Archive for March, 2016


The most recent terrorist attack in Belgium left more than 30 people dead and almost a hundred wounded after multiple explosions at the Brussels international airport and metro subway station. This tragic event happened some days after Belgium officially recognized the State of Palestine. In this connection, critical observers have unanimously opined that it was another  false flag after Daesh/ISIS/ISIL immediately claimed responsibility.  Relative to this event is a warning issued by Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu: If you recognize the State of Palestine, you will suffer serious consequences. Besides, we all know that Daesh/ISIS/ISIL is a western-imperialist creation supported by US, Israel, Turkey, Saudi and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These are the “puppeteers” who supply Daesh/ISIS/ISIL  with munitions and manage their logistics and finances as well.

It was a false flag–no more, no less. Western European countries and their leaderships have been “tragically” and consistently subjected into  a dilemma which in reality is “self-negating” (for a lack of more appropriate term at this point in time). The Belgian government didn’t actually “operationalize” this false flag attack (as the French government didn’t likewise do some months ago). However, the government knew it very well beforehand because of so many warnings and circumstantial analyses on the impending risk of a massive “terrorist attack”. But in every instance of similar nature, the more powerful forces in control of all these systemic activities demand that the government ought to stand helplessly on the sidewalk and do nothing while destruction is heinously perpetrated on its people.

The most recent terrorist attack in Belgium and those that already happened in the most recent past as well as those that we expect to happen sooner or later in major cities of Western Europe are all parts and parcels of a grand global scheme to weaken the political substructure of Europe with the objective of perpetuating its subservience to US hegemony. With this in mind, it is subsumed that the US will continue to maintain its vantage point over Europe and hence impose its political will over the continent through the instrumentalities of the NATO. These terrorist activities have been perpetrated in preparation for the inauguration of the “Greater Israel Project” which will include Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iraq.

It is also a well-known fact that Russia is operating in aid of the said disadvantaged Middle Eastern countries. Breaking and weakening the political will of European countries and in the process increasing the control of US hegemony over Europe through the NATO will dissipate all possibilities of getting Europe into closer ties with Russia. In the present European political scenario, the major modus operandi is the sustained demonization of Russia. The whole geopolitical state of affairs reveals the fact that the US is right now “between a rock and a hard place”: The task to “possibilize” the “Greater Israel Project” on the one hand and to put an impenetrable barrier between Europe and Russia on the other.

On the issue of a European country’s act of recognizing the State of Palestine, it is actually the majority of the people who want it and such is passed through their representations in the parliament. While such a demand is voiced out in the hall of the parliament, the executive leaders are however placed in a very uncomfortable situation. But majority pressure pushes them to such a demand and hence gets them into a “no-alternative point” wherein they have to issue an official recognition of the State of Palestine. This is where the dilemma becomes real as far as the executive leaders are concerned: On the one hand is the Zionist pressure while on the other is the citizens’ demand.

In the final analysis, we get to the point of identifying now the ultimate and absolute puppeteers in this whole state of affairs and they are not really the US imperialists but rather the Zionist Israelis operating in the US and Israel–the powers in control of the global banking system and big business enterprises in the Western world and in those countries where the Western powers exercise their omnipotent clout.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 24 March 2016

Read Full Post »

new historicism

To understand “anti-historicism” and “new historicism”, it is first and foremost a pre-requisite to understand fully well what “historicism” is whose most prominent theorists are Hegel and Marx.

Hegel’s historicism is fundamentally grounded on Reason. It affirms to us  the basic  element of reality called “The Real” which is the universal essence that guides the material process of world history to go through  a periodization that generally began from the physical phase to the biological phase until reaching the point of the human phase. At the human phase of development, social progress has gone through the evolutionary process that has passed from ancient tyranny toward freedom where Universal Reason ultimately becomes the dominant factor. The whole principle constitutes Hegel’s doctrine of Dialectical Idealism whose thesis is Reason which afterwards primes the anti-thesis of Material History and in the end creates the synthesis of the triumph of Universal Reason. In simple terms, Hegel’s historicism gives us the notion that human history is a guided one on a pre-determined trajectory. The Universal Reason is the guiding principle that brings humanity from one historical phase to the next until history ends with all social contradictions finally resolved in human history.

Marx’s historicism is the diametrical opposite of Hegel’s for it begins with the thesis of humanity’s material experience of the world which is basically grounded on economics or the production of material wealth. Such thesis brings forth the anti-thesis which constitutes the formulation of practicable theories and the perfection of reason-based principles. This dialectical trajectory leads to the synthesis where such theories and principles lead to the enhancement/enrichment of human experience in the material components that drive history towards a classless society. Marx’s historicism which is known as Dialectical Materialism is the dynamics that spark the mechanics of his Historical Materialism.

In New Historicism, there is no such thing as universal human essence (which is Universal Reason in Hegel and Economic Determinism in Marx) that guides the historical trajectory of human affairs in society. Neither is there a principle of absolute objectivity that gives us a general understanding of human states of affairs irrespective of socio-cultural context which in the process undermines both subjective and intersubjective realities.  In this sense, New Historicism is also known as Anti-Historicism.

New Historicism applied in literary criticism is based on the notion that the study and interpretation of literature are contextually dependent on the historical contexts of both the author and the critic. Foucault’s influence in New Historicism is seen in his acknowledgment of the fact that a literary work is not only influenced by the author’s cultural apparatus and personal circumstances within the context of her/his time but also the critic’s critique of such a literary work which is likewise influenced by her/his milieu, belief system and prejudices.

In New Historicism, a literary work is analyzed and evaluated in the writer’s cultural context. In this sense, an in-depth study of a literary work opens up a cultural landscape that reveals in the process power structures in social classes, both mainstream and marginalized. Digging deeper into the essence of the literary work under study–which Foucault symbolically described as an “archeological task”–brings us to its historical mooring that further enriches the text which in turn likewise enriches history.


Read Full Post »