5 Filters

Blocked By Iain Davis and the 'Protected by Passport Internationalsists/Anarchists/Libertarians'

#1

Iain Davis blocked me this morning after an exchange on Twitter. I’m going to post my tweets below and the article in question, but of course I don’t have his tweets.

(APPARENTLY DAVIS HAS TAKEN DOWN THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION)

My thoughts about ‘Protected by Passport Anarchists/Libertarians/Internationalists’:

People like Noam Chomsky (praising the Kurds fighting, with the USA, against the Syrians) and many others in the ‘imperial home’ countries of UK and USA stake out a certain kind of imaginary territory, from which they launch their criticism of foreign governments which mesh with propaganda needs of the Imperial Center. They imagine a territory where organized violence doesn’t rule the world, and they live in this mental territory. But in fact, in the flesh and blood reality, they live in the imperial center where they are NOT threatened to be invaded or their country divided into smaller parts by force, or breaking down into a failed state where check point militias rule the streets. So they criticise Castro, for being authoritarian, or Assad, for being the same and worse, and Gadaffi etc etc.

This is not to say any govt should NOT be criticised… But surely when that govt is under attack the writer should at least acknowledge that they themselves are PROTECTED by the Empire, to some degree. And so their criticism of govts trying to RESIST often seem to me hypocritical and simply virtue signaling. Who makes the rules on how to resist imperial violence? The people PROTECTED by the Empire? Of course those same people can and are oppressed by the empire, but not in the same way as the citizens living in the country under attack. Witness the number of dead and injured in the imperial attack on Syria.

Iain Davis’ article is about Putin’s rise to power, I have no idea if it is accurate. But Iain, in the first two paragraphs, makes a claim that some foolish people think Putin is a ‘savior’ and he wants to set them right. But don’t people in the Donbass and Syria rightly consider Putin a savior? And isn’t it possible to have no trust in Putin but accept that he is resisting imperial aggression?

A deep dive into the bombings that formed some of the context that helped Putin’s rise to power. Accurate? IDK. However it’s very possible to have no ‘trust’ in Putin, but recognize his policies are currently anti USA empire.

The straw man is ‘some say Putin is resisting the Great Reset/hoping he’s a leader…’. That allows you to avoid dealing with the real question: Is Putin resisting USA imperialism in Syria? In Donbass? So in Syria Putin did NOT resist USA imperialism? What did he do then?

You said Putin is not resisting USA imperialism. Can you explain how his policies re Crimea, Donbass, Syria, economic policies, are NOT resisting USA imperialism? Are you saying those policies are SUPPORTING USA imperialism? Can you be more clear about that?

Also, you said: “NATO expansionism has increased markedly as a result of his military actions.” Most of the expansion of NATO occurred well before Putin’s military actions, so what caused that expansion? Are you saying that DEFENDING against NATO causes NATO expansion?

If that is the sole purpose why did you introduce the article with two paragraphs about ‘some people’ who consider Putin a ‘savior’? Isn’t it normal for Syrians to view Putin as a savior if, as you agree, he ‘saved’ Syria from USA imperialism? And the same for Donbass and Crimea?

I’m saying you seem to have a topsy turvy view of current reality in comparison to my view. NATO expanded, threatened Russia, refused to negotiate, and when Russia resists with military action you call that the CAUSE of NATO expansionism in Sweden and Finland???

4 Likes
#2

A shame the article has gone. It sounds as though Iain is tying himself up in knots.

Would asserting that Russian intervention in Syria was the most important action (as opposed to rhetoric) in the geopolitical sphere of the last decade qualify one as “some people”? Count me in.

3 Likes
#3

Iain’s well in with Off-G, where they nurture the idea that ALL the ruling cliques within Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are in cahoots, and only pretending to be at odds (O against E and E), and are in fact all secretly cooperating to impose some sort of NWO on everyone; the true underlying reality in ‘Nineteen Eighty Four’, in fact.

The objective-world reality seems a bit different. China seems to be authoritarian (though we have mostly only Western-generated reports on what life’s like there, so we don’t really know). Russia less so, it feels.

I don’t imagine any of the ruling classes in any of these three regions want to give up power. But it seems to me that the proposed whole-Earth NWO is actually a dream of gics holed up in the Western empire, particularly, and the sino-rus stated drive towards a multi-polar world, with truly sovereign states wielding real power within their own borders, and with mutual respect between states, genuine rule of international law, and a genuine preference for arrangements which at least seem like win-wins, is currently a sincere policy of both Russia and China.

Obviously, once the Xi-led and VVP-led factions have passed into history, it will be entirely possible for the rising powers in the North and the East to be corrupted by the temptations of villainous armed-robbery imperialism, as has characterised the US-based empire since its inception; not since 1945, but pre-1776; since 1492, in reality. And that villainy has been the settled posture of the English-raj class for centuries, arguably since 1066.

Things evolve continuously. One or both of the new duopoly could easily go that same way. They both have long histories of imperialism, after all. They could even end up at loggerheads again, as previously. It’s never to be assumed naively that it can’t happen.

One thing is clear to me, though: Anyone who doesn’t see that first and foremost Putin is a Russian patriot, who puts the thriving of his fellow Russians in their own sovereign state first of all, is falling victim to the ‘they’re ALL in it together’ paranoia which seems to be a house speciality of Off-G; Kit in particular. Everything gets interpreted according to that paranoia…

Iain’s also a favoured voice at UKColumn right now, too. I can’t remember ever getting any ‘TAIIT’ vibes from that crew, though. Their preoccupation seems to be defending Britain’s military, Britain’s alleged ‘democracy’ and the - allegedly - unitary nature of the ukstate (they don’t like Scottish independence).

Every crew doing alt-journalism online seems to have these - inevitable - blind-spots/hot-buttons, of course. You learn to pick them up and discount them. Those two outfits, despite warts, do genuine good work, though.

2 Likes
#4

Sadly, Twatter and the like lend themselves to these kind of spats: when messages are short they seem peremptory; this quickly segues into confrontation and encourages kneejerk responses. In this case I/we agree absolutely with your argument; your criticism is fair and we hope ID will repost a more considered article. He’s no fool but we all have off days. . .

Everybody would do better not to take Twatter etc. seriously. In fact not to use it, its shite!

3 Likes
#5

Sometimes I think journalists and political sites are very aware of ‘niche marketing’ techniques. Off Guardian, one could theorize, has consciously or unconsciously staked out the ‘there was no coronavirus it was all propaganda smoke and mirrors and flu’ niche. One could say at this point they ‘own’ this niche on the internet. Iain Davis and others including Off Guardian are also making claim to the ‘Putin and the WEF and USA are working for the same goals’ niche.

And here at five filters?

Our turf is obviously the ‘herd of stray feral alley cats caterwauling at the moon’ niche.

4 Likes
#6

We’re the 'can-argue-ANY-proposition-without-falling-out-about-it crew! (Even in cases of hot disagreement). :slight_smile: Rational, properly courteous grown-ups might be another description; or aspiring Vulcans.

And btw, Reiner Fuellmich and colleagues are also in the ‘there-was-NO-pandemic’ camp; as I’m rather inclined to be too; not rabid about it, but I suspect that that will turn out to be the ultimate judgement of history. There was some sort of real, novel illness manifesting - causes still unidentified… And it killed quite a few vulnerable people too. But a PANdemic? Sudden outbreak of mass deaths way above normal all-cause mortality, all over the planet more or less at once? I doubt that. That’s why the WHO re-fiddled the definition of ‘pandemic’. Anyone sure that they can already sort out the real statistics from the fiddled ones is riding on over-confidence. We’re awash in corruption and lies. Only time is going to tell.

Note, for comparison, that the truth about 11/9/01 is only now getting established; and even now not without still-widespread fulminating denialism. These hindsights often need a generation or more to come reasonably clear, and become an accepted consensus. In fact, I think it will need the eclipse of the Anglozionist empire behind the rising power of the sino-rus challenger before public discussion can actually handle what seems to be the ultimate truth about 11/9: that it was a zionist conspiracy by the Mossadoids and their ilk in Occupied Palestine, decades in the plotting, which was then slid into the hands of a bunch of willing cooperators amongst the US ‘elite’ class; a joint zionistan/US scam. Even amongst a lot of the settled truthers, that proposition is still too hot to handle. Yet the case made by Chris Bollyn is about as persuasive as anything can be. Still years to go, there!

#7

PS: I still wonder what the ultimate judgement of history will be on the alleged Apollo ‘moon-landings’ too. I hope that the Russian and/or Chinese space programmes will continue to land robot landers there, as they’re already doing; actually in the Sea of Tranquillity at the alleged US landing site - to see whether there really is any abandoned US space-junk there at all.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Moscow or Beijing publishes, eventually, heavily documented and photographed evidence that there isn’t; this being likely to happen just a short while after it’s become clear to the entire world that the ‘hegemonic’ US taradiddle is now a wholly spent force; it’s an ex-parrot!

#8
#9

It looks like the article has surfaced at OffG today. I’m only a few paragraphs in but it looks like a hit piece good and proper.

Edit: have now read it. Much of the material rehashes fairly old stories that were doing the rounds at the time. I agree with Iain that some of that whiffs quite a lot, but on the whole the comments made by @Everyman, as shown at the top of the thread, are spot-on. My respect for Putin, if not trust, goes back a few years now. The intervention in Syria, as I said before, was epochal. Standing up to NATO, even if it is a Punch & Judy show, is of a piece with that.

#10

No question that VVP can and will be a tough operator when he sees that the realities - the non-ignorable realities - require it. That ghastly reality of realpolitik is always present. Those who don’t see it and act accordingly will be chopped by those who do. Putin’s oft-quoted aphorism is probably unavoidably true: “When you see that a fight is inevitable, strike first!”

Also, though completely innocent of the inside dope on all the information and links that Iain provides, I get the sense that he has at least made a solid case, and it might be worth a bit of a dig. You never know…

But even so, even if Putin has had a bloody hand in some strokes of statecraft that have been unavoidable in the long effort to pull Russia back from the catastrophe of the '90s, up to its present remarkable thriving - and renewed and enhanced clout in the world - the smell of a dedicated patriot remains; and that would suggest balking at cold-blooded mass-murder of the ordinary common citizens with whom he does a good job of at least seeming to have such a solid rapport. (But then, as the old cynicism puts it: “When you can fake sincerity really convincingly, you’ve got it made in politics.”)

Not surprising that someone like Iain, grown up on the utter perfidy of Western realpolitikers, and their casual willingness to commit mass-murder, even of their own fellow citizens, for realpolitikal purposes - as the 11/9 false-flag, for example, typifies - he would project the same criminality onto the Russian ruling layer; especially during chaotic emergency times, when violently-competing factions were running loose. And of course, there’s ALWAYS going to be an element, in any state, who do think with that engrained cynicism; it IS realistic, after all.

But still, my intuitive guesstimate remains that Putin is a true patriot for his home; and a genuine statesman (with all the shadowy baggage which that job necessarily carries; no need to hero-worship).

2 Likes
#11

Yes that summarises far more eloquently than I could why, on balance, I don’t think it particularly matters anymore: he has grown into his role and, most tellingly, stood up to the oligarch class in Russia and further afield. Every bit as importantly, there are some very capable people in his inner circle, not least Sergey Lavrov.

#12

And that quiet, doleful buddhist face in the background: Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu. That unsmiling stillness ought to put the shits up anyone stupid enough to get at loggerheads with the Russians just now. The lethal commitment is evident. Sergei will send Avangards against the continental US, if he’s persuaded that it must be done…

Really: don’t feck with the Russians. Who crushed the most potent and disciplined military machine in the world at that time, Hitler’s Wehrmacht? And before that, Napoleon’s Grande Armee? Do we think that they’ve now lost the knack?

1 Like
#13

I remember Putin in an interview some years back saying quite calmly as I remember it:

“Growing up on the streets of Leningrad, I learned two things. Avoid a fight wherever possible. But if it’s not possible to avoid it, make sure you hit first.”

2 Likes