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