rosneft, Sinopec and Exxon are on to the nature of the business and won’t take the need to haggle with local potentates too personally.

    (But, but, but, I hear you say, what about the fucking Iraq war? What about Lybia? Well, those are some of the last wheezes of the American empire, a bit of a XX century anachronism in a time of transition. The key thing to remember with respect to the Iraq war, however, is that the main goal of the neocons was accomplished. That was to sell “imperial subprime” to the fearful, gullible American taxpayer for him to support an increase in the size of that gargantuan barrel of pork known as the Pentagon. In other words, the armaments lobby has at least a big a hand in the making of US policy as the energy lobby.)

    This fantastic picture (click it!):

    http://hiram7.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/china_imperialism_cartoon.jpg?w=439&h=626

    sums up the nature of XIX capitalism perfectly. The key differences with respect to our times are that the corporate actors will be more brazen than ever, and thus more willing to dispense with the mask of national statehood every now and again, and that the cake does not bear the word “CHINE”, but the word “YOU”.

    Against this backdrop, as my handle indicates, I’m a strong proponent of doing exactly what the elites are doing: the 99% needs to network, connive and agitate across borders to have a shadow of a chance. I’m all about the “workers of the world” bit, basically. Of course, “unity” is something that has to be formalised politically. I thus regard international institutions as something good and necessary in principle. I want more of those, with greater regulatory power and, dare I say, re-distributive ones. I criticise them because of their lack of democratic oversight, not because they exist and because the word “globalisation” sounds kinda icky, as the crypto-nationalist dickheads of the “left” do.

    It goes without saying that one strongly suspects that the “workers of the world” are not really up to the task to stand up for themselves. I fear our century’s “royal mobs” are going to have a hell of a party.

    Anyway, let us all forget about the XX century, folks. It’s an anomaly, a curio, a time in which the princes of the world tore into each other with abandon. Of course, this turns it into a really exciting time to think of while issuing little “ping, ping” sounds from the corner of one’s mouth, what with its Star-Wars-style mega-battles and shit, but the XIX and XVIII centuries is where it’s at. Listen to the enemy. What do the libertards’ obsession with the gold standard, their adoration of a bunch of nostalgics of the fucking Austro-Hungarian empire really mean? They have a very specific idea of what the good ole times were.

  • 40. gold red azure black  |  December 8th, 2011 at 11:10 am

    but putin posed with his shirt off

    when is the last USA leader who did that, huh

    are the next leaders of russia gonna pose with their shirts off? is that a question that is being asked? what if they are unphotogenic, what then

  • 41. Machak  |  December 9th, 2011 at 4:12 am

    @38
    Wow. So much pretentious douchebaggery. Where should I even begin to dismantle this tripe? Maybe I should begin where my thinking ended, somewhere around, oh, 1998 or so? Yeah, that’s when it was the peak of the trendy Western middle-class “I’m a maverick who thinks outside the box/not politically correct/neither left nor right” bullshit, and I haven’t budged an inch since then, because the world hasn’t changed a wink since then either. Myeah!

    But since I’m still hung up on attacking the Old Leftie Bogeyman, get a load of this, it’s something I’ve been refining over and over and over for the past couple of decades, and it still sounds fresh and daring to me today [Oh, and big thanks to the Almighty Exiled Censor for taking precious time out to turn this fart-water into fart-wine]:

    How about “there is no Left, because it died back in ’68″. Ole “Year Of Fire” was the last fart of the Left, and it did nothing. Lefties are generally useless.
    Militant Left died on river Ebro back in ’38 and it was “All Fascist, All The Time” ever since. So these cute little accusations of “Leftie” and “Trot” are as ridiculous as a faggy student debate about French Revolution or Marx or Che or whatever those pampered fucks consider modern nowadays.
    All this stuff about internationalism and globalism and Worker’s Solidarity doesn’t really work and the last 30 years of neolib rule has proved that.
    I am kinda bummed right now, because today my government will sign the accession treaty in Brussels and we will become next in line for assimilation into Fourth Reich Eurosuperstate. So I will keep this short.
    The very thought of sharing any kind of breathing space with krauts, frogs, limeys, spics, wops and other assorted retarded trash that gleefully dismantled their social safety nets and destroyed their industries so they can become “middle class” or something or other is making me sick. And now they have the gall to protest?
    Ridiculous.
    How about “too little too late”, comrades?

    All those assholes who couldn’t stop talking about “shared values” and “positive laws” and “connecting” and whatever are the same romatics that turned everything into crap from day one.
    People are quite different from nation to nation, didn’t you know that?

    I hate you and your kind. I hate all this internationalist lying bullshit that you stand for.
    My only regret is that I will not live long enough to see all you subhuman fuckers burn.

  • 42. boson  |  December 10th, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    @: so are you suffering from being Hungarian or some similar brain disease?

  • 43. boson  |  December 10th, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    @41 i mean

  • 44. #  |  December 11th, 2011 at 2:28 am

    @24
    “You wouldn’t have supported the Occupy movement if you found out it was paid for by Chinese, would you?”

    They were. There was also a rise of the number of chinese students (and non-students) in campuses all over Europe and the US, right around the start of the movement. Do some research.

  • 45. محمود احمدی‌نژاد  |  December 11th, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    “Who Killed The OSCE? Ex-OSCE Mission Chief Reveals ‘Pressure’ To Whitewash 1996 Election”
    Hey, that was so totally 1996. How about Ames & Co finding a half-credible NEW source for information in Pooty-Pootz’ el paraiso? Send in Brecher and let him pull a HALO from an RQ-170. One’s available from Iran Khodro Company (IKCO): “No down, low monthly payments. We will not be undersold! Just akks for Tariq.

  • 46. johnUK  |  December 12th, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Putin knows the west wants to Balkanise Russia along Turkic ethnic lines so they can control the Caspian oil and gas market as laid out in the Grand Chessboard strategy and that all the opposition and every sphere of society is funded and controlled by the same people that engineered and ruled Russia since the 90’s.

    As for being authoritarian and centralising power that is to maintain control of region that the Oligarchs constructed regional laws were they were part of the state in name only and used as a criminal havens.

    The problem is the Oligarchs in and out of Russia have all there assets in offshore British tax havens and if Putin acts against all of them they will simply pull out of Russia and collapse the economy.

    Looks like the beginning of the end for Russia which I warned about for years and the upcoming civil war better to voluntarily disband the country along Turkic ethnic lines and make lots and lots of nuclear weapons.

    Putins own fault he knows and has evidence that the west and Arab countries support Chechen and Islamic terrorism in Russia and Eurasia jet he said nothing despite numerous opportunities.

  • 47. rossiya  |  December 12th, 2011 at 9:01 pm

    @Rehmat “Now, we all know,[Ahmadinejad] is not a “Jew-hater”, but he do support anti-Israel regimes in Syria, Iran and Lebanon.”

    Don’t know if he’s a “Jew-hater” but he was born a Jew.


Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)

Required

Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed