Note: I regularly post columns by guest authors with whom I do not agree. This is also the case today. First, I believe that Paul Schmutz Shaller has mistakenly attributed to Paul Craig Roberts the opinions of Iben Thranholm (see full video here). He also misunderstood the use (not by PCR but by Russia Insider who created the title!) of the word “pussy” in the title which refers to the meaning of the word as “weak, cowardly”. Second, he overlooked the historical context for this interview: 2016 when women *were* regularly attacked and the locals did nothing (whereas in Russia a similar situation was immediately tackled by locals men). Finally, just one look at EU politicians (say, like Heiko Maas or the five female Defense Ministers) is enough see that the feminization of EU politics is a reality. And I won’t even mention the constant badgering of Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Lavrov and President Putin, about the alleged “persecution” of homosexuals in Russia (a total lie) which made the Russians wonder whether Europeans have any interests at all in Russia besides the welfare of Russian homosexuals. Still, Paul Craig Roberts’ article did shock or offend quite a few readers, thus Paul Schmutz Schaller’s column probably represents the reaction of other readers and this is why I decided to publish it today. In the near future I hope to tackle this issues in a column of my own (my previous take on this was in faraway 2014 when I wrote “The West: the most sexually dysfunctional society on the planet“). One more thing: the moderators did, indeed, intercept Paul’s comment and I agreed with them: he had clearly misunderstood PCR’s points and unjustly accused him of contempt for women. I still stand by my decision. You can see the original comment in the annex below, leaving each person the option to decide whether the rejection of this comment was justified or not.
On Red Lines and Core Interests
by Paul Schmutz Schaller for The Saker Blog
Recently, the concept of red lines has become trending in world politics. In his recent Annual Address to the Federal Assembly (April 21) Putin said: „At the same time, I just have to make it clear, we have enough patience, responsibility, professionalism, self-confidence and certainty in our cause, as well as common sense, when making a decision of any kind. But I hope that no one will think about crossing the “red line” with regard to Russia. We ourselves will determine in each specific case where it will be drawn.“
As far as I know, Xi was (and is) the first Chinese leader who spoke of „core interests“. It is even possible that Xi is the first political leader in the world who created the concept that countries, in their mutual relation, should respect the core interests of the other side. By the way, in his address, Putin also used this term: „Those behind provocations that threaten the core interests of our security will regret what they have done in a way they have not regretted anything for a long time.“
In this article, I will however talk about individual red lines and core interests. Obviously, every individual has core interests and red lines. Very often, the individuals – like the countries, by the way – are not conscious which are their core interests and red lines. Generally speaking, it is an important achievement when somebody is able to explain his or her core interests and red lines. This helps his or her environment a lot. Take the Saker Blog as an example. One may say that in the section „Saker’s values“, you will find the core interests of the Saker while in the section „Moderation Policy“, the red lines of the blog are stated.
For quite some time, I have tried to define my core interests. I found the values autonomy, humility, perseverance, and positivity. This I not just a mental idea. In some sense, this is the quintessence of my life. In other words, you cannot mentally decide your core interests, you rather may discover them. It is your life which imposes your core interests and red lines. By the way, for countries, it is more or less the same thing. It is the history that indicates the core interests.
On May 5, the article „The Feminization of Western Men“, by Paul Craig Roberts, was published on the Saker Blog (meanwhile, the article has also appeared on The Unz Review). I was shocked by this article. A great many of my red lines were crossed. For me, this article was so bad that I had difficulties in order the figure out which were the main points that shocked me.
I think that the first point is „US arrogance“. This is closely related to my core interest of humility. I have the conviction that US citizens (like Roberts) – or people who live in the USA – have to be very careful when they criticize other countries. Or people living in Western countries (which were colonial powers) have to be cautious when criticizing countries in the global South. Or somebody like Israel Shamir has to be very prudent when criticizing Palestinians.
You cannot abstract from the country and the culture where you live. When Roberts criticizes European people and countries – and he does this in a disgusting and even racist manner – then this is at once taken as the typical behavior of US hegemonists, even when Roberts claims that he is against US hegemony. By the way, the Iranians speak of the US arrogance in the same manner as I do.
The second point is the relation between men and women. The article despises women in a way that is completely unacceptable. By reducing the identity of women to „pussies“, women are clearly defined as purely sexual objects. This is just shameful. Again, my outrage obviously relies on my core interest of humility.
A third point is how the article describes the concrete situation in Europe. This is just completely ridiculous, for example: „All over Europe white women […] are raped openly in public.“ Come on. This is as far from reality as Biden’s government view of the world situation. By the way, why Russians do not violently protest against the article’s description, in view of the fact that Russia also is part of Europe?
I could go further, but I think that this is enough in order to illustrate that this article has crossed my red lines in an unacceptable way.
On the Saker Blog, different and often controversial ideas are expressed. This is a great strength of the Saker Blog which I appreciate very much. On the other hand, the biggest problem of the Saker Blog – in my eyes – is the fact that there is often a lack of mutual respect. This is a pity. People who write and comment on the Saker Blog should develop a better understanding of the fact that everybody has some red lines.
For example, religion, more precisely orthodox Christianity, is obviously crucial for the Saker. In general, everybody respects this and this is very positive. Recently, he published a short text on Holy Paskha. I read the text, but it left me completely unimpressed (I am not a Christian). Nevertheless, I found it interesting. I may add that for me, the question of mutual respect is as serious as a religious conviction – or religious faith, if you prefer.
However, it is not by accident that the article of Roberts cited above appeared on the Saker Blog. The Saker has written some similar things. He often speaks of European countries (Russia excluded) in a way that lacks respect. And concerning women, I remember that the Saker wrote (December 15, 2020): „Harris (a call girl who made it into politics ‚horizontally‘)“. Here, one also sees the reduction of women to sexual objects, with no brain.
Ok, I knew this, and I accepted it. People have different points of view. And of course, this is the Saker’s Blog and he can write what he wants.
But, and this is really the point, I wrote a comment to the above-cited article of Roberts – see annex – and my comment was not published. Obviously, my comment did much, much less violate the Saker’s moderation policy than the article of Roberts did. Therefore, in my eyes, the decision of not publishing my comment was a typical example of a double standard or of „what is good for the goose is not good for the gander“. I immediately realized that I could no longer support the Saker Blog. I am not the kind of „turn the other cheek“; by the way, I never understood the deep meaning of this principle.
In August 2019, my first article for the Saker Blog was published. I was really proud. Since then, 20 other articles of me were published and I am truly very thankful to the Saker and to the whole team.
This one is thus my last article. Of course, this is much more a problem for me than for you since I have to find some new meanings of life. You may ask why I wrote this article. Good question. But what was the alternative? Only write to the Saker? I found no argument in favor of this solution. No reaction at all, just stop to submit articles and comments to the Saker Blog. This was my first idea. But I rejected it as too cowardly. So, this article arose. This solution has also some obvious shortcomings, but I found no better one.
This was my comment to the article of Roberts, posted on May 5, at around 13h00 CET, one hour after the publication of the article; the blog immediately gave the usual reply that my comment was under consideration, the blog has thus received my comment. I had really no more time to write since I had to leave for an invitation but decided that it was more important to quickly post my comment.
„Here, one can see an old man expressing his hate. This article is really bad. It is quite difficult to identify the most important shortcomings.
The author is a US citizen. He thinks that this gives him the right to spit on Europeans, more precisely on people of Germany, France, Italy, the UK, and Scandinavia. No, of course, he has not this right. Most people in Germany would be horrified by treating Merkel as scum, most people in France would be horrified by treating their governments as corrupt, and the author’s remarks on Italians and British are simply racist, and I do not intend to humiliate myself by repeating them here.
The author speaks of men and women. Obviously, he thinks that men have some values such as „strength“and „confidence“. He also speaks of the „obligations“ of men to women, in particular protection. The author leaves the question open whether women also have values and some obligations (against men). But one can guess that for him, women have no values and no obligations since most (European) men are now gay are women (according to the author), hence – one concludes – without values and without obligations.
The author sees most (European) men as pussies that is, as sexual organs of women. This is not so far away from saying that women have no brains. However, the author does not show much brain in this article, I must say.
I am sorry, I have no more time for analyzing this concoction.“