Recently, Igor Kolomeysky, the principal financier and brain behind the Ukainian fascist oligarchy, gave an interview to Poroshenkos TV 5th Channel. In that interview, he tried to do a remarkable thing--to deny that the same oligarchs who controlled everything in Ukraine before the Maidan are still there (now with lots of help from avowed fascists) and that they are oligarchs. An interesting question, worthy of a graduate seminar at which students like to defend sometimes the most implausible opinions, then is how to deny what is a basic and most self-evident fact? As Kolomeysky knows or believes, it is quite simple: one has to deny the obvious. One just needs to do it very authoritatively and announce it, if possible, through controlled public, that is, corporate media, if possible through the very same which the self-same oligarchs control. For would the oligarchs lie? So this what Kolomeysky said in order to assure the deceived people of Ukraine: With the flight of Yanukovich, oligarchy has died here. And with the attack on Ukraine by Russia, there are no oligarchs in our country anymore. Kolomeyskys brazen denial contains within itself an interesting sophism though. For, however, his denial is stupid, it might still work for those who do need something--anything--to maintain their denial or reality and cognitive assistance. In this regard, and for those people, almost anything what dear leaders say is good enough. But Kolomeysky himself is no stupid man. I do believe that he is by far the most cunning and smart brain with the fascist oligarchy has. And this means that Kolomeyskys stupid statement does also contain or hide within some more interesting points. To indicate what it could be, one has to be a bit esoteric. In this light, Kolomeyskys declaration indicates several things: 1. the Maidan is not exactly a continuation of the previous oligarchy. 2. the Maidan is, after all, a radical change of the regime and its oligarchy led by the oligarchs themselves. So how to understand this strange dialectic? Oligarchy remains and yet it is no longer the same oligarchy. 3. As Sergey Fyodorov pointed out, Ukrainian oligarchy (following its own genesis and demands from Washington), embraced violence. And not just violence, but, with it, also fascism. And by turning decisively and irreversibly fascist, it crossed its own Rubicon. This Rubicon means its hybrid war aimed at Russia or/and destruction of Ukraine as a regime and country that existed as a latent, but more and more overt aggressive neo-Banderite project, which perfectly fits into Brzezinskis great chessboard post-Cold War plan to aufheben--negate and lift out of existence--the largest state and real estate on earth, the Russian Federation. If the US is our New (and for Brzezinski latest and last) Roman Empire, then Russia is its Carthege, and Carthago delenda est (must be deleted or destroyed). After Napoleon and Hitler, this is the third Titanic attempt in the last two hundred years. 4. but all this, Kolomeysky, of course, cannot tell the audience. But, as a good criminal, the temptation and urge to make a public confession, while hiding it in front of everyone, is simply too high. It is part of the morbid pleasure in the crime. 5. so, as Kolomeysky renders it, oligarchs in Ukraine no longer exist. What he does not add though is that these oligarchs do still exist. But they no longer exist in the old sense--in the sense of the previous regime, which was merely a neo-liberal, postcommunist kleptocracy. Now we have a Nazi regime (Nazism understood here as more virulently aggressive and oppressive fascism, for which marches and outward theatrics are no longer enough; it is fascism that recognizes in death and war against all the other subhumans its highest purpose). 6. So the same oligarchs still rule, but they are no longer rule by the same means or in the same way as before. So, in this respect, Kolomeysky is lying, but his lie also conceals a key transformation. (But how to be subtle on TV?) 7. To this, Kolomeysky also adds that these this oligarchy, which also includes himself first and foremost, has died. But he is still alive, isnt he? And so is oligarchy, which is very vividly killing civilians from Odessa to Lugansk. 8. The answer to this sophistic enigma is at least twofold: i) for centuries, the term dead was used metaphorically and symbolically for the initiates, and 2) truth to be told, Ukrainian oligarchys fascism and its crimes have made it already politically dead in principle. Conversely put, Ukrainian oligarchy has died to their previous more criminally banal and benign self and has been initiated through much of blood spilled into the darkness of fascist tyranny--the ultimate political evil. «У нас с бегством Януковича олигархия умерла. У нас с нападением России на Украину нет больше олигархии в стране. Фирташ сегодня олигарх? Он очень способный человек, умудряется влиять на ситуацию в отсутствие в стране, даже в ожидании суда по экстрадиции. Фирташ у нас считался олигархом. А я считаю главным олигархом Левочкина. И кукловодом», — заявил Коломойский в интервью «5-му каналу». aloxov.net/obshhestvo/kolomoyskiy-ne-schitayte-menya/
Posted on: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:33:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015