This is recent
This is over that poisoning of Navalny.
Let me show you something about Navalny
Russian opposition leader Aleksei Navalny threatens the Kremlin because he stands for a peaceful, democratic Russia… In 2007, he was an instigator of the first serious effort to build a populist, pro-democracy coalition of liberals and nationalists.
These nice words, “democratic”, “liberal”, don’t really mean the same thing they do after you learned about all the overseas coups the US engineers, do they?
Navalny is a proponent of “civil nationalism” which stands for, you guessed it, tolerance, equality, and human rights. Do those sound familiar to you? Hello Hillary, hello cathedral, hello liberal imperialism. Those 100 countries the CIA has interfered with would have been better off poisoning those puppets. Is Navalny directly linked to the US? Has Navalny brought to light real corruption in Russia? Without a doubt. Letting the NWO take over there would be a type of corruption that the US, which imposes the sanctions for the poisoning, has no ability to understand, because they are part of the NWO itself. So the cynic’s take on this, when observing the international situation above both regimes, is that these sanctions are in reality just another form of regime-change.
Based on his debate with Carvalho, I don’t even think Du Jin (ahahaha) is in a place to offer a true “fourth political theory”. He would never directly address the atrocities of the soviets and their continued presence at the top echelons of Russian society after the dissipation of the USSR. So think of it this way- there’s Navalny, there’s the former KGB that isn’t former at all and which Du Jin is existentially affiliated with, then there’s a third option for Russian futurism, and that is a question mark that involves the negation of both liberals like Navalny and KGB apologists like Du Jin. The latter likely has private thoughts about this (similar to the way Land never criticizes ZOG), and he simply fears the fate of Navalny who not many weeks ago couldn’t even tell you what a staircase was, let alone walk up one. My point is that if his debate with Carvalho is any symptom, he’s affiliated with the corrupt plutocracy too closely to trust every word he says, whether it’s out of a calculated ketman or like I said, an existential identification with the old USSR which leads him to apologize for it. I said that his debate with Carvalho is some of the most state of the art political philosophy I know of- it’s our task to develop an even more refined awareness than that.