Toss Your MSM Subscriptions and Buy The Saker’s Book
Patrick Armstrong
The Essential Saker (ISBN 978-1608880584) is available at Amazon.com (print and ebook).
Additional information at http://www.nimblebooks.com/index.php/saker.html
and http://www.nimblebooks.com/index.php/where-to-find-nimble-books.
Like thousands of others, I discovered The Saker early on in the Ukraine disaster and quickly added his site to my list of essential reading. His writing is an example of the finest that can be found on the Internet and and an illustration of just how important that resource is. Formerly working for some Western security organisation, he was sickened by the parade of wars and regime changes unanimously promoted by the Main Stream Media as a response to some atrocity later revealed to have been exaggerated if not entirely faked. For a long time he felt alone – a “submarine in a desert” – and it has only been with the explosion of readership that he has realised that there are many other beached submarines. The Internet is very liberating this way – no matter how much the monovoice of the MSM shouts you down with Party Line infomercials – you are not alone. As a small illustration, I invite the reader to Google images of “democracy freedom”: a lot of “submarines” know they are being lied to. The Saker is one of the forces leading dissident thinkers out of their isolation. And he understands what keeps us unpaid writers going: “So yes, knowing the truth does make one free, and the truth is the most powerful empire-buster ever invented. It brought down the USSR and it will bring down the AngloZionists too. It is just a matter of time now.”
One of the things that jarred me when I first began reading The Saker was his use of the phrase “AngloZionist”. Oh oh, I thought: what have we here? The Elders of Zion marry the Masons and bring forth lizardoids? Other people had a similar difficulty and, eventually, he wrote an essay explaining what he meant by the phrase. (Part IV) I think he means “exceptionalism”; the sort of belief that, on the one side there are ordinary, unexceptional states, and on the other, there are the pure, the exceptional. A perfect example of completely uncritical rah-rah exceptionalism may be found in this piece by the Cheneys: “Our children need to know that they are citizens of the most powerful, good and honorable nation in the history of mankind—the exceptional nation.” That’s the “Anglo” bit of The Saker’s expression; the other “exceptional nation” is “the only democracy in the Middle East”. Because of their exceptional virtue and excellence, the USA and Israel aren’t bound by the rules that apply to other, ordinary, countries. When “exceptional nations” bomb a hospital for half an hour it’s a “tragic mistake” to be swiftly forgiven because of the purity of the bomber’s intention. Other, lesser, countries, bomb hospitals because that’s what they do. So I would recommend, if the phrase offend you (and I don’t much care for it myself), that you mentally replace it with “exceptionalists”; or you might even prefer “neocons” where the two exceptionalisms meet and merge into one exceptionalism.
Which leads us to this important theme; a theme that grounds most of the book: “For better or for worse, Russia is objectively the undisputed leader of the world resistance to the Anglo-Zionist Empire”. How this situation came to be – and it’s certainly not something anyone in Moscow wanted – and when Moscow decided that enough was enough and predictions of where it will go form a great part of the book.
Moscow’s fightback began in 2008. I suggest you start your reading at his chapter on the Ossetia war (Part III). It’s early Saker, he was not a great admirer of Putin, but the key points of his thinking are there – the USA/NATO/EU are trying to bring Russia down; Russia has had enough and began its fight back in Ossetia; Russia is in a much stronger position than they think.
He thinks – I agree – that the Ukrainian mess marks the beginning of the end of the empire of exceptionalists. He sums it up: “In conclusion and to put things simply: what the AngloZionists are openly and publicly defending in the Ukraine is the polar opposite of what they are supposed to stand for”. Hypocrisy will do them in: “What really brought down the Soviet Union was something entirely different: an unbearable cognitive dissonance or, to put it more simply, an all-prevailing sense of total hypocrisy”. He’s right. Look at the Google search again. People see it.
Russia has confounded the exceptionalists: “Thus the USA is in a lose-lose situation: it cannot threaten Russia and seek world domination, but it cannot give up world domination and hope to be able to threaten Russia”. Not many people could have written that in 2008. And, from the perspective of today, there are still remarkably few who understand its truth.
He doesn’t always get it right (but who does? Washington? Brussels? Western intelligence agencies?) and here is an example: “One more thing: the notion that the Russians could somehow protect Syria or meaningfully oppose US/NATO plans is laughable”. He, I, we, but especially Washington and Brussels, continually underestimate the cleverness and coolness of Putin and his team.
I am not going to attempt a summary of the book: it is almost 200,000 words long (that’s two PhD theses); I haven’t mentioned the essays on Russia and Islam with which he leads the pack. Nor have I mentioned his assessment of power struggles inside the Russian government or much of what he has to say about Ukraine.
Many collections of essays bore after a while because so many of them are the same thing over and over again. The Essential Saker is an exception – he has thought a great deal about a lot of subjects (mostly related to Russia, but that is a large subject) and they are all worth consideration. Not a book for one sitting then: read an essay or two and take time to reflect. There is much there.
Dr Johnson once said “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money”; today he would probably add page-views. Well, The Saker has the page-views, now it’s time to give him some money. Buy his book; you won’t be sorry: there’s more about what’s really going on in it than the last ten years of the NYT and The Economist rolled into one. And, of course, don’t forget to bookmark and faithfully read his blog http://10.16.86.131/.
And, a final zinger: “As for Obama, he will go down in history as the worst US president ever. Except the next one, of course”.
Beware of “analysts”: How to assess Russian operations in Syria
November 16, 2015 –
Valentin Domogadsky, PolitRussia –
Translated for Fort Russ by J. Arnoldski
“On the ‘slow pace’ of operations in Syria”
Note from J. Arnoldski: This article might at first glance appear to be confusing, irrelevant, or too abstract for Western readers, so a brief explanation and setting of its context is in order. Domogadsky has two goals in this piece: (1) warning readers of those “Hurrah-patriots” and “one-hit wonder analysts” from the time of the climax of the Russian Spring who subsequently claimed that “the Kremlin ditched Novorossiya” and who are starting to do the same with Syria; and (2) asserting that Russian operations in Syria can indeed be called a success so far.
In regards to the first point, Domogadsky attempts to explain the phenomenon of so-called “analysts” who, at the height of the Donbass uprising and civil war, positioned themselves as if they were at the forefront of Kremlin policy-making. When their adventurous and ambitious “forecasts” of the turn of events in Ukraine proved to be unfounded or ridiculous, they quickly blamed the Kremlin for being inconsistent when it was in fact their own delusions which confused the situation the entire time. Domogadsky claims that “disappointment” with the Russian leadership’s decisions during this period of heightened geopolitical conflict is not even the fault of these adventurous “analysts” who operate on the basis of self-interest or delusion, but in fact the fault of entirely competent analysts who have failed to take a longer-term perspective before declaring forecasts whose failure to actualize is supposedly the work of a “treacherous Kremlin”, and whose “misfires” are picked up by the former group in arousing the “Kremlin ditched everything” slogan. This is a crucial controversy which is relevant within the framework of information war.
As regards the second point, Domogadsky claims that Russian-Syrian joint operations have been a tremendous success when put into their proper context. Those “patriots” discussed above are wrong to assume that any Russian military operation will be swift, merciless, and accomplished with a stroke of brute force. Instead, Domogadsky proposes that the long-term, strategic and cautious approach of the Russian leadership should be taken as a barometer. Moreover, Domogadsky’s brief drawing of a comparison between Syria and Chechnya, and his claim that Russia is seeking a “Chechen solution” for Syria, is entirely novel and original.
While these points might be self-evident or obvious to some, they are important points of controversy among participants in the information war, and Domogadsky’s work is both a rebuttal and proposal aimed at those seeking to combat Western propaganda and work out cohesive, realistic analyses of geopolitical developments and the actions of the Russian leadership within the limited space that it has to operate in a multi-front war.
http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/11/beware-of-analysts-how-to-assess.html
“http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/11/beware-of-analysts-how-to-assess.html”
Perhaps it would also prove illuminating to study the comments section.
The writer of this review summarizes my encounter with the “Truths” perfectly in the first 2 paragraphs! I could not express it more accurately for myself!
http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/11/beware-of-analysts-how-to-assess.html
Note from J. Arnoldski: This article might at first glance appear to be confusing, irrelevant, or too abstract for Western readers, so a brief explanation and setting of its context is in order. Domogadsky has two goals in this piece: (1) warning readers of those “Hurrah-patriots” and “one-hit wonder analysts” from the time of the climax of the Russian Spring who subsequently claimed that “the Kremlin ditched Novorossiya” and who are starting to do the same with Syria; and (2) asserting that Russian operations in Syria can indeed be called a success so far.
In regards to the first point, Domogadsky attempts to explain the phenomenon of so-called “analysts” who, at the height of the Donbass uprising and civil war, positioned themselves as if they were at the forefront of Kremlin policy-making. When their adventurous and ambitious “forecasts” of the turn of events in Ukraine proved to be unfounded or ridiculous, they quickly blamed the Kremlin for being inconsistent when it was in fact their own delusions which confused the situation the entire time. Domogadsky claims that “disappointment” with the Russian leadership’s decisions during this period of heightened geopolitical conflict is not even the fault of these adventurous “analysts” who operate on the basis of self-interest or delusion, but in fact the fault of entirely competent analysts who have failed to take a longer-term perspective before declaring forecasts whose failure to actualize is supposedly the work of a “treacherous Kremlin”, and whose “misfires” are picked up by the former group in arousing the “Kremlin ditched everything” slogan. This is a crucial controversy which is relevant within the framework of information war.
As regards the second point, Domogadsky claims that Russian-Syrian joint operations have been a tremendous success when put into their proper context. Those “patriots” discussed above are wrong to assume that any Russian military operation will be swift, merciless, and accomplished with a stroke of brute force. Instead, Domogadsky proposes that the long-term, strategic and cautious approach of the Russian leadership should be taken as a barometer. Moreover, Domogadsky’s brief drawing of a comparison between Syria and Chechnya, and his claim that Russia is seeking a “Chechen solution” for Syria, is entirely novel and original.
While these points might be self-evident or obvious to some, they are important points of controversy among participants in the information war, and Domogadsky’s work is both a rebuttal and proposal aimed at those seeking to combat Western propaganda and work out cohesive, realistic analyses of geopolitical developments and the actions of the Russian leadership within the limited space that it has to operate in a multi-front war.
Perhaps an addition to aid evaluation.
/a-warning-about-the-paris-terror-attacks/comment-page-1/#comment-175175
Perhaps you remember from each according to “abilities”, to each according to “need”?
Your “start” comment in a different thread infers that the lateral process has not started.
Some as above suggest it started in 2008 and some no longer alive suggested in 1922.
If you wish to understand why Russia is not the Soviet Union perhaps Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 may prove illuminating.
Mолодец!
Just ordered the hardcover. I’m pleased all right by the message “out of stock” — that’s quite significant, and I doubt the MSM and the Deep State take such developments lightly.
The Saker’s Book Amazon Announcement from the Publisher
Dear friends, Amazon indicates that the Saker’s book hardcover edition is temporarily out of stock. Please, go ahead and place your order, regardless stock level indication.
Amazon will refill its inventory and ship books first come first served to people who have placed out of stock orders, *then* to new orders. This should all happen within a matter of days and is largely automatic.
Great news is that the Kindle edition is selling briskly!
Fred Zimmerman
I already bought it! Kindle version. Reading…
Re: “So I would recommend, if the phrase offend you (and I don’t much care for it myself), that you mentally replace it with “exceptionalists”; or you might even prefer “neocons” where the two exceptionalisms meet and merge into one exceptionalism.”
Whether or not a phrase relating to political and historical realities offends someone is really immaterial, unless the phrase is a calumny, or in short, a falsehood. But to substitute the “exceptionalists” for the “Anglo-Zionist empire is to remove an important precision, and to impose a kind of veil over the essential. Zionists are “exceptionalists”, yes, but it is important to know what kind of exceptionists. ISIS is also “exceptionalist”, for example. So it is crucial to understand what is the basis of the exceptionlism in question, what is its nature, what are its ultimate aims, what is its reason for existence. So here there is really no need for a euphemism that would remove an important and illuminating phrase that could “offend” mistakenly delicate sensibilities. The phrase is not a disguise for anti-Semitism; it is anti-Zionist. There is a difference! A critical difference. As for the word “Anglo”, it is also critical. The world has been dominated de facto and beyond dispute for the last centuries between the Pax Britanica and now the Pax Americana.
“to remove an important precision”
Precision can often limit perception through restriction of “field of vision”.
Hence precision can function as a displacement tool.
The world and phenomena withon/within it are in lateral process.
Change is constant, key variables being trajectory and velocity.
Consequently a more useful designation in practice is opponents, the most dangerous opponent being yourself.
The notion of “exceptionalists” is predicated on and supportive of the opponents’ practices of unequal but different, where difference is used as an alibi for unequal. However this is rendered more ideologically palatable by equal but different, we the people, and “nationality”.
A trajectory from unequal but different to equal and different renders the opponents exceptional.
The opponents at best wish to retain an attenuated version of the status quo ergo limit trajectories, and are aided in this by the immersive attributes of ideology, including that change is linear not lateral, and language.
Perhaps you have noted that successful strategic practitioners are not limited by your notion of “Anglo-Zionism” or hold that “defeat” of “Ango Zionism” is sufficient in itself to facilitate transcendence of opponents given that “means” condition ends.
Some commentators on this blog have sought to excercise precision by defining “victory” as the
“”defeat” of “Anglo Zionism” and at best pose an instrumental “answer” to the question
Whatever happened to Stepan Bandera?
As ever evaluation is a function of purpose.
Haha. Saker underestimates both Russia and himself. Always has.
Congratulations Saker!
“Saker underestimates both Russia and himself. Always has.”
Perhaps underestimation of Russia is a function of the overestimation of self?
Well said James.
A bit of a blunder in an otherwise well-expressed review by Patrick.
Perhaps he is cautioning about alienating a potentially large readership?
Too bad. We all have to learn to be accurate about the root political causes of Middle East – and therefore global – conflict.
Anglo-Zionism it is.
Perhaps an analogy, which I made at least a decade ago, will relate to what the US is to the idea of exceptionalism, and help people to understand some aspects of it.
The fabric of the US is made, as with any fabric, or warp and woof. BY accident of langauge this can be considered as the warped, evil, part, and the woof like that of a dog ‘bragging’ about how wonderful and powerful it is.
The threads in these run perpendicular, each supporting the other and yet going off in different directions. On one hand, the warp is that of empire, real politick, conquest, and amoral power — and that’s easy to find in the history. On the other hand there is idealism, honor, and moarality which is not only part of the national myth and propaganda, Yankee ingenuity, and shining city on a hill, but also a motivating factor which rises at times in the national character and aspirations of the people.
Yet, while these warp and woof threads hold the fabric together, they constantly work at cross purposes, and result in the now infamous ‘cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy. Attempting to disentangle these two dimensions, as one might try to unlay a rope, does not work because it would also cause the fabric itself to unravel, resulting not in a few separate strands of cord, but jumbled balls of thread which could hardly be used for repair or to reweave something useful. The high ideals of the US depend on being exceptional and proud, not humility, and similarly the power of the US depends on this false pride and ‘being practical’ regarding human relations (and note similarities with the root assumptions of classical economics and it’s derivatives about human nature, selfishness and rationality). The very identity of the US depends on both exceptional idealism and ruthless conquest, in this strange mix of warp and woof, neither informing the other.
“neither informing the other”
Such is a requirement for “sustainability”.
“Attempting to disentangle these two dimensions, as one might try to unlay a rope, does not work because it would also cause the fabric itself to unravel”
Not necessarily.
If the method of disentanglement is based on comparing “The high ideals” with the practice this could result in an iteration of ideological immersion facilitating an attenuation of the fabric – a limiting of trajectory within a linear paradim as is being attempted by some of the opponents – then the fabric itself will not necessarily unravel, but “change” its design to some degree.
“but jumbled balls of thread which could hardly be used for repair or to reweave something useful”
Could hardly is normally a usage to simultaneously infer a quantitative relationship without being specific.
I suggest the Bolshevik project shows the immersive dangers of ideologies and practices.
Amongst the balls of threads remaing would be people, although a subject/object relationship of people as threads to weave would also be an iteration of ideological immersion.
The lateral strategy is the encouragement/facilitation of the trajectory from unequal but different to equal and different.
In such strategies people are participants in repair that does not include replication.
Hence the questions
1. Does a drowning man suit your purpose?
2. If not how to drown a drowning man with the minimum of blowback?
These questions may appear binary to you, as they do to the opponents.
The illusions of opponents continue to have utility and hence I will not furnish reasons why they are not binary questions.
You also consistently appear to be wedded to notions of sole and/or primary agency and consequently de-emphasise and/or obfuscate the agency of others following a lateral strategy.
Just as Mr. Clausewitz has been “advanced” upon, so has Mr. de Bono and others.
I note that unlike some you do not suggest the Alexandrian approach to the Gordian knot.
“The threads ” or at least some of them.
Although the contents of the link below are “misguided” in various aspects and immersed to some degree in narratives of utility, perhaps this may prove illustrative in matters of Gordian knots.
http://fortruss.blogspot.ru/2015/11/if-youre-so-smart-then-why-are-you-so.html
The title illustrates the practice of projecting evaluation criteria onto data facilitating “results” being functions of “evaluation criteria”; the text and comments continue in this vein.
Other interesting ideological projections include the binary good guy in white hat/bad guy in black hat; Mr. Yeltsin being the bad guy, thereby obscuring the utilities of the Yeltsin/Zhirinovsky then Yelstin/Zuganov shows and other phenomena, and how by 1994 some of the “exceptionalists” realised that agency was not solely theirs.
The “exceptionalists” mirrored Hans Christian Andersen’s forecast on kings and processions which facilitated the “events” of 1998 and subsequent.
Wisdom sometimes lies in not criticising opponents’ illusions.
“The eXiled made fun of it all.”
That publication had sections evaluating brothels, nightclubs and named prostitutes in the major cities of Russia including by assigning the “road tested” prostitutes stars like livestock, and was a “bullhorn” of the “exceptionalists” attitudes to lesser mortals. This hubris proved useful in modifying the perceptions of some Russians.
By the 1970’s at the latest it was understood by some in Russia that the Soviet Union was unsustainable and various activities were accelerated based upon that view; the make-up of these “some” did not conform to the good guy/bad guy binary projected by opponents.
You previously broadcast the view that planning in the 1990’s in Russia was impossible.
Perhaps I can posit a contrary view that planning in Russia in the 1990’s was very fruitful and possible aided by the hubris of “exceptionalism” facilitating the present situation.
Some were so appreciative that they pondered whether to recommend Messrs. Aslund, Clinton, Gingrich and Sachs for Nobel prizes.
I just came across this post, not sure I believe it, but it is out there:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-told-assad-to-go-or-be-made-to-go-israeli-officials-say/
it’s saying Putin wants Assad out and replaced by transitional government. If true (and I am not saying it is), it would signal that Putin still has hopes that the Exceptionalists are not insane….if so, I think he will be sorely disappointed.
Alan why are you posting garbage on this site ? Honestly, the article above is about Zionism and you post a ‘times of Israel’ article..how inappropriate.
I’ve actually always loved Saker’s phrase ‘AngloZionist’ myself. It perfectly describes, not only the ethnic makeup of our ruling clique, but also the overweening, self-important exceptionalism that seems to be an inseparable part of the culture. This has its origins in religion, and the notion that we (and the Jews) are some sort of ‘chosen’ people who are essentially different from the rest of the human race, and that the laws of physics somehow just don’t apply to us.
I agree with Seamus P.
I am not a polemicist.
But I think that “exceptionalist” can have a benign gloss.
People really think they are doing good, etc.
In any event, it is a euphemism.
Whereas “AngloZionist” is precise, plus has the value of breaking a certain type of taboo that has to be broken if one is to have a rational discussion. If the disease is cancer, you can’t say it’s a cold and expect to get a cure or even understand the progress of the disease, or the symptoms. So there is value in breaking the taboo and naming the malady.
In fact, the insistence on or preference for a euphemism is a measure of the power of the taboo.
Using a mild, innocuous euphemism is like tiptoeing past the graveyard.
Saying that the USA/UK and the Zionists are BOTH exceptionalist is not the same thing as binding the two groups together in one word. AngloZionist implies a dynamic process, not just a description of a psychological fantasy.
I can understand the reviewer’s not wanting to take this bull by the horns in his short review. Of course, he doesn’t have to mention the term at all in his review. Which might be preferable to making apologies for the author that the author would never make himself, and substituting a different term. When he must know that the term/concept and the reality it encapsulates is central to the Saker’s analysis of world events.
Katherine
Ah not really..
I was taught English by American missionaries.. But those same missionary functions were coopted by the CIA to do its various dirty deeds.. Others came to help and started fomenting terrorist ideas..
The line between doing good and being a colonist is a fine one. They all started out as missionaries out to do good.. That’s how 100 mil people were wiped out of south America..
Join the peace core.. Some of them have done good in Africa.. but that was also only a cover..
All the good by well meaning individuals are superseded by the very same western governments into colonial agendas and exploitation.
And sending money to the countries so they themselves can do it is also not a good idea.. That money ends up buying arms or in swiss bank accounts.. If you want to help, The only way that even works slightly is to provide scholarships so those motived enough to do something about their condition learns how to do it and then goes back and does something about it. But even that has been corrupted by turning them into spies and agents.. The exceptional mindset always turn into they are superior and others need to kneel before them. When I see that changing I think we would be on the right path instead of just extinction.
“When he must know that the term/concept and the reality it encapsulates is central to the Saker’s analysis of world events. ”
Perhaps the “must know” is an over-extension.
As to centrality in analysis, including being illustrative of methodologies, that is largely the case.
Perhaps applying professional standards of evaluation in say comparison of expectations/forecasts with outcomes may prove illuminating.
“I am not a polemicist.”
Nor perhaps a stategist in matters under review.
“Saying that the USA/UK and the Zionists are BOTH exceptionalist is not the same thing as binding the two groups together in one word.”
That the USA/UK and the Zionists are both exceptionalists facilitates lateral opportunities to “separate” them. Binding them together hinders and/or precludes their separation.
You may have noticed the efficacy of such strategic vision in recent events.
“AngloZionist implies a dynamic process”
As above I suggest it hinders and/or precludes laterally dynamic processes.
It also limits focus in perceiving hinderances to transcending the opponents, the most dangeous opponent being yourself, since ideology is more dangerous than other weapons of any destruction.
“Exceptionalism” is not a euphemism but a dynamic strategic tool as is ideological immersion.
Well, context is everything.
A euphemism has a function so I suppose it is as dynamic as any other term.
The function of a euphemism is, generally, to avoid saying what one really means.
So, you can critique the term “AngloZionist,” and you do not need to use the term and you can supply other meanings for the term, ad infinitum.
That is your choice and your writing.
But this is not about your choices and your writing.
It is about The Saker’s choices and his writing.
It is what The Saker means when he uses it. He does not mean “exceptionalist.”
End of story.
Katherine
“The Saker’s choices and his writing.”
Precisely hence
/review-of-sakers-book-by-patrick-armstrong/comment-page-1/#comment-176165
The broadcast
/review-of-sakers-book-by-patrick-armstrong/comment-page-1/#comment-176171
is based on practices outlined in
/review-of-sakers-book-by-patrick-armstrong/comment-page-1/#comment-176165
Blogs have uses but perhaps not only in the ways you perceive.
“Blogs have uses but perhaps not only in the ways you perceive.”
Perhaps an indicator of utility?
http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/22/russia-debates-unorthodox-orthodox-financial-alternative/
Mr. Starikov’s recent pontification and schadenfreude.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/hey-franceqatar-and-turkey-just-murdered-your-citizens-your-move/ri11324