O globalismo e o que ele esconde

Nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.
— Zbigniew Brzezinski in Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era

O estado-nação como unidade fundamental da vida organizada do homem deixou de ser a principal força criativa: os bancos internacionais e as corporações multinacionais estão actuando e planeando em termos que estão muito à frente dos conceitos políticos do estado-nação.
— Zbigniew Brzezinski in Entre Duas Eras: O Papel da América na era Tecnetrónica

O Actual Conflito é um conflito entre o Globalismo e o Soberanismo, não entre e Direita e Esquerda.

Existem duas Esquerdas, a Libertária e a Igualitária, e duas Direitas, a Anti-Libertária e a Anti-Igualitária.

Sim, as Direitas definem-se, sempre se definiram, por oposição às Esquerdas.

A Liberdade é natural e inerentemente humana.

A Igualdade é anti-natural e inerentemente desumana.

Não existem no mundo duas coisas iguais, nem sequer os parafusos e as porcas normalizados que, sendo embora fabricados para serem iguais, não são iguais, são só Intermutáveis.

A Igualdade que a Esquerda Igualitária quer tem de ser imposta pela força e dá origem a uma sociedade com duas classes: a dos que impõem a igualdade e a dos que são iguais à força.

É uma sociedade desse tipo que os Globalistas estão tentando criar.

As sociedades em que só se era gente se se tivesse um cartão do partido foram uma primeira tentativa dos Globalistas, esta segunda tentativa é mais ambiciosa.

FIM

What’s the Difference Between Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism?

November 17, 2020

One wonders if Putin and Lavrov will ever understand that there is no possibility whatsoever of having a successful negotiation of Russia’s security concerns with Washington. There are powerful reasons for this impossibility and the reasons are powerfully obvious.

One reason is that Washington greatly prefers Russia as an enemy than as a partner. Why? Because the US military/security complex is a powerful, entrenched collection of institutions that has an annual budget of 1,000 billion dollars. Such a vast sum requires an enemy for its justification.

Russia is the enemy of choice because of its vast size and because the long decades of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union has Americans accustomed to Russia as an enemy. Better the old enemy we know than to have to be taught a new one.

Another reason is that US foreign policy is under the influence of the Zionist neoconservatives. The neoconservatives hate Russia for historical reasons. Their hatred was brought to a fevered pitch when Putin restored Russia to sufficient strength to assert her sovereignty. At the 2007 Munich Security Conference Putin announced the end of the US “unipolar world.” The neoconservatives enjoying their Middle East conquests were caught off guard by Russia’s Resurrection.

This was a massive affront to the neoconservatives’ claim of US hegemony over the world. In the 1990s US Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz declared the “Wolfowitz doctrine” as the basis for US unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress in advance any potential threats to US hegemony that might arise in the future. The doctrine states:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

The statement was considered to be too revealing and too arrogant. The statement defines a country as hostile if it is strong enough to constrain US hegemony. Wolfowitz’s statement was rewritten, made wordy and dressed up in nicer sounding words, but the meaning remained.

At the Munich Security Conference Putin challenged the doctrine of US hegemony. He did it again when he blocked President Obama’s planned invasion of Syria and when the Russian Air Force helped the Syrian military defeat the jihadists pretending to be “Syria’s democratic elements.” Putin has also prevented Washington from serving as Israel’s proxy in an attack on Iran.

The neoconservatives find these restraints on Washington’s hegemony intolerable.

Searching for a way to gain the initiative over Russia, the neoconservatives, observing the Kremlin’s focus on the Sochi Olympics, seized the opportunity to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine and to install a neo-Nazi regime answerable to Washington. Washington’s attempt to seize via this coup the Russian Black Sea naval base in Crimea failed when the people there voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia. The Donbass Russians did the same. Putin accepted the former but not the latter. This left the Donbass area, formerly a part of Russia, as a trouble spot that Washington could agitate and for eight years has done so.

The Minsk Protocol or Minsk Agreement that was fashioned to protect the Donbass Russians while keeping them as part of the Ukraine was a dead letter agreement by January 2015. Yet Putin seems to think that this abandoned agreement is still the solution. It is unclear why Putin thinks that if the same parties sign it again it will mean any more than before.

Washington has no intention of letting go of this hotspot. The longer it lasts, the more it works against Russia. Not even the withdrawal of Russian soldiers from the area can calm the situation. Washington continues to predict a Russian invasion, and the US Secretary of State is again in the UN as I write making more false charges against Russia. Russia’s insistence that her own security concerns receive attention from the West is portrayed by Secretary of State Blinken as Russian aggression.

It would be to Ukraine’s advantage to agree to the Minsk Agreement, because it officially puts the Donbass region back into Ukraine, which would allow the Ukraine government to gradually erode the semi-autonomy granted the region and resume its persecution of the Russian population.

But Washington doesn’t want Donbass restored to Ukraine. Washington wants a flash point to keep agitating. The constant shelling of the Donbass Russians erodes Putin’s status with patriotic Russians. The low level warfare keeps alive the prospect of a Russian invasion with which to frighten Europe and keep Europe on Washington’s reservation. In short, Washington has no interest whatsoever in resolving the situation. It doesn’t hurt Washington. It only hurts Russia.

Perhaps Putin hopes that sooner or later Western peoples will tire of the situation and demand an end to it. But the people only have the information that the presstitutes give them, and that is that Russia is to blame.

Putin might hope that sooner or later Ukrainians, long part of Russia, will tire of the situation and demand that their government stop acting in Washington’s interest and act instead in Ukraine’s interest. This cannot happen because of the strength of the neo-Nazi element.

All the world, not just Putin, should listen carefully to Blinken’s address to the UN. It is only a few minutes. This address was given today, Thursday, Feb 17 following worldwide reports of withdrawn Russian forces, forces that were never there to invade Ukraine. There is something more cynical, more evil, in Blinken’s address than in Secretary of State Powell’s “weapons of mass destruction” lie in February 2003 setting up the US invasion of Iraq. It makes no sense for Blinken to make a total fool of himself and US intelligence by predicting that a Russian false flag event is about to happen unless it happens. I can only wonder if what Blinken is doing is describing a planned US false flag attack and blaming it in advance on Russia.

We know for a certain fact that the Western media will not give Russia a fair shake. Whatever happens and whoever is responsible, it will be blamed on Russia. Russian denials will have no more effect than their repeated denials that they intend to invade Ukraine.

Western media and Western governments are so corrupt that Blinken could declare that Russia has invaded Ukraine when Russia has not, and the media would convince the world that an invasion has occurred. The function of the Western media is to turn fiction into truth.

And the Kremlin thinks Russia can negotiate a security agreement with the West, a West that most definitely does not want Russia to be secure.

I am convinced that the only way a dangerous war can be avoided is if:

— Putin accepts the vote of the Donbass Russians for their homelands to return to Russia

— Putin makes it clear that Ukraine will be destroyed if the country becomes a NATO member

— Putin makes it clear that any US or NATO missile base put in Ukraine will be destroyed

— Putin makes it clear that US missile bases on its borders will be destroyed if not removed

— Putin provides Iran with the conventional missiles to defend its air space

— Russia ignores the West and globalism and creates a Russian-Chinese trade bloc

Washington constantly warns Europe of a dangerous Russia, but once Europe sees decisive Russian action, Europe will cease to cooperate in baiting the Bear. Russia’s attitude should be that Europe can purchase Russian energy priced in rubles or gold if they want it, but otherwise the West can go to hell.

It is past time for Russia to get the West out of its system. For years Russia has suffered insults, false accusations, provocations, missile bases on its borders, and installation of US puppet states in what were former constituent parts of Russia. What good have Russia’s protests and negotiations done? None whatsoever. Why does the Kremlin think this will change? What will change it is for Russia to declare and enforce its red lines and spend its energies in those parts of the world where they are appreciated. It makes no sense for the Kremlin to sacrifice Russia to the New World Order.

Original here.

END

Russia’s Big, Bizarre ‘Thank You!’ to Tucker Carlson and Josh Hawley

You may be aware of the fact that things aren’t going very well for the United States, but you may not know that things are going quite well for the Russian Federation. You may also think that Russia is an evil force that needs to be contained, or that it is ruled by an evil dictator, or any number of such things while the US is a prosperous democracy and a superpower (whatever that means) but this makes no difference. If you've been following recent events, you may be aware that Russia has recently presented the US with something like an ultimatum—demanding that the US provide it with certain security guarantees. But you will probably be quite surprised to learn that the granting of these security guarantees will be automatic as the US continues to collapse and retreat into its hollowed-out, bankrupt shell, its rout from Afghanistan being by no means its last. Nor would you be able to appreciate the fact that the security demands are designed to make America's retreat from Eurasia maximally humiliating: not only will it retreat, but it will retreat because the Russians ordered it to do so.

Once that retreat takes place, Russia will no doubt be immensely, effusively grateful that America has finally faced up to its responsibilities and did the right thing by getting the hell out of Eurasia, gleefully rubbing salt into America’s wounds. Russia will then joyfully make mincemeat of the Monroe Doctrine, spreading its influence, hand in hand with China, over the American continent, from Argentina to Mexico, leaving the US (whatever remains of it) sulking in its corner eating a pot of glue. But there is a lot more gratitude that’s due for what’s already transpired. In fact, Russia should be thanking the US for all it’s done to make Russia a winner and the US a loser at every opportunity. Let me list just some of the most important examples.

Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin

1. When the Soviet Union fell apart, this process was very much encouraged by the US. On the Potomac, the thinking at the time was that this process could continue forever: first the East Bloc, then the USSR, and finally Russia itself would be broken up, bought up, plundered and left for dead. However, something went wrong. Now Russia is powerful and unified within its borders to an extent it hasn’t been for centuries, and even extending these borders somewhat to fix minor errors in the political map. Russia is most grateful for the US for initiating this process right-sizing the Russian Empire. It has allowed Russia to jettison a great number of cryptically hostile, useless non-Russian freeloaders and to muster its resources for rebuilding its Russian core. Russia should be grateful to the US for helping it exorcise the ghost of the USSR.

2. Before the USSR fell apart, the US made a major effort to neutralize its nuclear deterrent, which had kept the US from destroying it, through an effort known as Star Wars, or Strategic Defense Initiative. The geriatrics of the Politburo, headed by the idiotic tractor driver Gorbachev, bought into this hype and capitulated. Later, SDI turned out to be complete and total hype. Meanwhile, Russian scientists and engineers quietly continued their work and eventually succeeded in making SDI a reality for Russia. There is now a good chance that a nuclear confrontation between the US and Russia would go like this: a US nuclear first strike would be intercepted and its remaining arsenal would be destroyed in a limited nuclear counterstrike. Russia should be most grateful to the US for inspiring its scientists and engineers to do their utmost and create such marvels as the S-400 air and space defense system (now deployed in Belarus) hypersonic cruise missiles that can be launched from standard shipping containers from anywhere on Earth, suborbital intercontinental missiles, infinite-range nuclear-powered torpedos, electronic warfare equipment that can render entire countries electronically deaf and blind, mobile laser batteries that can burn holes through satellites and other such toys that we don’t even know about. Never in its thousand-year history has the Russian homeland been better defended—all eleven time zones of it—and the US, with its stupid Star Wars, is to be thanked for that.

3. Russia should be most grateful to the US in general and to Victoria Nuland personally for instigating and supporting the unconstitutional violent government overthrow in Kiev, the Ukraine, in 2014. Prior to that event, Russia had no plans to return Crimea, which had ended up as a Russian autonomy within the Ukraine by mistake. But the events of that year forced the residents of Crimea to demand their right of self-determination and to vote overwhelmingly to leave the Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. Not only did Russia gain a very valuable province without any bloodshed, but the return of Crimea produced a fantastic burst of enthusiasm and patriotism, propelling the Moscow government to new heights of popularity and approval. While things did not go nearly as smoothly in Donetsk and Lugansk regions, which are Russian regions that ended up in the Ukraine by Lenin’s whim, the ongoing war there has provided an important crucible for Russian patriotism, where many thousands of proud warriors from all over Russia traveled to Donetsk and Lugansk to enlist in the civil defense forces and to protect this Russian homeland from Nazi hordes armed and supported by the West. This conflict also produced an important internal political sifting process, where those in Russia who took the side of Kiev and its new Western masters marginalized and expelled themselves from the Russian body politic without requiring any heavy-handed state prosecution of traitors and spies. Thank you, America! Thank you, Victoria Nuland!

4. In the waning days of the USSR, Western, and, more specifically, American culture were extremely popular in Russia. The younger generations were much enamored of bubble gum, blue jeans, Pepsi® and rock and roll. Western culture remained very popular throughout the 1990s, as post-collapse Russia turned into an economic wasteland overrun by criminal oligarchs and ethnic mafias, and many young people did whatever they could to flee to the West and to make a new life there. Some remained there while others returned, having discovered that little in the West worked as advertised, and told their friends back home what they had discovered. The West’s shining image was further tarnished by such well-publicized excesses as the LGBT movement, environmentalist radicalism, political correctness, BLM and the cancel culture. In the meantime, Russia had absorbed whatever bits of Western culture it found interesting or useful. This was easy to do since virtually all Western culture is commercial culture and is for sale to anyone who wants a piece of it. As a result, Russian society has largely shed its feeling of cultural inferiority vis-à-vis the West. Russia has by now created for itself a cleaned-up, improved version of the West minus all of the horrible excesses. “Thanks, America, for all the nice stuff we have in shops now,” Russians should say, “Too bad yours are now empty or looted or beset by thieves.”

5. After the Soviet collapse Russia ended up with a major political inferiority complex as the new political system, hastily slapped together in what was most likely an unconstitutional, illegal handoff of power from Gorbachev to Yeltsin (both now commonly regarded as traitors) failed to function. It was then made much worse by US advisers who oversaw a largely criminal privatization campaign that handed out state assets to politically connected oligarchs with the hopes of creating a Russian political system much like that of the US—manned by political puppets but actually run by an oligarchic deep state. But something went horribly wrong with this plan (from a US perspective). The oligarchs got jailed or exiled, the corrupt politicians were voted out or imprisoned, and a new generation of politicians and public officials took over. The election system became well-organized and transparent, government services became digital and in many cases automated, and Russian bureaucracy is now a mere shadow of its previously fearsome self. In the meantime, the Americans refused to elect a horrid screechy crone named Hillary as president and instead elected a carnival barker reality show host buffoon type. Then they spent four years trying to hound him out of office. Eventually they got him out through massive election fraud and replaced him with a senile puppet who reads instructions from his teleprompter (“Smile and wave. Thank you!”) before being taken by the hand and escorted off-stage by his wife. His side-kick is some exotic call girl who isn’t senile but is obviously very very stupid. And it doesn’t stop there. There is, for instance, the State Department spokesperson Ned “Any question I don’t like is Russian propaganda” Price. And every schoolchild knows of the fabulously inept White House mouthpiece Jen Psaki who is so dumb that she has become a popular meme. There is usually a daily dose of American political circus on the Russian nightly news, and it has been quite effective in curing Russians of their political inferiority complex. Thank you, America, for putting your political idiocy on display!

I could go on and on waxing grateful on behalf of Russia, but I won’t. This is enough gratitude for one day!

View on Club Orlov

END

Parece-nos indiscutível que

a actual Deusa Suprema da Cultura Euramericana é Nómisma.

Ler Adenda à Teogonia: Nómisma, Deusa Suprema da Cultura Euramericana.

FIM

Mapa mostrando, a azul, a rede comercial dos Radanitas, ca. 870, conforme relatado no Livro das Rotas e dos Reinos de ibn Khordadbeh. A rosa, outras rotas comerciais da época.

Cazária

Uma antiga nação da qual você nunca ouviu falar

Canato Cazar (618-1048)

Por Lawrence W. Reed em Ideias Radicais a 3 de Agosto de 2020. Original aqui.

A lista de nações extintas inclui nomes conhecidos como a URSS (apropriadamente chamada de “Império do Mal” por Ronald Reagan) e a Iugoslávia, além de centenas de outros países amplamente esquecidos como Majapahit, Assíria, Babilónia, Borgonha e Império Otomano.

De facto, muito mais países se foram do que os 195 no mapa hoje. Como amante da história, ainda não descobri um país, cuja experiência dos habitantes fosse desprovida de factos e lições interessantes.

Veja a Cazária, por exemplo. Durou mais de 300 anos (650 d.C – 965 d.C) e cobriu mais território do que as nações escandinavas combinadas de nosso tempo. Abrangia a metade oriental da Ucrânia moderna, as estepes da região de Volga-Don da Rússia actual, toda a península da Crimeia e o norte do Cáucaso. Sua porção sul absorveu a maioria das costas de três mares: o Negro, o Cáspio e o Aral.

O Sucesso da Cazária

Minha tese é que, para que um país seja “bem-sucedido” por um período considerável, o sucesso é aqui definido livremente como economicamente próspero, politicamente estável e militarmente defensável — ele deve possuir esses três elementos de forma substancial: comércio, tolerância e descentralização.

Cada um desses três critérios para o sucesso vale a pena em volumes de discussão, mas aqui está o ponto principal: quando existe liberdade económica e propriedade privada, o comércio floresce.

O comércio é o que os seres humanos pacíficos fazem para satisfazer desejos e melhorar o bem-estar material. Quando ele some os padrões de vida despencam.

A tolerância é um sinal de que as pessoas apreciam os benefícios derivados da diversidade nas escolhas pessoais. Um povo intolerante se priva do que os outros podem oferecer e perde tempo e recursos lutando em vez de colaborar.

A descentralização preserva as ricas identidades das comunidades locais e impede a concentração da autoridade com sua inevitável corrupção. O poder disperso é o poder domado.

Portanto, um país de sucesso é aquele que pode se orgulhar de muitos desses tópicos. Incentiva o intercâmbio, celebra a diversidade e evita o comando e controle político de cima para baixo.

Quase todo “estado falido” da história fez exatamente o oposto, sufocando o comércio; alimentando o ódio racial, étnico ou nacionalista; e/ou instalando uma ditadura.

A Cazária, para seu grande crédito, praticou medidas notáveis de comércio, tolerância e descentralização suficientes para impedir seu governo de sabotar qualquer um deles. No final, encontrou seu fim não por deterioração interna, mas por agressão estrangeira.

1. Comércio

Os Cazares afirmaram sua independência de um império turco ocidental enfraquecido em meados do século VII. As rotas terrestres que eles construíram estavam conectadas à famosa “Rota da Seda”, que por sua vez ligava a Europa à Ásia.

A posição geográfica de Cazária forneceu vantagens económicas únicas que seu povo abraçou ansiosamente, assim como uma pequena cidade cresce quando uma nova rodovia interestadual abre a poucos quilómetros de distância.

Logo, a Cazária se tornou uma ponte entre o Oriente e o Ocidente, o que significava que não apenas seu povo podia facilmente negociar com os outros em qualquer direção, como também testemunhou uma infinidade de mercadorias exóticas e viajantes que se deslocavam pela região.

A nação também forneceu passagem segura e impôs tributação mínima aos comerciantes, tornando o país uma das prósperas encruzilhadas comerciais do mundo medieval. Os árabes do sudoeste valorizaram muito as peles e roupas cazarianas.

Os Cazares trocavam suas próprias moedas de prata por espelhos da China. O jogo de xadrez provavelmente se originou na Cazária, que o exportou para a Europa.

Os arqueólogos encontraram evidências de que os comerciantes cázaros viajaram até a Suécia. Um livro de geografia do século X, escrito em persa, Hudud al-‘Alam (“As Regiões do Mundo”) disse sobre Cazária: “Este é um país muito agradável e próspero, com grandes riquezas”.

No século XIX, os estudiosos começaram a usar a frase Pax Khazarica (a Paz da Cazária) para descrever o domínio dos cazares sobre a região e suas importantes rotas comerciais. Algumas fotos e esboços interessantes de artefatos cazarianos podem ser vistos aqui.

2. Tolerância

E a tolerância? Tudo indica que os Cazares a praticaram e se beneficiaram imensamente dela. Em um ensaio de 1835, o historiador russo Vasilii V. Grigoriev escreveu:

O povo cázaro era um fenómeno incomum para os tempos medievais. Cercados por tribos selvagens e nómades, eles tinham todas as vantagens dos países desenvolvidos: governo estruturado, comércio vasto e próspero e um exército permanente.

Na época, quando grande fanatismo e profunda ignorância contestaram seu domínio sobre a Europa Ocidental, o estado da Cazária era famoso por sua justiça e tolerância. Pessoas perseguidas por suas crenças reuniram-se em Cazária de todos os lugares. Como uma estrela brilhante, brilhava intensamente no horizonte sombrio da Europa.

As tiranias religiosas e étnicas reivindicavam incontáveis legiões de vidas em guerras sem fim na era medieval, mas Cazária desenvolveu uma sociedade poliglota de várias religiões e povos. O artigo de Richard A. E. Mason na edição de inverno de 1995 no The Ukrainian Quarterly, “As crenças religiosas dos Cazares”, revela:

A aposição de povos e culturas levou… a um florescimento da cultura material e espiritual entre os cazares. Também formou a base para a simbiose notável de vários sistemas de crenças e práticas religiosas que dominaram e formaram uma característica tão única do estado cázaro ao longo de toda a sua história, acompanhando-o até a sua trágica queda. As crenças religiosas actuais entre os habitantes do estado cázaro eram tantas e variadas quanto esses próprios povos.

Liberdade Religiosa

A liberalidade do povo cázaro era especialmente uma boa notícia para os judeus da época, que eram perseguidos rotineiramente na Europa cristã e no Oriente Médio islâmico. Descrevendo a Cazária como “um farol de esperança” para os judeus, Kevin Alan Brook observa:

Os judeus foram capazes de florescer na Cazária por causa da tolerância dos governantes de lá, que convidaram refugiados judeus bizantinos e persas a se estabelecerem no país. Devido à influência desses refugiados, os cazares acharam a religião judaica atraente e adotaram o judaísmo em grande número.

Em seu livro de 1996, Chronicles of the Jewish People, de Raymond Scheindlin opinou que, enquanto judeus no início da Idade Média fossem um povo subjugado em quase todos os lugares:

A Cazária era o único lugar no mundo medieval onde os judeus realmente eram seus próprios senhores. (…) Para os judeus oprimidos do mundo, os cazares eram uma fonte de orgulho e esperança, pois sua existência parecia provar que Deus não havia completamente abandonou o seu povo.

Mas, a tolerância dos Cazares, embora notável em seu dia não era absoluta. Como praticamente todos os outros países da história mundial, a Cazária não estava imune às tentações da escravidão e do tráfico de escravos.

Com a aprovação do governo, alguns cázaros capturaram eslavos e membros de tribo vizinhas ao norte e depois os venderam em lucrativos mercados de escravos muçulmanos na Pérsia e no Oriente Médio.

Sobre a questão da escravidão, qualquer historiador objetivo deve classificar as nações “na curva”, por assim dizer — ou então todos, exceto um punhado, seriam reprovados. Contudo, na Cazária a escravidão parece ter sido menos comum do que entre seus vizinhos.

No geral, para um país em meio ao que alguns historiadores consideram a Idade das Trevas, a Cazária era um oásis de tolerância esclarecida.

3. Descentralização

Também existem evidências de descentralização, mas são menos conclusivas. Sabemos disso por que: os escritores do período — locais e estrangeiros — não escreveram sobre o país como se a vida girasse em torno dos politicamente poderosos. A Cazária manteve uma monarquia, mas em uma diarquia, com um poder de divisão “kagan” e “bek” no topo.

Uma Suprema Corte de sete membros na capital Atil era “um modelo de tolerância e coexistência pacífica”, de acordo com Brock em The Jewish of Khazaria, porque era propositadamente composto por dois judeus, dois muçulmanos, dois cristãos e um pagão. Assegurar que nenhuma fé dominasse o judiciário era uma forma de descentralização.

A cobrança de impostos e taxas alfandegárias não era responsabilidade do governo central de Atil, mas dos governadores provinciais. As cidades eram lideradas pelo equivalente cazar dos actuais prefeitos eleitos. Eles eram conhecidos como “babaghuq”, que significa “pai da cidade”.

Algumas centenas de anos depois, os Incas do Peru estabeleceram talvez o regime mais centralizado da história mundial. Conforme explicado em “Os Incas e o Estado coletivista“, de Richard Ebeling, os governantes daquela sociedade possuíam poder total e inquestionável ao “impor um igualitarismo obrigatório em praticamente todas as coisas”. Nada desse tipo se enraizou na Cazária, muito mais liberal.

Há amplas razões para acreditar que essa tríade — comércio, tolerância e descentralização — floresceu em abundância relativa por três séculos na agora esquecida Cazária.

Fim de Cazária

Infelizmente, o fim de Cazária foi brutal, repentino e total. Determinado a subjugar Constantinopla, o chefe de guerra russo, o príncipe Sviatoslav, sabia que tinha que remover a Cazária como um obstáculo geopolítico.

Na década de 960, ele liderou uma invasão maciça que varreu o estado cázaro do mapa e destruiu sua capital tão completamente quanto os romanos haviam extinguido Cartago mais de mil anos antes.

Dizia-se que a destruição de Atil era tão absoluta que “não sobrou nenhuma uva ou uva passa, nenhuma folha em um galho”. Somente em 2008, os arqueólogos descobririam onde estava a cidade, na costa noroeste do Mar Cáspio.

Vida longa ao espírito da Cazária!

Lawrence W. Reed é o presidente da Foundation for Economic Education

Gostou do artigo? Então apoie o Ideias Radicais! Apoiadores recebem vários benefícios, entre eles uma carta mensal sobre o que o Ideias Radicais está fazendo, além de webinars com a equipe.

Черта оседлости
Pátio de Assentamento
Mapa mostrando a percentagem de judeus no Pátio de Assentamento e na Polónia do Congresso, c. 1905.

FIM