Scattered thoughts..

The Ukrainian struggle for independence and self-determination obliges us to a critical review of the Palestinian struggle, and to a renewal of our criticism towards the Zionist phenomenon, in order to follow a more moderate and at the same time more radical direction in our critical research.

---

 

The two sides of a new socialist critique:
More moderate and at the same time more radical critique of the dominant paradigm.
Easy to say, hard to do.

---

 

Υπάρχουν σοσιαλιστές (όχι μόνον σοσιαλδημοκράτες) και αναρχικοί που στηρίζουν την Ουκρανία.
Αυτό ως γεγονός «ενοχλεί» πολίτες με προαποφασισμένες ιδεολογικές επιλογές ως προς την κατανόηση των πολιτικών υποκειμένων.
Δεν είναι ανάγκη να υπερτονίζουμε την ύπαρξη αυτών των αριστερών και αναρχικών τάσεων, εφόσον η πλειονοτική τάση τής αριστεράς παγκοσμίως είναι στην γνωστή απαράδεκτη «ουδετερόφιλη» ή και ρωσόφιλη κατεύθυνση. Όμως, η «σημαντική εξαίρεση» υπάρχει.

--

 

There are socialists (not just social democrats) and anarchists who support Ukraine.
This as a fact "bothers" citizens with pre-decided ideological choices regarding the understanding of political subjects.
There is no need to overemphasize the existence of these leftist and anarchist tendencies, since the majority tendency of the left worldwide is in the known unacceptable "neutrophile" or even Russophile direction. But the "significant exception" does exist.

---

 

I simultaneously examine colonization from the point of view of a "just before" persecuted people (Israel) and from the point of view of a people who have fought for their national independence but were at the same time (always) an aggressive imperial colonial people (Russia).
It is not the same, and at the same time it is the same, there is a different historical context but even without "historicization" there is a set of structural/substantive differences.
Anyone who wants easy differentiations or easy simulations between colonial aggressive actions does not care about the truth but is subject to the campist logic of the geopolitical conflict from the point of view of each one of an imperial cosmo-imperial camp.

--

 

Are there "reactive reflexes" in all of us?
Yes.
It's just that professional intellectuals diligently and nobly hide them, in an admirable and deplorable way.

--

 

There is a dialectic that exists to satisfy all and a dialectic that exists to displease all.
No dialectic has any guarantees of success, to say my opinion I would say that it usually ends in a scientific and moral fiasco, but if there is a dialectic with chances of success it has to do with causing discontent and displease.

--

 

What are Russian colonialists?
Non-Westerners?
Don't we leave fairy tales? I say.

--

 

The relationship of the extreme right in Israel with the new Russian imperialism is a strategic relationship. Is that what we're talking about? the fact that the Goebbels of Russian fascism, the famous mad "philosopher", considers that Israel made the "wandering Jews" a normal territorialized people, do we reveal it? Who first went to the aid of the bloody Tsar diplomatically and asked the Ukrainians to accept the de facto situation? Do we remember it? Second went the ridiculous Sultan.
Russia is a marginal western country that now wants to participate in the formation of the new imperialist pole of the east, but all its rot is western, extreme western.

--

 

Fuck all three Romes.

 

That the peoples are trapped in a "west" and a "non-west" is a fact that shows their political and cultural immaturity, for which they are also responsible.

 

Godard or the other, the Scandinavian?
No one.
I am bored.
There is no Iranian film without a central moral dilemma.

 

 

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος