Eso’s Chronicles 240/ 26
Addendum 3—Ecce Russia!
© Eso A.B.

While many pundits claim a victory for Russia in the instance of the recent  Iranian nuclear deal http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/29/337246/sweden-welcomes-iransextet-nuclear-deal/ , and Thierry Meyssan of Voltairnet http://www.voltairenet.org/article181239.html even claims a victory for Russia’s Vladimir Putin, this writer has a different perspective.

While, yes, the fish that is Russia did flash the scales that line its belly, but it did so only, I am guessing, at the expense of making an extreme threat. The West, led by the U.S. and NATO, judged the threat a measure of Russia’s desperation and agreed among themselves that a cornered rat will bite the cat, and decided to wait and fight (if ever) a nuclear war another time.

All things considered, though economically weakened by the excesses of its bankster princes, the West still has many things working for it: most of all, the West is still in charge of history, a history that it has managed to create, convert it into a trend, and that trend is, as yet, under its control—even if it is a lie and will not last for ever.

I have outlined my perception of this history (based on Anatoly Fomenko’s perspective of the chronology of history) throughout many previous blogs. I see this history as beginning with the expulsion of the former Franks (Vikings before that) from the Black Sea area and resettling themselves in the northwest of Europe, generally the region of the now so-called Benelux countries. Once having established for themselves a footing, the immediate descendants of the Franks (while the memory of the past was still fresh and immediate), resolved to try to capture and transfer the glories of the Byzantine Empire from its Eastern capital to the West. This remains one of the ‘secrets’ of Western history to this day.

One of the major gambits of the Franks (later the French) was to seize upon early Christianity and convert it to a Western model. This was a literary and military undertaking.

The literary undertaking was to rewrite the theology of Eastern Christianity (Sun oriented) and adapt it to the needs of Western Princes, who, after all, were the chief survivors of the expulsion. This was accomplished by replacing the Eastern Pope, once named John Basil (or John Baptist), with one Iasu or Jesus Christ, the latter being turned from Basil, a self-sacrificial leader of a people living for the most part in the still prehistoric wood, into a religious leader of people living in the city which was under the control of princes and feared being buried under the city’s cobblestones. This is how a New Testament replaced the Bible.

The military campaign of the descendants of the Franks-Goths involved making ‘crusades’ against the East, the chief achievement of the crusades being the capture of then Jerusalem, Constantinople, now Istanbul, destroying it as an intellectual and religious centre, thus eliminating its ability to speak for the East.

The pivot point of the above and the age to follow appears to be about the year 1054: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism . Of course, today, this schism is being presented in the West as a schism within the Catholic Church, whereas in fact the Catholic Church is a creation of the Franks or, in a broader perspective, the Goths.

This is why most early Western Europeans were Catholics (early globalists), and why the Catholic military campaigns involved campaigns against the Slavs not only in the southeast of Europe, but east and northeast as well. The latter accounts for the fact that most Poles and Lithuanians remain Catholics to this day; and why the Russian Orthodox Church also follows the Catholic New Testament, which makes most of today’s Christianity of a Western theological, i.e., capitalist, orientation.

Not surprisingly, President Putin worships the Peter the Great, the westernized tsar, and though living in ‘westernized’ Moscow, has a personal preference for St. Petersburg.

I realize that this perspective is dismissed by the West—as one would expect it would be==nevertheless, the perspective is sufficiently credible to invite a reanalysis. Those calling for such a reanalysis are quite sure that the results will agree with the whyfores of their claim, but are presently being criticized as being ‘spurious’ for making the call.

In an age where war has been rendered ‘unwinnable’ due to nuclear weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destructison (WMDs)—which is why President Putin’s ultimatum to the West ‘worked’ (the bankster princes do not mind sacrificing the public in wars, but do not wish to sacrifice themselves).  For all the reasons Putin’s gambit worked, this does not mean that the fighting of wars is at an end.

As Paul Virilio, a French thinker, writes in his book “Pure War” (1983 & 2008), while WMD’s make ‘deterrence’ of war essential and is the cause of the drive by the West for “absolute unity” (p177, 2008 paperback), this unity (globalization) is “…but an exterminating unity, one which is accomplished precisely in nondevelopment.” In short, globalization today is responsible for destroying civil society, and it is this destruction that begs for and justifies a continuation of war.

So, how to we wage a war without committing suicide? President Putin has no idea; neither has President Obama. Excepting, we know that they will be expending enormous sums on military armaments for ages to come—unless the public (whatever remains of civil society) forces them into a position where they have no other options but to surrender. I believe that such an option exists. The war will take an enormous intellectual effort, because technically it amounts to lifting a locomotive from one track to another.

I will touch on the possible answers in the next blog.