The madness of humanitarian imperialism

Vladimir Putin is demonized by western media according to an old humanitarian agenda. The more imperialism is cruel, the more it pretends to be moral and humanitarian. This is not a paradox; not even a mark of hypocrisy. This is just the way the West works since it began its cruel imperialistic agenda in the nineteenth century. Any kind of enemy has been since demonized on a moral ground which precedes and accompanies the chaos and plundering of an unlucky land. And anything the west does is good.

Lenin used to quote a lot from John A. Hobson, an English scientist and writer who wrote an outstanding essay in 1902 about British and European imperialism. History repeats itself since oligarchic democracy and capitalism have frozen temporality, according to the famous Russian philosopher Alexander Kojève.

But let’s read the observations of Mr Hobson, a politically incorrect leftist.

First of all, for Hobson the West is never hypocritical:

So every other European nation recognises the true outlines of British Imperialism and charges us with hypocrisy in feigning blindness. This charge is false; no nation sees its own shortcomings…

Any imperialistic nation is naïve and of good faith: there is just a genuine desire to spread Christianity among the heathen, to diminish the cruelty and other sufferings which they believe exist in countries less fortunate than their own, and to do good work about the world in the cause of humanity.

Even infamous king Leopold of Belgium who ruined and massacred the people of Congo was of good faith: he has claimed for his government of the Congo-“Our only programme is that of the moral and material regeneration of the country.”

As we know nowadays the great European monarchs rule the Bilderbergs with the banksters and the architects of the new World order. In the time of Kipling, the average imperialist pretended that England is a knight-errant, everywhere in search of a quest to deliver oppressed peoples from oppressive governments, regardless of her own interests and perils.

The victim of the humanitarian imperialism could be a Boer (a Palestinian in our times) or any people convinced of a barbarian conduct (see the pamphlets of the NYT against ‘homophobe’ Uganda these last weeks). Writes Hobson beautifully:

Aggressive Imperialism, as our investigation has shown, is virtually confined to the coercion by stronger or better-armed nations of nations which are, or seem to be, weaker and incapable of effective resistance.

Think of Libya, Syria, Iran and elsewhere. Even if tsarist Russia was already hated in his epoch for many lies and prejudices, the Russian might and military forces eventually prevented an attack. It always did except against Hitler (1914 was another history) who used the same western rhetoric to enslave and slaughter Slavic peoples. Goebbels blamed the Russians for the Holodomor as the American senates does.

Writes Hobson with irony:

The chivalrous spirit of Imperialism leads neither Great Britain nor any other Western nation to assail a powerful State however tyrannous or to assist a weak State reputed to be poor.

Hobson adds that public opinion in this time was moulded and formatted by imperialist literature (Verne, Kipling, Rider Haggard or John Buchan) and that the prejudices of the superior race were thus reinforced. He remarks that the cult of sport and the fascination for adventure and travels bolstered western biases and prejudices. The anglo-Saxon sportsman was (and still is in Nepal) always escorted by sad coolies.

The vast majority of “educated” Englishmen genuinely believe that England’s greatest gain from the Boer war is an enhancement of her “moral prestige”!

For John Hobson, the western stupidity is linked to naïve optimism and it results from the celebration of this insane moral imperialism which helped America to destroy half a dozen countries these last fifteen years, no to mention the incalculable bombings of Uncle Sam’s irascible History:

In England, and indeed throughout Anglo-Saxondom, a sort of cheery optimism has commonly usurped the seat of intelligent direction, a general belief in “national destiny,” which enables us “somehow to muddle through,” and advises us “to do the best we can and not look too far ahead.”

The cheery optimism of our business-knights adores destroying any country on earth.

Pravda.ru and other free media often mention the distortion of the facts by western madness and presstitute media. This is unluckily nothing new. Writes Hobson on the subject:

Imperialism is based upon a persistent misrepresentation of facts and forces chiefly through a most refined process of selection, exaggeration, and attenuation, directed by interested cliques and persons so as to distort the face of history.

Then Hobson concludes around the ludicrous state of mind not of Obama’s America but of imperialist Britain:

The gravest peril of Imperialism lies in the state of mind of a nation which has become habituated to this deception and which has rendered itself incapable of self-criticism.

Well, he is for once a little wrong: America is capable of self-criticism: it will confess that it has not helped its ally Israel enough, that it has not nuked Iran enough, not humiliated an alienated Europe enough and that it has not yet declared the war on Russia!

As we know, nobody plagued with such ‘moral prestige’ is perfect! And nothing is better than an atomic war to boost it.

Source: Pravda

Wheels reveal foreign policy choices

Joseph Stalin preferred the American Packard Twelve

The cars chosen by presidents, kings, prime ministers and other leaders of the world in the past and today, also reveal their tastes in foreign affairs.

The car fleet of the last Emperor of Russia Nicholas II in 1913 consisted of 29 vehicles and in 1917 there were 46. The Emperor’s main car was a French Delaunay-Belleville. It all ended badly for the ruler as well as the manufacturer, sadly.

When Vladimir Lenin became the leader of the Soviet Russia, strangely, he displayed a love of Western wheels, but apparently not ideology. In the 1920’s Lenin used a Rolls Royce 40/50 Silver Ghost and the only Rolls Royce-based sledge-car in the world.

Those discussions with Rolls about vast snowy landscapes with no roads for travel must have been long and interesting. Lenin famously erected the Gulags, similar to the concentration camps that the British invented in South Africa at the start of the 20th century.

Even more puzzling is that the next leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, preferred the American Packard Twelve. A man of slight stature, he stood very tall as one of history’s most prolific killers. But he may not have had the only responsibility.

Stalin’s grasp on the Soviet Union featured many atrocities, including purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture and good old-fashioned acts of mass murder and massacres.

Actually, most of the deaths are today attributed to Lavrenti Beria, head of Stalin’s Checka, and amounted to some 20 million lives, on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War, for a total tally of 40 million. It was not called the Red Terror for nothing.

Both amoral psychopaths, acting like true gangsters, Stalin and Beria eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to their absolute power. Beria eventually killed his instrument of power (Stalin) too, new studies have shown, by poisoning him.

Chinese leader Mao Zedong had a Russian ZIS-110 which he got as a present from Stalin in 1949, although he managed to do a fair amount of killing himself.

Other Soviet leaders stuck with domestically produced cars. Nikita Khrushchev was driven in a ZIL-111 or a ZIL-111B convertible when he visited Berlin in 1960.

Leonid Brezhnev and the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were both driven around in a ZIL. The latter had up to 20 of those on each of his foreign visits. This required seven Il-76 transport planes.

Russia’s first president Boris Yeltsin changed to an armoured ZIL-4105 when he became president in 1991. Later he changed it to a Mercedes S500 Pullman Guard (W140).

From then on German wheels seem to have prevailed. Russia’s current President Vladimir Putin is driven in a Mercedes S600 Pullman Guard (W-221).

John F. Kennedy, US president 1961-1963, used a Lincoln Continental. At the time of the assasination in Dallas, Texas, he was in a convertible Lincoln Continental SS-100-Х.

A man of the people, Uruguay’s acting President Jose Alberto Mujica spends almost all of his income on charity and his most expensive belonging is a powder blue VW Beetle, circa 1987.

No rattling along country roads for POTUS to meet fellow Americans, though. US President Barack Obama is transported in the armoured Cadillac One, also known as The Beast. The Bama took no cues from the Batman, clearly. His motorcade counts up to 40 vehicles transported on three Boeing С-17 Globemaster military transport planes.

British Queen Elizabeth sticks to the Bentley State Limousine, created in two copies specially for her in 2002 and British Prime Minister David Cameron still uses a Jaguar XJ X351 which he damaged in a road accident.

French President Francois Hollande changed from an armoured Renault Vel Satis to a Citroen and German Chancellor Angela Merkel drives an armoured Audi A8 L Security. She also has a BMW 760 Li E67 and a Mercedes-Benz S600 Guard V221 at her disposal.

Spain’s new King Felipe has English tastes. He prefers a Rolls Royce.