This is a wee bit off topic for this site but recently a new book came out about former US president Woodrow Wilson by Malcolm D. Magee, (What the World Should Be: Woodrow Wilson and the Crafting of a Faith-Based Foreign Policy(Baylor University Press, 2008), x + 189 pgs., hardcover)
I quote from Vance:
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the XI meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.
I hope that these changes in organisation and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.
Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realise that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.
Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.
Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.
“The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times.”
As we analyse today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.
The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times.
Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.
The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.
It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.
What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it to the new realities in the system of international relations.
But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.
The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.
We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.
In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.
“The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests.”
The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.
We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. And during the upcoming discussion let someone try to disprove the argument that I just set out.
The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.
Reading President Putin’s presentation and his replies to the various questions prompts me to question the truthfulness of the reporting by our mainstream media, especially the Australian ABC. Is Putin really the ogre painted by our media, or have they wilfully misrepresented him. (One pertinent fact might be that the West has become more socialised while the Russians and Chinese have moved in the opposite direction towards capitalism, and that this change in direction is the source of the progressive liberal policies of the US and its satrapies against Russia. Under no circumstances can the US be described as a capitalist system since it has been transformed to the present day Fabian social democracy along with the European Union. Both Russia and China know that socialism does not work and have as a result left that system, so it may well be that the US still intends to convert Russia back to the socialist path as enunciated by Woodrow Wilson).
At present the Christian West is at war with the Islamicists, a conflict complicated by the meddling of the Climate Changers and the various owners of private capital implementing their own political and mercantilist goals. The Middle East conflict could also be explained by the possibility that the present day human population explosion, necessitating the division of labour and mass production, and hence ‘capitalism’, results in a competition for scarce resources, especially if that scarcity is ideologically predetermined by erroneous ‘scientific’ dogma. Another question is why the human species is undergoing a population explosion? Species that tend to experience mass culling of its population by natural catastrophes compensate by population explosions in anticipation of the next culling and catastrophe. It is fairly obvious that many people, especially the ruling elites with their state religions and their environmental cohorts, have an expectation of a looming climate catastrophe. On what is this fear based? Is the present day population explosion the expected outcome of a recent global catastrophe, one which seems to have occurred during the 1st millennium CE/AD? And were Woodrow Wilson’s beliefs but modernised germane to the present conflict? Is the US principally about spreading Christianity under the sheepskin of democracy worldwide? And is control of the world’s mineral resources another US goal?
The problem with Christianity and Islam is that these both religions are monotheistic and hence totalitarian; they are thus intrinsically intolerant despite the published rhetoric to the contrary. The author D. M. Murdock has shown that Christianity itself was based on the hijacking of the older Egyptian religion by the Roman Emperor Constantine, in which the Egyptian polytheism was purged and monotheism imposed on the people. Christianity became the official state religion just before the catastrophe that terminated the Roman Period (according to Heinsohn) and the aftermath of that catastrophe would have profoundly affected the survivors and the nature of their religious belief. (incidentally, the progressive policy of multiculturalism seems then to be a wishful return to the older tolerance of Egyptian pagan polytheism, but it has come unstuck because multiculturalism becomes rather difficult to implement when some of the cultures are overtly monotheistic and hence innately intolerant. So stupid is as stupid does, of course, (apologies to Forrest Gump)).
The interesting aspect to the present situation is that both Christianity and Islam seem to have their origins in the aftermath of the destruction of the Roman Empire by a global climate catastrophe during the 1st millennium CE/AD, a catastrophe that seemed to have terminated not only the Roman Period, but also the various pre-Columbian circum-pacific civilisations. It is the denial of that catastrophe, or more accurately the total ignorance of it, that seems to be driving our present day global troubles as a result of the human population explosion and its demand for scarce resources. Heinsohn has identified a fabrication of history of some seven centuries in the 1st millennium, and it will be assumed as a starting point, along with his earlier compression of history of Mesopotamia that significantly shortened received Middle Eastern ancient history. This does not mean at all that I am leaning towards a literal interpretation of the Hebrew old testament, or the Bible. Far from it but those histories won’t be ignored either.
The biggest impediment to analysing this tentative scenario is to weed out the various fabrications of history by academia over the ages, and to understand that I would urge readers to get a copy of Shlomo Sands’ latest book, “How I stopped being a Jew”. We need to realise that history was never documented by the ignorant masses but by the self appointed ruling elites who also had their agendas. Add the mistranslations of the older historical texts, and it’s a wonder we understand the past at all, and if we do understand it, is it fabricated to support present day policies?
It’s the unravelling of the 1st Millennium geology and history that will occupy me for the rest of my life, I suspect, and it will be based on Prof. Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn’s methodology – if there are no stratigraphic or sediment layers of a particular people or civilisation in the regolith profile, then those peoples existence has to be considered as fabricated. Documented history will not be be taken at face value and that makes the reconstruction of the past, both geologically and historically, very, very difficult. Geology will also be reinterpreted along similar methodology and on the principles of the plasma universe.
I therefore intend to start with a clean slate. I expect opposition to this historical and geological revisionism to be fierce. It helps to understand that modern science is, after all, a product of the Christian West, and hence the cause of its frequent dogmatisms, which is to be expected when the devout use the scientific method to further their beliefs and policies, or have a science consonant with their theology. (Most who call themselves scientists, are not but technically and highly skilled technicians who implement and put into practice the theories discovered by the scientific method. Many scientists are better described as technically sophisticated priests of the new religion Scientism).