Relotius, meanwhile, has "gone underground," according to the Guardian, returning several
awards for his work while being stripped of others, such as CNN's two Journalist of the Year
awards. A German publication also stripped the journalist of a similar accolade.
At least 14 articles by Relotius for Der Spiegel were falsified , according to Steffen
Klusmann, its editor-in-chief. They include an award-winning piece about a Syrian boy called
Mouwiya who believed his anti-government graffiti had triggered the civil war. Relotius
alleged he had interviewed the boy via WhatsApp .
The magazine – a prestigious weekly – is investigating if the interview took
place and whether the boy exists. Relotius won his fourth German reporter prize this month
with a story headlined "Child's Play".
Klusmann admitted the publication still had no idea how many articles were affected. On
Thursday it was revealed that parts of an interview with a 95-year-old Nazi resistance
fighter in the US were fabricated. -
The Guardian
According to Relotius' Der Spiegel colleague Juan Moreno - who busted Relotius after
conducting his own research after his bosses failed to listen to his doubts , released a video
in which he attempted to describe how Relotius got away with his fabrications.
"He was the superstar of German journalism if one's honest, and if his stories had been
true, that would have been fully justified to say so, but they were not," said Moreno. "At the
start it was the small mistakes, things that seemed too hard to believe that made me
suspicious."
In addition to having several awards stripped from him, the 33-year-old Relotius now faces
embezzlement charges for allegedly soliciting donations for Syrian orphans from readers "with
any proceeds going to his personal account," according to the BBC . On Thursday, Relotius denied the
accusations.
" ....The oligarchs have been destroyed in the early 00s: Gusinsky (the media oligarch),
Berezovsky (the political broker oligarch), Khodorkovsky (the oil oligarch). These people
were real oligarchs, i.e. they were using their wealth to control political processes
through black media propaganda, having their own MPs/Ministers/Governors, etc..." @85
I'm inclined to agree. And this is why there is so much anger against Putin, in
particular, in the 'west': the Russian oligarchs wield enormous power through the media
which is at the service of anyone with money. Bill Browder being a prime example.
The oligarchs were the tools that the City of London and Wall St employed to plunder
Russia's socialised wealth and resources.
The hate campaign against Putin, who is in many ways a very conservative economist pursuing
the sort of neo-liberal policies that capitalist financiers approve of, is inexplicable
unless we understand that the end game is a return to the looting that took place under the
Empire's anointed, Boris Yeltsin.
I don't understand the people here who write that VVPutin is in thrall to the Zionists,
the Oligarchs, or that he's lining his own pocket etc etc. IMHO his strategy has always been
clear and direct, since the beginning. He values first of all stability - time for Russia to
rebuild herself. Secondly, he performs a clever balancing act between the competing centres
of power in Russia.
His mistake, however, when he became president, was to believe quite sincerely that the
West - and particularly Washington (the important one) - shared a desire for peaceful
partnership with Russia. Doubts emerged in 2011 - he realised that he was being played - and
the doubts became certainties in 2014, since when some fairly radical reorganisations has
been taking place. Russia is - again, IMHO - now ready to take its real place in the
international order.
I take great pleasure in reading and listening to his - and Sergei Lavrov's - words, at
the same time regretting the low standard of our own representatives.
Many thanks to b and all of you who continue always to inform me and sometimes enchant
me.
While not specifically labeled, this look like an open thread. So....
The French MSM (and the BBC) are doing the usual underreporting of the numbers involved in
todays GJ activities. If interested, check out the RTL coverage: the "reporter" is standing
on a street that is filled shoulder to shoulder as far as the lens can see with yellow vests,
and states "there are about 50, maybe a hundred people here..."
The police concentrated their manpower around Versailles, and the GJ are everywhere but
there, so no gas, no violence. The infiltrators/casseurs didn't get the memo.
Speaking of the gas, one of the men seen bathing in the stuff these past weekends has put
out (FB? Twitter? This is being passed along from my French family members) that he has been
diagnosed with cyanide poisoning. I am not a chemist, but I don't think this is a usual
component of "tear gas ". Probably the Russians tampering with the gendarmes CS supply.
There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch
Strait was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American
neoconservative and Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian
government for the past several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own
domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that
surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a
vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.
I came to the exact same conclusion.
Putin wants to normalize relations with the west but, inexplicably, he provokes and
alienates the West just prior to every scheduled meeting with Trump. Of course, that doesn't
make any sense. These events only makes sense if the provocations are coming from agents in
the West who wish to derail any rapprochement between the US and Russia. Then it makes
sense.
If this is true (as it appears to be) one can reasonably predict that any time Trump and
Putin are about to meet, that a Skripal/Ukraine or other Russia-is-evil event will be staged
to derail the meeting.
Let's watch in 2019 and see if this prediction comes true.
If it does, we will know that someone, behind the scenes, is staging these events.
The ongoing campaign to vilify Vladimir Putin & the Russian Federation, is a
complete failure, with conservatives, evangelicals, and republicans.
I'll keep an open mind until Mueller's report is released, but Cohen's connections are
allegedly with the mainly Jewish Russian mob. It is unclear what their agenda may have been,
but Trump has been a lot nicer to Israel than to Russia.
Guardian is just a propaganda outlet. That sad fact does not exclude the possibility of publishing really good articles,
thouth. That still happens occasionally.
The fact that they follow MI6 and Foreign Office talking points in all foreign events coverage a is just a testament the GB is
a "national security state". Nothing more, nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook , Craig Murray , Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama , and many others). ..."
"... The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it. ..."
"... By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and "leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange. ..."
"... And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story. ..."
"... It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ..."
"... Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so. ..."
"... The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. ..."
"... It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution." ..."
"... The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts. ..."
"... Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts . ..."
The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke
Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency
feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with
Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to
conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking
allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well,
absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists
pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood
rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended
like they had never published it.
By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and
disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on
social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the
above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of
critical thinking), Politico posted this
ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story
was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted
by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative
fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and
"leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion
of Assange.
At this point, I imagine you're probably wondering what this has to do with manufacturing
"truth." Because, clearly, this Guardian story was a lie a lie The Guardian got
caught telling. I wish the "truth" thing was as simple as that (i.e., exposing and debunking
the ruling classes' lies). Unfortunately, it isn't. Here is why.
Much as most people would like there to be one (and behave and speak as if there were one),
there is no Transcendental Arbiter of Truth. The truth is what whoever has the power to say it
is says it is. If we do not agree that that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to
appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest
difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain
whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.
Nor are there many "truths" (i.e., your truth and my truth). There is only one "truth" the
"official truth". The "truth" according to those in power. This is the whole purpose of the concept
of truth. It is the reason the concept of "truth" was invented (i.e., to render any other
"truths" lies). It is how those in power control reality and impose their ideology on the
masses (or their employees, or their students, or their children). Yes, I know, we very badly
want there to be some "objective truth" (i.e., what actually happened, when whatever happened,
JFK, 9-11, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Schrödinger's dead cat, the Big Bang, or
whatever). There isn't. The truth is just a story a story that is never our story.
The "truth" is a story that power gets to tell, and that the powerless do not get to tell,
unless they tell the story of those in power, which is always someone else's story. The
powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative.
They either parrot the "truth" of the ruling classes or they utter heresies of one type or
another. Naturally, the powerless do not regard themselves as heretics. They do not regard
their "truth" as heresy. They regard their "truth" as the truth, which is heresy. The truth of
the powerless is always heresy.
For example, while it may be personally comforting for some of us to tell ourselves that we
know the truth about certain subjects (e.g., Russiagate, 9-11, et cetera), and to share our
knowledge with others who agree with us, and even to expose the lies of the corporate media on
Twitter, Facebook, and our blogs, or in some leftist webzine (or "fearless adversarial" outlet
bankrolled by a beneficent oligarch), the ruling classes do not give a shit, because ours is
merely the raving of heretics, and does not warrant a serious response.
Or all right, they give a bit of a shit, enough to try to cover their asses when a
journalist of the stature of Glenn Greenwald (who won a Pulitzer and is frequently on
television) very carefully and very respectfully almost directly accuses them of lying. But
they give enough of a shit to do this because Greenwald has the power to hurt them, not because
of any regard for the truth. This is also why Greenwald has to be so careful and respectful
when directly confronting The Guardian , or any other corporate media outlet, and state
that their blatantly fabricated stories could, theoretically, turn out to be true. He can't
afford to cross the line and end up getting branded a heretic and consigned to Outer Mainstream
Darkness, like Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, Jonathan Cook, John Pilger, Assange, and other such
heretics.
Look, I'm not trying to argue that it isn't important to expose the fabrications of the
corporate media and the ruling classes. It is terribly important. It is mostly what I do
(albeit usually in a more satirical fashion). At the same time, it is important to realize that
"the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off
their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the
revolution." People already know the truth the official truth, which is the only truth there
is. Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it
is safer and more rewarding to do so.
And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly
fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be
rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally
serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be
instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this
story.
As for Julian Assange, I'm afraid he is done for. The ruling classes really have no choice
but to go ahead and do him at this point. He hasn't left them any other option. Much as they
are loathe to create another martyr, they can't have heretics of Assange's notoriety running
around punching holes in their "truth" and brazenly defying their authority. That kind of stuff
unsettles the normals, and it sets a bad example for the rest of us heretics.
#
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Good piece. I think there's another layer, though.
The truth or falsehood of individual facts about the physical world can often be
determined with near-certainty. But when it comes to history, or "news" about current events/
politics, reality is much too complex to address directly. Too many individual facts to be
comprehensible, let alone useful.
We must pick, choose, emphasize, or ignore particular elements, and arrange them into some
kind of structure, in order to form a useful narrative. Or in the case of "news," the legacy
media oligarchy largely performs this function for us -- we simply passively accept/ adopt
their narrative. Or, in many cases, "choose" between the closely-related variants of that
narrative offered by the "liberal" vs. "conservative" press.
This process of abstraction, simplification, and organization inevitably involves data
loss. So no narrative is "true" in the same sense that individual facts about the real world
are true. But some narratives incorporate large amounts of "facts" that are demonstrably
false, and some are more useful/ descriptive/ predictive than others. No one engaged in this
process is "objective." They -- or we -- are all in some way part of the story. It should be
self-evident that some narratives are more useful to the perceived interests of owners of
major media outlets than others, and that these will assume a much more prominent place in
their coverage than ones that are deleterious to those interests.
Ideally, most people would take these factors into account when evaluating the "news," and
maintain a much more skeptical attitude than they typically do. But there are several factors
that prevent this.
One is simply time/ efficiency. These individual narratives, taken together, support --
and are supported by -- our overall worldview. There aren't enough hours in the day to be
constantly skeptical about everything, especially since the major tools of distortion
involved in constructing mainstream narratives tend to be selection bias/ memory-holing, with
obvious lies about known facts (like the Guardian story referenced here) used only sparingly.
It's simply not practical to to constantly consider potentially "better" narratives, and to
reevaluate one's worldview based on these.
And which narrative we believe often has more to do with perceived social pressure/ social
acceptability than with "truth." As you put it,
Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because
it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Mass media pushing a common narrative creates an artificial perception of social
consensus. Creating, or even finding, alternative narratives means fighting the inertia of
this perceived consensus, and potentially suffering social costs for believing in the "wrong"
one. The social role of narratives is largely independent of their "truth" -- if what you're
"supposed" to believe is highly implausible, that actually gives it higher value as a signal
of loyalty to the establishment.
It's probably best to maintain a resolutely agnostic attitude toward most "news" items,
unless one is particularly interested in that particular event. " Why are they pushing
this particular story?" "Why now ?" and " What are they trying to accomplish
here?" are often more useful questions than "Is it true?"
It's not a new issue -- only exacerbated by the advent of mass visual media:
"Propaganda" -- Edward Bernays (1928)
"The Free Press"– Hilaire Belloc (1918)
I get what Hopkins is trying to do here, but redefining terms (i.e., "truth") doesn't do what
he thinks it does.
The truth is not ' what most people think '; it's not ' what we are told to
believe '; it's not ' the official narrative '.
There is a useful cautionary tale embedded in Hopkins' piece, but he doesn't tease it out
properly.
Take this excerpt:
The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that
that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are
blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will
make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say
it is say it is.
With significant caveats, it is a reasonable description of the way the political world
works: if the political class decides that its interests are best served by declaring that a
specific narrative X is 'true', it will obtain immediate compliance from about half
the livestock, and can then rely on force (peer pressure; subsidy or taxation; state
coercion) to get an absolute majority of the herd to declare that they accept the 'truth' of
X .
If X is objectively false, too bad.
Try to run a legal argument based on the objective falsity of a thing that the political
class has deemed to be true: you'll be shit outta luck.
This is highly relevant where I am sitting: here are two examples – one really
obvious, one a bit less so (but far more important because of its radical implications).
Obvious Example: Drug Dogs
Recent research has shown that drug sniffing dogs give false positive signals between 60%
and 80% of the time – i.e., in terms of identifying people who are in actual
physical possession of drugs at any point in time, drug sniffing dogs perform worse than
a coin toss.
Note that this is before considering that the dog's handler is often pointing the dog at a
target that the handler thinks is likely to be carrying drugs. (Although in reality, drug
dogs are paraded around at concerts and in public spaces, sniffing every passer-by).
However there is an Act of Parliament (capitalise all the magic words) that asserts that a
signal from a drug sniffing dog is sufficient to qualify as what Americans call "probable
cause" – i.e., reasonable suspicion for a search.
Does anyone think that evidence should be admissible if it results from a search conducted
based on 'probable cause' derived from a method that produces worse outcomes than tossing a
coin?
Judges will tie themselves into absolute epistemological knots to get that evidence
admitted – and they will refuse to permit defence Counsel from adducing evidence about
drug dog inaccuracy because since the defendant actually did have drugs in their
possession, the dog didn't signal falsely.
In other words, the judge conflates posterior probability with prior
probability; the prior probability that the dog is correct, is 10%-40%; this should not
suffice to generate probable cause (or 'reasonable suspicion).
More Interesting Example: 'Representative' Democracy
In general, Western governments assert that their legitimacy stems from two primary
sources: some founding set of principles (usually a constitution – written or
otherwise), and 'representativeness' (including ratification of the constitution by a
representative mechanism, for those places with written foundational documents).
The Arrow Impossibility Theorem [1,2] and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem
[3,4], both show that there is no way of accurately determining group preferences using an
ordinal voting mechanism.
What this boils down to, is that representativeness is a lie – and it's a lie before
any consideration of voting outcomes ; it's a meta -problem (the problem that
ordinal voting cannot do what it is claimed to do – viz ., accurately identify
the 'will of the people'/'social preferences'/'what the people want').
Beyond the meta-problem, there is also the actual counting problem: no government has ever
been elected having obtained the votes of an outright bare majority, i.e., 50%-plus-1
of the entire eligible franchise. (It's more like 25-35% for most parliamentary systems
– for US presidential elections in the full-franchise period, the winner is voted for
by 29% of the eligible population; you would be horrified to look at US Senate
results).
So when the new unhappy lords (and their Little Eichmann bureaucrat enablers)
promulgate laws based on assertions of legitimacy because of a constitutional
Grundnorm and/or the representative nature of government both of those things are
pretty obvious furphies; they are objectively not 'truth' and no amount of heel-clicking and
wishing will make it so.
Which brings us to a key legal aphorism that has a jurisprudential history going back four
centuries: Ratio legis est anima legis, et mutata legis ratione, mutatur ex lex
– which dates from Milborn's case ( Coke 7a KB [1609]).
The reason for a law is the soul of the law, and if the reason for a law has changed,
the law is changed .
What this means – explicitly – is that " no law can survive the
[extinction of the] reasons on which it is founded ".
American courts re-expressed this as " cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex "
(the reason for a law having ceased, the law itself ceases) – e.g., in Funk v. United
States , 290 US 371 (1933) in which Justice Sutherland opined –
This means that no law can survive the reasons on which it is founded. It needs no
statute to change it; it abrogates itself . If the reasons on which a law rests are
overborne by opposing reasons, which in the progress of society gain a controlling force,
the old law, though still good as an abstract principle, and good in its application to
some circumstances, must cease to apply as a controlling principle to the new
circumstances.
(Emphasis mine)
Again: try running this argument in a court: " The asserted basis for all laws
promulgated by the government, is provably false. Under a doctrine with a 4-century
jurisprudential provenance, the law itself is void ."
See how far you get.
So Hopkins makes a good-but-obvious point – power does not respect either rights
or truth; as such it does you no good whatsoever to have the actual truth on your side.
He should have made the point better.
C J Hopkins, despite some good quotes and insights above, regrettably falls into the trap of
peddling Derrida-tier relativistic nonsense, playing a word game about 'truth', as if 'truth'
was not real merely because most people have strong incentives to avoid being devoted to it
Where you stand depends upon where you sit, etc., Karl Marx's dictums about economic and
power positions shaping consciousness, and of course the century-old classic:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
understanding it.
from Upton Sinclair (1878-1968). Hopkins more or less repeats Sinclair when he says
Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are
deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Despite selling-out truth to the relativism devil in some passages, Hopkins nevertheless
creates some quotable, including the particularly insightful:
The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third
alternative.
The following notion of Hopkins is seen now and then in the alt-sphere, but always bears
repeating
It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their
slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake
up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution."
Iron and blood are the tools used to force people to accept what isn't true.
(Another way to tell: it was uttered by a fucking politician – a cunt who wanted to
live in palaces paid for by the sweat of other people's brows).
Truth does not need violence to propagate itself: in a completely-peaceful system of free
exchange, bad ideas (of which lies are a subset) will get driven out of the market place
because they will fail to conform to ground truth.
Falsehood requires violence (arguably it is a form of violence: fraud is 'violent'
because it causes its victims to misallocate their resources or to deform their preferences
and expectations).
In a very real sense, truth does not need friends: all it requires is an absence of
powerful enemies.
The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11
or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we
have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts.
But we CAN know the truth about our own situation, our own neighborhood, and our own
families. The current riots in France are a concrete ASSERTION of local truth against the
blatant and condescending official lies. The majority of France is getting poorer and
suffering more from migrant crime. Macron insists that starvation is necessary to serve Gaia,
and crime is necessary to serve Juncker. The people would prefer to have a leader that serves
France.
@FB Scientific truth
is limited by two factors – assumptions, and hidden variables. For example,
we might drop a brick in a vacuum and believe that it falls at 9.8 m/s squared. Here, we make
the assumption that the force of gravity is constant. And for most of history we were unaware
of the hidden variable of relativity to the speed of light.
So, assuming (LOL) that we are able to eliminate all assumptions and account for all
hidden variables, there is a scientific truth. That is ASSUMING we are not just a simulation
in someone elses computer!
Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on.
Here is where the trouble starts .
@The scalpel LOL and
then there is the 'observer effect' also especially in good old quantum mechanics in the end
scientific truth does boil down to what 'some can agree on'
@Kratoklastes Strength
is the production of force over distance. That is to say, force is a quantifiable, physical
phenomenon that, deconstruct it as much as you want, will hit you like a tsunami whether you
believe it or not.
Force only works because there is a real world that transcends philosophical bullshit and
marketing.
The subjective piece is will: victory is attained when the enemies will to resist is
crushed. Through the repeated use of physical force, eventually any enemy can be worn down
and vanquished.
The world is finite, desire is infinite, and for every desire and appetite, there is a
will. As multiple wills will that they attain their infinite desires in a finite world, there
will always be a conflict of will, which will always ultimately be resolved by force. Which
means ultimately, despite the rich imaginations and appetites of humans, and their related
striving, physical force will ultimately rule the day, and conquer, condition, and constrain
the mental life of mankind.
Of course, desire and appetite will not take no for an answer, and in their frustration,
they will imagine, fantasize, and conceptualize rationales for why this is not so. This is
the nature of our desires, and in good times of prosperity and peace, they may even bend our
reason in the direction of these appetites and fantasies, until the instincts for self
preservation and endurance rust, and are even forgotten. But like the moon revealed by a
passing cloud, the perpetual war of human existence will inevitably reassert itself, and
those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream
when they should have been preparing.
After reading the article and the aggregate comments, I am strengthened in my belief that
the physics analogy of Schrödinger's cat is among the most useful (and
notwithstanding the otherwise valid criticism of it in the comments). In the same way that
the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, does not purport to define a given word,
per se , but rather gives a detailed description of how the word has in fact been used
over the years and centuries.
I refer to my version of Schrödinger's cat as counter-sense words or
oscillating-contradictions .
Oscillating contradictions and cogno-linguistic manipulation
The primary means by which corporate supremacy, for example, is achieved and maintained in
practice is via the maintenance and use of a small arsenal of about two dozen critical
counter-sense or yo-yo -like words/terms that are asserted or claimed to mean
either "X" or "Minus-X" at the option of the decision-maker.
Among the most important and sui generis (in a class of its own) is the word
person which is held to mean a living, breathing being of conscience (literally
a being of equity) with the rights, powers and privileges of such being ("X"), or else it can
mean a corporate entity which is a notional/inanimate item of property to be bought
and sold and otherwise traded for profit in the stock and financial markets ("Minus-X").
By way of example/demonstration of the ongoing cognitive manipulation process, if someone
had managed to hit the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court with a blast of truth-ray just
before they announced their decision in Citizens United, here is what we may have got
instead:
[MORE]
We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as
an arm of the entrenched-money-power.
At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over
you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and
privileges of a natural person or living being of conscience.
At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the
masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and
traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.
Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to
receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you
one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question
from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game
is over.
Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized delusion that the same
concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being of conscience), or minus-X
(an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decider.
So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights,
powers and privileges of a natural person, except when it isn't. We'll let you know next
time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.
Essentially all counter-sense words/terms follow that same template .
Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually
exclusive , the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined
financial-world/social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both , and
we'll let you know if and when it becomes important.
So a corporate person has a right of free speech when giving money to
influence political parties, but not to object to itself being sold as a piece of property in
the stock and financial markets or when it is acquired in a merger or takeover financed by
its own assets. If a corporation has the legal capacity and rights of a natural person, then
how can it be owned as the legal property of another? The purpose of the Courts is to ensure
that that question is never presented in that way.
After person , the remaining most significant counter-sense or yo-yo
-like words are (surprise surprise) essentially all money-and-finance-based, and the most
important among these is the word principal and its role in facilitating illegal
front-loading or ex-temporal fraud (interest illegally and unlawfully compounded in
advance).
Is the amount of principal the actual or net amount advanced by the creditor and
received by the debtor for their own use and control?
Or is it the amount that the debtor agrees that they owe regardless of the amount
received?
Is the amount of principal a question of fact ? Or of the agreement of
parties ?
[Here is the premise / offer that is referenced immediately below:]
Lender (e.g., typical second-mortgage lender): "I will loan you $10,000 at 20%
per annum provided that you sign and give to me a marketable security that claims or
otherwise purports to evidence that I have loaned you $15,000 at 10% per annum, plus an
undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement and cheque (check) back to me for a bonus or
loan fee of $5,000 as a payment from the nominal proceeds."
In the process example used above, what is the principal amount of the loan? Is it
$10,000 because that is the factual net amount invested by the creditor and received by the
debtor for their own use? Or is it $15,000 because that is the amount that the debtor is
required to falsely agree that they have received and owe as a condition of the loan? Or is
it $20,000 because that is the total cash-equivalent/money assets ($15,000 mortgage + $5,000
cheque) that the debtor has to give to the creditor?
Is it a noun/fact ? Or is it an adjective/opinion merely pretending to be a
noun? All debt and therefore money in the world today depends on the answer to that question
that theoretically cannot exist.
Principal is a special type (and most significant form) of counter-sense
word or oscillating contradiction where dictionaries normally only give one sense,
while commercial practice defines the contrary. It would be very difficult to put the
Whatever-the-debtor-agrees-that-they-owe sense into a dictionary, because the fraud against
meaning (as well as the criminal law) is manifest in spelling it out, and ever more so in
more specialized financial dictionaries.
So virtually every legal, financial, accounting, and ordinary English dictionary and/or
regulation defines it to the effect "The actual amount invested, loaned or advanced to the
debtor/borrower net of any interest, discount, premium or fees", while virtually every
financial security in the real world at least implicitly incorporates the fraudulent
alternative/contrary meaning.
This in turn allows the academic world to function on the rational/factual
definition, while the markets maintain a wholly contradictory deemed or pretended
reality, while both remain oblivious to the contradiction.
Thus principal means the nominal creditor's actual and net investment, unless it
doesn't .
With this class of counter-sense word where there is a necessary and definitive
answer, the real job of the judges of the Courts becomes to make certain that the question is
never officially asked, and under no circumstances is it to be definitively answered.
With just one of these words you can theoretically steal the Earth . With a
financial system that is relatively saturated with them, such becomes child's play .
With these rules a group of competently-trained chimpanzees otherwise pulling
levers at random could do as well as the so-called wizards of Wall Street .
And significantly, these oscillating contradictions enable the judges to be self-righteous
in the extreme on behalf of the entrenched-money-power, while looting the little
people of the product of their labour.
As in: You have received the principal amount ($10,000) and you are going to pay
back the principal amount ($15,000) plus the ever-accumulating (and super-leveraged)
interest upon it according to your contract, while the meaning of the word oscillates
between fact and opinion – between a noun and an adjective
– according to what the judge needs it to mean (or accommodate) at any given instant in
time.
It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated
simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything
.
A partial list of the most critical oscillating-contradicitions includes: loan, credit,
discount, interest, rate-of-interest, agreement, contract, security, repay, restitution,
etc., all of which mean either "X" or its conceptual opposite "Minus-X" at the option of the
entrenched-money-power whose vast financial fortunes are founded on such cogno-linguistic
arbitrage .
Here are what I believe to be four essential tools needed to triangulate
reality via congo-linguistic parallax . The first two are mine, and the last two
are from the American and English Courts, respectively.
1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic . We perceive reality very largely as a
function of the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone inherently believes
and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it.
The greater reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you
have to have the words and language by which to say something before you can think
it .
2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely
believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the
entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty
mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional schizophrenics
who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who
communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things. They suffer a
cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity that renders them incapable of
perceiving reality beyond labels .
3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion
:
"A "systematized delusion" is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process
of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other
aberrations of the mind converge." Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243.
(West's Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).
4.
One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the
means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L.
I have long since abandoned my search for truth, per se, since I came to realize that the
best I can ever do is to constantly strive to move closer to it. With apologies to the
physicists, Truth is the Limit of Infinite Good Faith .
@Tulip " which will
always ultimately be resolved by force."
Right there is where you lost the plot. That statement is just your opinion and it cannot
be proven true. The rest of your argument falls victim to this logical error.
" and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to
daydream when they should have been preparing."
Also, just your opinion. For example, the "dreamer" might die still comforted by his/her
dreams, while the "prepper" might waste his life witing for the "inevitable' that never
arrives.
In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11
truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to
a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade
Centers.
The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal
government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive
evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World
Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).
After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that
they will comply with the law.
Some good documentary films here to watch for free:
My question/quibble relates to your objection to the use of sniffer dogs to establish
probable cause for search because it is no better than a coin toss. That seems fallacious
if, according to your figures, the dogs sniff 500 people and get excited by 10 of them of
which 3 are correctly identified and 7 are false positives.
Yeah. The concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative
predictive value might be very helpful in assessing this.
"... The reality of the last two hundred years of the history of the history of Western Civilization, including the history of our own country, is not reflected in the general brainwashing you have received, in the political mythology you have been hearing, or in the historiography of the period as it exists today. ..."
These quotations excerpted below are all taken from
Public Authority and the State in the Western Tradition
by Carroll Quigley.
It was the three part Oscar Iden Lecture at Georgetown University in 1978, a few months
before he died.
Quigley is perhaps most well known for being the author of
Tragedy and Hope
.
Later this week I intend to publish a very nice essay and summary of these thoughts in
this last lecture by Christopher Quigley.
Needless to say I do not necessarily agree with everything that Professor Quigley states
in his writings. But I do find them extraordinarily well informed and interesting. Given
that they were written in the 1970s his forecasting, although not perfect, was quite
prescient.
He does state that after Nixon it is unlikely that another President will be impeached,
because of the manner in which the impeachment process has become 'lawyerized.' How ironic
then that we have seen the impeachment of William J. Clinton, who himself was a student of
Quigley and who publicly thanked and acknowledged him as a mentor.
"And since what we get in history is never what any one individual or group is
struggling for, but is the resultant of diverse groups struggling, the area of
political action will be increasingly reduced to an arena where the individual,
detached from any sustaining community, is faced by gigantic and irresponsible
corporations."
Prof Carroll Quigley,
Part 1 The State of Communities
, Georgetown University
1978
"The reality of the last two hundred years of the history of the history of Western
Civilization, including the history of our own country, is not reflected in the general
brainwashing you have received, in the political mythology you have been hearing, or in
the historiography of the period as it exists today.
Persons, personalities if you wish, can be made only in communities. A community is
made up of intimate relationships among diverse types of individuals--a kinship group,
a local group, a neighbourhood, a village, a large family. Without communities, no
infant will be sufficiently socialized. He may grow up to be forty years old, he may
have made an extremely good living, he may have engendered half a dozen children, but
he is still an infant unless he has been properly socialized and that occurs in the
first four or five years of life. In our society today, we have attempted to throw the
whole burden of socializing out population upon the school system, to which the
individual arrives only at the age of four or five.
Human needs are the basis of power. The state, as I said, is a power structure on a
territorial basis, and the state will survive only if it has sufficient ability to
satisfy enough of these needs. It is not enough for it to have organized force, and
when a politician says, "Elect me President and I will establish law and order," he
means organized force or power of other kinds. I won't analyze this level; it's too
complex and we don't have time. I will simply say that the object of the political
level is to legitimise power: that is, to get people, in their minds, to recognize and
accept the actual power relationship in their society.
We no longer have intellectually satisfying arrangements in our educational system, in
our arts, humanities or anything else; instead we have slogans and ideologies. An
ideology is a religious or emotional expression; it is not an intellectual expression.
So when a society is reaching its end, in the last couple of centuries you have what I
call misplacement of satisfactions. You find your emotional satisfaction in making a
lot of money, or in being elected to the White House in 1972, or in proving to the
poor, half-naked people of Southeast Asia that you can kill them in large numbers.
And then, as the society continues and does not reform, you get increased
militarisation. You can certainly see that process in Western Civilization and in the
history of the United States. In the last forty years our society has been drastically
militarized. It isn't yet as militarized as other societies and other periods have
been; we still have a long way to go in this direction. Our civilization has a couple
of centuries to go, I would guess. Things are moving faster than they did in any
civilization I ever knew before this one, but we probably will have another century or
two.
As this process goes on, you get certain other things. I've hinted at a number of them.
One is misplacement of satisfactions. You find your satisfactions--your emotional
satisfaction, your social satisfaction-- not in moment to moment relationships with
nature or other people, but with power, or with wealth, or even with organized
force--sadism, in some cases: Go out and murder a lot of people in a war, a just war,
naturally.
The second thing that occurs as this goes on is increasing remoteness of desires from
needs. I've mentioned this. The next thing is an increasing confusion between means and
ends. The ends are the human needs, but if I asked people what these needs are, they
can hardly tell me. Instead they want the means they have been brainwashed to accept,
that they think will satisfy their needs. But it's perfectly obvious that the methods
that we have been using are not working. Never was any society
in human history as rich and as powerful as Western Civilization and the United States,
and it is not a happy society.
In its final stages, the civilization becomes a dualism of almost totalitarian imperial
power and an amorphous mass culture of atomized individuals.
Freedom is freedom from restraints. We're always under restraints. The difference
between a stable society and an unstable one is that the restraints in an unstable one
are external. In a stable society, government ultimately becomes unnecessary ; the
restraints on people's actions are internal, there're self disciplined, they are the
restraints you have accepted because they make it possible for you to satisfy all your
needs to the degree that is good for you.
Communities and societies must rest upon cooperation and not on competition. Anyone who
says that society can be run on the basis of everyone's trying to maximise his own
greed is talking total nonsense. All the history of human society shows that it's
nonsense. And to teach it in schools, and to go on television and call it the
American way of life still doesn't make it true. Competition and envy cannot become the
basis of any society or any community.
The fundamental, all pervasive cause of world instability today is the destruction of
communities by the commercialisation of all human relationships and the resulting
neuroses and psychoses. The technological acceleration of transportation, communication
and weapons systems is now creating power areas wider than existing political
structures. We still have at least half a dozen political structures in Europe, but our
technology and the power system of Western Civilization today are such that most of
Europe should be a single power system. This creates instability.
Another cause of today's instability is that we now have a society in America, Europe
and much of the world which is totally dominated by the two elements of sovereignty
that are not included in the state structure: control of credit and banking and the
corporation. These are free of political controls and social responsibility, and they
have largely monopolized power in Western Civilization and in American society.
They are ruthlessly going forward to eliminate land, labour, entrepreneurial-managerial
skills, and everything else the economists once told us were the chief elements of
production. The only element of production they are concerned with is the one they can
control:
capital.
So now everything is capital intensive, including medicine, and it hasn't worked. ['financialised'
is a more current term - J.]
Secrecy in government exists for only one reason: to prevent the American people from
knowing what's going on. It is nonsense to believe that anything our government does is
not known to the Russians at about the moment it happens.
To me, the most ominous flaw in our constitutional set-up is the fact that the federal
government does not have control over of money and credit and does not have control of
corporations. It is therefore not really sovereign. And it is not really responsible,
because it is now controlled by these two groups, corporations, and those who control
the flows of money.
The administrative system and elections are dominated today by the private power of
money flows and corporation activities.
Certain thin regulations were established in the United States regarding corporations:
restricted purpose and activities especially by banks and insurance companies;
prohibition on one corporation's holding the stock of another without specific
statutory grant; limits on the span of the life of the corporation, requiring recurrent
legislative scrutiny; limits on total assets; limits on new issues of capital, so that
the proportion of control of existing stockholders could be maintained; limits on the
votes allowed to any stockholder, regardless of the size of his holding; and so forth.
By 1890 all of these had been destroyed by judicial interpretation which extended to
corporations -- fictitious persons -- those constitutional rights guaranteed, especially by
the Fifteenth Amendment, to living persons.
Now I want to say good night. Do not be pessimistic. Life goes on; life is fun. And if
a civilization crashes, it deserves to. When Rome fell, the Christian answer was,
'Create our own communities.'"
Prof Carroll Quigley,
The State of Individuals
, Georgetown University 1978
Nobody would dispute the fact that sanctification of truth is an essential foundation for
a free society. The full extent of perversion and depravity of psychopaths in power is held
in check to some extent by their need to pay lip service to civility and rule of law in the
public eye -- until **** hits the fan. The full extent of pathocracy is about to become
obvious in the Reset. It's going to stun the general public.
I don't know if there is a general formula for describing this, but in my experience,
organizations with psychopaths at the top tend to disintegrate on their own, but they do one
hell of a lot of damage on the way down, since the psychopaths never cede their power and
make moral decisions willingly. Things are essentially guaranteed to get worse as long as
they retain power. It's hard to imagine any remedy to this situation that doesn't involve
some kind of violence, starting of course with manipulation of different groups on the
street. The trouble with any scenario fitting the description of Civil War is that it tends
to center around proxy groups, while those ultimately responsible get away.
We have anecdotes about 'white hat' groups like the so-called White Dragons. They, like the
CIA, appear to operate in the shadows. Do they really exist, and are they really working to
make a positive difference? Will we know them by their works?
I have no faith in Trump as some kind of solo superhero, because thus far all the talk
about him appears to have been nothing but wishful thinking. The man seems like a human
pinball, utterly inconsistent and unpredictable. That's helpful in some ways, not in others.
Something else needs to happen / someone else needs to rise in the role of a statesman and
genuine, meaningful reformer.
"... It's not what aboutism it's called having consistency and principles. It's like Jack the Ripper calling Ted Kennedy a murderer. It matters if both sides are doing deals with Russia and only one has proved collusion with Russia government officials ..."
"... Your new Mcarthyism isn't working but nice try since it's all you have to offer ..."
"... Whataboutism is a call out for hypocrisy. It wasn't invented by the Russians. It was in use by a carpenter over two-thousand years ago: "Why do you call out for a dust mote in my eye when there is a log in yours?" ..."
"... Nothing new under the sun. ..."
"... Kind of like What about Russian interference in our Elections? Whatabout that, as a clear and dangerous deflection from Hillary taking blame for her incompetent and corrupt 2016 campaigns? ..."
"What about Clinton?" is an example of Whataboutism, which is a classic Russian propaganda technique used to divert attention
away from the relevant subject, statement, argument, etc at hand with an accusation of hypocrisy.
It takes the form, "What about _______?"
Whataboutism is a type of psychological projection. It uses blame shifting to attribute wrong doing or some character defect
to someone else with a goal of sabotaging the conversation by steering the speaker to become defensive.
On the playground, the kids call it "I know you are, but what am I?"
I have no idea whether any of this Russiagate stuff is real. We have seen no evidence, so I remain skeptical until someone
shows actual evidence of Trump-Putin collusion.
However, I do know where Donald Trump got a bunch of his money, and where he and his followers got Whataboutism.
Shouldn't that be "A Guide to Ukrainian Propaganda"?
Gregory Herr , August 14, 2018 at 9:20 pm
It seems to me that jean agreed with your characterisation of Trump and in no way was trying to sabotage the conversation.
jean referenced some facts about characters relevant to the broader topic.
I would contend that every time I've heard the cry of "well, that's just whataboutism", the purpose of that claim has been
to avoid addressing the points made–thus sabotaging further engagement or conversation.
So now, after all this time, you still "have no idea" whether Russiagate nonsense is real–what a fine fence-straddler you are.
And then to suggest that "whataboutism" is made in Russia and slyly connect that to "Trump and his followers" -- well, you just
lost me brother.
It's not what aboutism it's called having consistency and principles. It's like Jack the Ripper calling Ted Kennedy a murderer.
It matters if both sides are doing deals with Russia and only one has proved collusion with Russia government officials
That would be Hillary
I understand why you would want to deflect from that but it won't change the facts
Your new Mcarthyism isn't working but nice try since it's all you have to offer
zendeviant , August 15, 2018 at 5:30 am
Whataboutism is a call out for hypocrisy. It wasn't invented by the Russians. It was in use by a carpenter over two-thousand
years ago: "Why do you call out for a dust mote in my eye when there is a log in yours?"
Nothing new under the sun.
michael , August 15, 2018 at 5:33 am
Kind of like What about Russian interference in our Elections? Whatabout that, as a clear and dangerous deflection from
Hillary taking blame for her incompetent and corrupt 2016 campaigns?
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 6:38 am
and her incompetent and corrupt tenure as secretary of state which gave so many people a really good idea of what her presidency
would look like.
Nop , August 15, 2018 at 10:06 pm
The accusation "whataboutism" just a childish way of trying to deny the point of view of rival interests. Like plugging your
ears and chanting "la la la".
Crimea was a variation of Kosovo. As the USA destroyed post WWII order, as its position weakens, real chaos can occurs. because
Might is right can work not only for the USA anymore. And in this theater the USA has no advantages, other then their geopolitical weight.
It is too fat from US mainland.
The USA speed up events probably by 20 years or so and coursed considerable suffering of the Ukrainian population. Ukraine was gradually
detaching itself from Russia anyway (which is a natural process for any xUSSR republic after the independence.). Essentially the USA
raped the Ukraine using Ukrainian nationalist as a fifth column of neoliberal globalization.
The net result of the premature and by-and-large successful attempt to break Ukraine from Russia and play Baltic's scenario (which
was possible due to existence of Western Ukrainian nationalists) was drastic impoverishing (already very poor after chaos and
neoliberal economic plunder of 1990th) of the bottom 99% of Ukrainian population which now is the poorest population of Europe.
Ukrainian nationalists now are finding the hard way that bordering with Russia created some problems for their agenda... The
good analogy is Canada and the USA.
In a way, incorporation of Western Ukraine into the USSR looks now like Stalin's geopolitical mistake. Now attempts to colonize
Eastern Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists will face resistance and it already led to civil war in Donbass.
Things became way too complex and unpredictable in this region. Of course, neocons still are pushing their usual might is
right policy, not they might face considerable setbacks in the future. Like they did in Iraq. Which still did not affect much
their paychecks.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian warships fired at the Ukrainian vessels and rammed the tug. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded, and 24 crew taken into custody. Russia's refusal to release the sailors was given by President Trump as the reason for canceling his Putin meeting. Moscow contends that Ukraine deliberately violated the new rules of transit that Kiev had previously observed, to create an incident. ..."
"... For his part, Putin has sought to play the matter down, calling it a "border incident, nothing more." "The incident in the Black Sea was a provocation organized by the authorities and maybe the president himself. (Poroshenko's) rating is falling so he needed to do something." Maxim Eristavi, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, seems to concur: "Poroshenko wants to get a head start in his election campaign. He is playing the card of commander in chief, flying around in military uniform, trying to project that he is in control." ..."
"... Predictably, our interventionists decried Russian "aggression" and demanded we back up our Ukrainian "ally" and send military aid. Why was Poroshenko's ordering of gunboats into the Sea of Azov, while ignoring rules Russia set down for passage, provocative? Because Poroshenko, whose warships had previously transited the strait, had to know the risk that he was taking and that Russia might resist. ..."
"... Why would he provoke the Russians? Because, with his poll numbers sinking badly, Poroshenko realizes that unless he does something dramatic, his party stands little chance in next March's elections. ..."
"... Some Westerners want even more in the way of confronting Putin. Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council urges us to build up U.S. naval forces in the Black Sea, send anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, ratchet up sanctions on Russia, threaten to expel her from the SWIFT system of international bank transactions, and pressure Europe to cancel the Russians' Nord Stream 2 and South Stream oil pipelines into Europe. ..."
"... If Ukraine had a right to break free of Russia in 1991, why do not Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to break free of Kiev? ..."
On departure for the G-20 gathering in Buenos Aires, President Donald Trump canceled his planned weekend meeting with Vladimir
Putin, citing as his reason the Russian military's seizure and holding of three Ukrainian ships and 24 sailors.
But was Putin really the provocateur in Sunday's naval clash outside Kerch Strait, the Black Sea gateway to the Sea of Azov?
Or was the provocateur Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko?
First, a bit of history.
In 2014, after the pro-Russian regime in Kiev was ousted in a coup, and a pro-NATO regime installed with U.S. backing, Putin detached
and annexed Crimea, for centuries the homeport of Russia's Black Sea fleet.
With the return of Crimea, Russia now occupied both sides of Kerch Strait. And this year, Russia completed a 12-mile bridge over
the strait and Putin drove the first truck across.
The Sea of Azov became a virtual Russian lake, access to which was controlled by Russia, just as access to the Black Sea is controlled
by Turkey.
While the world refused to recognize the new reality, Russia began to impose rules for ships transiting the strait, including
48 hours notice to get permission.
Ukrainian vessels, including warships, would have to notify Russian authorities before passing beneath the Kerch Strait Bridge
into the Sea of Azov to reach their major port of Mariupol.
Sunday, two Ukrainian artillery ships and a tug, which had sailed out of Odessa in western Ukraine, passed through what Russia
now regards as its territorial waters off Crimea and the Kerch Peninsula. Destination: Mariupol.
The Ukrainian vessels refused to obey Russian directives to halt.
Russian warships fired at the Ukrainian vessels and rammed the tug. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded, and 24 crew taken
into custody. Russia's refusal to release the sailors was given by President Trump as the reason for canceling his Putin meeting.
Moscow contends that Ukraine deliberately violated the new rules of transit that Kiev had previously observed, to create an incident.
For his part, Putin has sought to play the matter down, calling it a "border incident, nothing more." "The incident in the
Black Sea was a provocation organized by the authorities and maybe the president himself. (Poroshenko's) rating is falling so he
needed to do something." Maxim Eristavi, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, seems to concur: "Poroshenko wants to get a head start
in his election campaign. He is playing the card of commander in chief, flying around in military uniform, trying to project that
he is in control."
Our U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, however, accused Russia of "outlaw actions" against the Ukrainian vessels and "an arrogant act
the international community will never accept."
Predictably, our interventionists decried Russian "aggression" and demanded we back up our Ukrainian "ally" and send military
aid. Why was Poroshenko's ordering of gunboats into the Sea of Azov, while ignoring rules Russia set down for passage, provocative?
Because Poroshenko, whose warships had previously transited the strait, had to know the risk that he was taking and that Russia might
resist.
Why would he provoke the Russians? Because, with his poll numbers sinking badly, Poroshenko realizes that unless he does something
dramatic, his party stands little chance in next March's elections.
Immediately after the clash, Poroshenko imposed martial law in all provinces bordering Russia and the Black Sea, declared an invasion
might be imminent, demanded new Western sanctions on Moscow, called on the U.S. to stand with him, and began visiting army units
in battle fatigues.
Some Westerners want even more in the way of confronting Putin. Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council urges us to build
up U.S. naval forces in the Black Sea, send anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, ratchet up sanctions on Russia, threaten
to expel her from the SWIFT system of international bank transactions, and pressure Europe to cancel the Russians' Nord Stream 2
and South Stream oil pipelines into Europe.
But there is a larger issue here. Why is control of the Kerch Strait any of our business? Why is this our quarrel, to the point
that U.S. strategists want us to confront Russia over a Crimean Peninsula that houses the Livadia Palace that was the last summer
residence of Czar Nicholas II?
If Ukraine had a right to break free of Russia in 1991, why do not Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to break free
of Kiev?
Why are we letting ourselves be dragged into everyone's quarrels -- from who owns the islets in the South China Sea, to who owns
the Senkaku and Southern Kurils; and from whether Transnistria had a right to secede from Moldova, to whether South Ossetia and Abkhazia
had the right to break free of Georgia, when Georgia broke free of Russia?
Do the American people care a fig for these places? Are we really willing to risk war with Russia or China over who holds title
to them?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever."
I'm British and I trust Putin more than any other leader in the world. He's a good
politician and has been at the top longer than any of today's leaders his down to earth
approach is something that reaches out to the masses. There's a new sheriff in town and he's
Russian...
Putin is brilliant intellectually and politically! He is strong and independent but not in
a proud way, but with a strength coming directly from his heart for his Russia! I am
originally Polish and I wish we would have had such a leader in our country. So, many
mistakes in our history could have been avoided! Bravo Putin! American leaders look
impressive but most of them have a plastic personalities
I love the forthrightness of President Putin; he is kind in his choice of words, patient
as ever and manages to add his wonderful humor. A sheer joy to listen to.
What an amazing human being is Putin. His command of the issues, their histories, the big
picture as well as minute details, his ability to express himself, his steeliness and his
humor must impact everyone who meets him and foreign leaders drawn to him who, with this
generation of Russians seem to have a "rendezvous with destiny."
What an amazing human being is Putin. His command of the issues, their histories, the big
picture as well as minute details, his ability to express himself, his steeliness and his
humor must impact everyone who meets him and foreign leaders drawn to him who, with this
generation of Russians seem to have a "rendezvous with destiny."
These days all media is talking is about Russia hacking US elections. Why nobody is
talking about NSA hacked Angela Merkel's phone? Maybe because that's old news not worth
mentioning any more? Or maybe because its because US is democratic country so it doesn't
count. This is quote from The Guardian "Germany has closed its investigation into a report
that the US National Security Agency had hacked Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone, a
move that appears to be aimed at ending transatlantic friction that threatened intelligence
cooperation between the two countries." Who cares about democracy and truth when higher
interests are threatened.
Putin is just the baddest man on the planet jeez he really rocks like a superstar on stage
such a diplomat but deadly like a stinging bee when you dont treat him seriously how can you
not like this man
1891 -- Dr. Edward L. Bernays, lives, Wien, the "father of public relations" credited with
getting women to smoke & helping United Fruit overthrow Guatemalan President Arbenz; A
lovely piece of humanity: "with Bernays there is no consistency, no character, no integrity,
no conscience, no bravery, no truth." A nephew of Sigmund Freud (his sister Anna's son).
Would be perfect for the current 'Potemkin village' .
A transcript of exchanges between US
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been leaked to National News
Conglomerate by an anonymous source within the Kremlin . We here at NNC have confirmed the
authenticity of this document using the same rigorous verification process we've been using to
authenticate the evidence for all our other reporting on Russia's involvement in the 2016 US
elections over the last two years. These verification methods include hunches, gut intuitions,
and an introspective assessment of the way our feelings feel. The following exchanges revealed
in this transcript provide the clearest evidence yet that the President of the United States
has been in collusion with the Russian government for years.
This introduction has been authored by the editorial board of the National News
Conglomerate. Obey.
11/9/2016
Trump: I have done as you commanded, my dominant and all-powerful lord. I have conspired
with your hackers to steal the election, and now I'm going to be president! I want to thank you
for not releasing that video footage of those Russian prostitutes I hired to urinate on a bed
the Obamas once slept in. If that had come out it would have offended and alienated a lot of
people, which is something I never normally do.
Putin: Yes that is an old KGB tactic called kompromat, a word which only extremely
intelligent people know about. Keep this line of communication open. As long as you do as I
command, your pee pee tape will remain secret.
Trump: One thing I'm curious about though my lord, if you don't mind my asking. If you
already had an army of hackers targeting Democratic Party emails, why did you need my help?
Couldn't you just have hacked the emails and published them on your own? Why did you need me to
interact with them at all?
Putin: Moral support, mainly. We don't need to get into specifics.
Trump: Oh okay.
~
1/20/2017
Trump: I'm in! Whew! I was really worried that leaked dossier would be the end of me! What
are my instructions, my lord?
Putin: Begin introducing racism and division to the United States. America has never
experienced these things before, and it will shock and disorient them. With the US divided
against itself, your nation will be far too weak to stand against my plans of total world
domination.
Trump: That's a really tall order! America has always been a harmonious place where everyone
gets along up until today. I'll try my best though. Anything else?
Putin: Yes, make them distrust your nation's large media outlets and convince them that the
US intelligence community is often dishonest.
Trump: That will be really hard because those institutions have always been trusted for
their unparalleled integrity. But your wish is my command, oh lord.
~
4/7/2017
Putin: Bomb a Syrian airbase.
Trump: What? Really? Aren't they, like, your allies?
Putin: Exactly. This will throw inquisitive minds off the scent. We can't have them finding
out about that pee tape.
Trump: Are you sure? Some people are saying that chemical attack looks like it could have
been perpetrated by the many terrorist factions in Syria and not the government.
Putin: Who cares? Have you seen how relentless they've been in exposing us?? Have you never
watched Rachel Maddow? That woman is a psychic bloodhound, masterfully sniffing out the truth
at every turn! We can't afford to take chances. Do as I say.
Trump: Yes sir.
Putin: And see if you can arrest that WikiLeaks guy.
6/28/17
Trump: Hey do you want me to do anything about Montenegro's addition to NATO?
Putin: No. NATO expansion is good.
Trump: Uhhh okay.
~
6/28/17
Trump: Who do you want tapped for Ukraine envoy?
Putin: Kurt Volker.
Trump: Volker? He hates you! He's like the biggest Russia hawk ever.
Putin: We still need to throw the Russiagaters off the scent. We're playing 3-D chess here.
This is high-level disinformation, or dezinformatsiya as very smart people call it. I want as
many Russia hawks in your administration as possible.
Trump: 3-D chess? Alright. I guess you know what you're doing.
~
8/30/17
Putin: Shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and throw out a bunch of diplomats.
That will confuse the hell out of them.
~
11/21/17
Putin: Now approve the sale of arms to Ukraine. Not even Obama would do that. This will
throw them off the trail for sure.
~
1/1/18
Putin: Happy new year. Force RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents.
~
1/29/18
Putin: Make sure your Nuclear Posture Review greatly escalates its aggressive posture toward
Russia.
~
2/14/18
Putin: Happy Valentine's Day. Don't worry about those Russians your guys killed in
Syria.
~
2/19/18
Putin: Send a fleet of war ships to the Black Sea.
~
3/25/18
Putin: Better expel a few dozen diplomats over the Skripal thing.
~
4/5/18
Putin: Sanction a bunch of Russian oligarchs.
~
4/10/18
Putin: Bomb Syria.
Trump: What?? Again?
Putin: Yes.
Trump: What the hell, man? Why'd you even recruit me if you're just going to have me do
everything all the Russia hawks want?
Putin: Well, you know how I told you we were playing 3-D chess against the Russiagate
investigation?
Trump: Yeah?
Putin: Well that wasn't enough. Now we're playing 4-D chess.
Trump: Fine, whatever, I don't care. Just don't release my pee tape.
~
7/17/18
Trump: Oh man. They're really making a major fuss about that summit. What should I do?
Putin: Play it cool. Don't let them know about our secret diabolical plot.
Trump: Right. Remind me what that was again?
Putin: Make Jim Acosta feel really, really sad.
~
9/2/18
Putin: Have you arrested Julian Assange yet?
Trump: Working on it.
~
10/20/18
Putin: I like John Bolton's idea. Pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty.
~
11/25/18
Putin: Make sure your administration loudly and aggressively backs Ukraine in our Kerch
Strait spat.
Trump: OMFG this is getting too weird. Are you just trolling me? What the hell is this?
Trump: Hello?
Trump: Are you there?
Trump: Answer me!
Putin: 5-D chess.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
He's macho. When he takes his photographer along in his "private" moments, it's to show him
wrestling tigers, petting leopards, landing large fish, wearing tough guy headgear, hurling
people around the judo mat. What do our leaders do in their photographed "private" moments?
Golf.
Even the false rumours about him are macho. Affairs with beautiful young women, not
pedophilia or secret homosexuality.
He's got a real army. With air defences, fighter planes, modern tanks, tough special
forces. So a fun little air campaign won't be possible. Besides, Russia hasn't lost many wars,
has it? And they never give up; just ask the Mongols.
He's Russian. And Russians are all horrible. Except for
Pussy Riot .
He's smarter than our team. Well... doesn't he prove this every day?
You can't bully him. Ditto.
He's not going anywhere. He's staying right there in Russia. And that, for the
geographically challenged, is a great big country not very far from anywhere.
And just one more.Russian babes say they like him . Imagine the campaign "Babes for (insert the name of your
wearisome leader)". Didn't think you could imagine it without feeling a bit nauseous. Well, OK,
there was Obamagirl .
But that was
fake .
In Homage to
Catalonia (1938), his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell describes how his
wife was rudely woken by a police-raid on the hotel room she was occupying in Barcelona:
In the small hours of the morning there was a pounding on the door, and six men marched
in, switched on the light, and immediately took up various positions about the room,
obviously agreed upon beforehand. They then searched both rooms (there was a bathroom
attached) with inconceivable thoroughness. They sounded the walls, took up the mats, examined
the floor, felt the curtains, probed under the bath and the radiator, emptied every drawer
and suitcase and felt every garment and held it up to the light. ( Homage to Catalonia , ch.
14)
The police conducted this search "in the recognized OGPU [then the Russian
communist secret-police] or Gestapo style for nearly two hours," Orwell says. He then notes
that in "all this time they never searched the bed." His wife was still in it, you see, and
although the police "were probably Communist Party members they were also Spaniards, and to
turn a woman out of bed was a little too much for them. This part of the job was silently
dropped, making the whole search meaningless."
Orwell's story suggests a new word to me: typhlophthalmism , meaning "the practice
of turning a blind eye to essential but inconvenient facts" (from Greek typhlos
, "blind," + ophthalmos
, "eye"). But it's a long word, so let's call it typhlism for short. Shorter is
better, because the term could be used so often today. Orwell's story is an allegory of modern
Western politics and social commentary, where so many essential but inconvenient facts are
"silently dropped" from analysis.
"... Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a
trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service
" in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from
Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.
The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established
in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated
Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."
And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's
historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report
on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network
RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb
hackers are at work here.
Operating on a budget
of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists,
military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference
in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.
The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin,
with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing
Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked
documents states. -
RT
The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway,
Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its
sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .
The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts
embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government
agencies."
The initiative has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the
US State Department , the
documents allege.
Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian
sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. -
RT
Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:
Spanish "Op"
In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block
the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half
hours to accomplish, brags the group in the
documents .
"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian
and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca
in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.
Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to
geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." -
RT
The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.
In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist
reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear CampaignsSteveg , Nov 24,
2018 11:43:44 AM |
link
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who
does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign
against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but
seems to be part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military
personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via
social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed
by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North
America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and
promises that:
Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical
competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster
community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed,
Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster
participants as you desire).
The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It
covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the
Middle East.
On its About page
it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and
agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the
Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State
Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are
British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British
government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.
The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who
receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.
To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the
knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of
experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and
to help build national capacities to counter it .
The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones"
illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it
its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself,
created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.
If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from
behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's
applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme"
run by the Foreign Office.
The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received
£102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19
budget application shows a
planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO
and the Lithuanian MoD, but
also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with
£100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each
country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.
One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled
Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):
Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a
range of countries with different circumstances
Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big
picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack
by Russia
Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of
the "golden minute"
Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:
- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact
on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )
Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a
self-contradicting concept.
Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:
We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal
contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to
try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon
with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the
clusters develop.
A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to
censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also
includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council
shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person
of interest is Andrew Wood who
handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over
alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah
Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus
of the BBC.
A ' Cluster
Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another
file reveals (pdf) the local
partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.
The Initiatives Guide
to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of
flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the
Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events,
Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of
British intelligence disinformation operations.
The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at
pages 7-40 of the
2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:
The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters
established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and
demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be
expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have
begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some
countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source
of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the
same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from
institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal
disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been
resolved and funding should now flow.
The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society
(think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is
proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each
national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international
access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the
need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and
in various forms.
The
third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and
outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These
include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:
Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by
political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting
the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.
We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.
Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM |
Permalink
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to
prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election
meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that
Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In
Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling
custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele
dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and
propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex
corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the
voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the
ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would
be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down
to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of
illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a
financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same
laws as the rest of the UK.
The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to
me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of
the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia
fully, as they'd intended...
Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted
and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly
called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.
I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly
and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as
G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible
evidence.
It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The
interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint
does not bode well for such relations.
Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's
'weak response' to Russian propaganda:
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be
black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using
propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent
Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to
establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream."
I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit
and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been
launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.
The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's
explicit approval.
Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed
by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are
not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own
party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda
BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding
should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the
propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been
about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had
plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.
A lot of
sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I
would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the
Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a
nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.
If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he
was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in
charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it
-- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...
It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6
meddling, including:
Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public
Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"):
To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election
meddling
Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.
Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the
campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British
firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.
As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The
election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was
the best candidate for the job.
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet
union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as
they'd intended..."
They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent
Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course
the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass
psychological pathology among the elites.
The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist
"order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US
and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it
all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is
Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his
pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always
been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so
called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK
government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should
consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany: Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland: Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands: Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Spain: Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada:
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland
Todd Leventhal
UK: Chris Donnelly
Amalyah Hart William Browder John Ardis
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham Deborah Haynes
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon Mungo Melvin
Rob Dover Julian Moore Agnes Josa David Aaronovitch Stephen Dalziel Raheem Shapi Ben
Nimmo
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede Alan Riley [email protected]Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
"... Trump doesn't understand too f***ing much about the Middle East. And what's with the ridiculous assumptions that 1) Iran is "rising", or, even assuming that were true, that it needs to be "countered"? If the Saudis and Israelis want to fight Iran, go ahead. Let them knock themselves out. They're welcome to fight Iran without any US support whatsoever for, say, seventeen years. Like Israel and Saudi Arabia watched us fight all over the Middle East for seventeen years without lifting a finger to help. ..."
"... "Doran and Badran" The NY Times never gives up, does it? We'll never get from A to B, never end these terrible messes in the Middle East, until people like this are hounded out of the public square. ..."
"... What is the NY Times thinking, publishing a piece by a discredited academic, author of one of the most smugly stupid and wrong pieces ever written about the Middle East, and his co-author, a murky sort of "research fellow" employed by a well-known Israeli propaganda outlet? ..."
But Mr. Trump understands the centrality of Riyadh in the effort to counter a rising Iran
and he is rightly unwilling to allow the murder of Mr. Khashoggi to imperil that
strategy.
To call Trump's Iran obsession a "strategy" is already far too generous, but this does sum
up the ends-justify-the-means reasoning behind the administration's indefensible embrace of the
Saudis and their allies throughout the region. Trump shrugs every off Saudi crime and blunder
because it supposedly serves a greater goal of combating Iran, and yet each time the U.S. looks
the other way or assists the Saudis in their wrongdoing (as we continue to do in Yemen) it
makes things easier for Iran's government. The Khashoggi murder by itself is an awful crime in
itself, but it is because it forms part of a pattern of reckless, monstrous behavior on the
part of the Saudi government that it has had such a powerful effect on the way many people in
the U.S. and the West view the Saudi government and the crown prince in particular. It is that
pattern of behavior that proves how useless the Saudis have become to "the effort to counter a
rising Iran," and it makes the administration's continued support for the kingdom and for
Mohammed bin Salman seem even more obnoxious than it already would.
Yemen receives only one mention in Doran and Badran's piece, and they have nothing to say
about the president's
lies about the war or the Saudi coalition's responsibility for creating famine conditions
throughout much of the country. Only professional Iran hawks are foolish enough to buy into the
idea that Yemen could become a "base" for Iran, and that is the only time they see fit to
mention the world's worst humanitarian crisis created by the Saudi coalition with U.S. support.
The president's statement was especially destructive because it confirmed that the
administration won't be putting much pressure on the Saudis to end the war, and Trump's lie
that the Saudis would "gladly withdraw" from Yemen will help make it easier for them to keep
fighting. The authors assert that presidents "routinely advance useful fictions," but the only
interests served by the fiction that Iran is responsible for the war on Yemen are those of the
Saudi and Emirati governments and their hirelings here in the U.S. It isn't "useful" for ending
the war in Yemen to lie about who started it, and covering for the Saudis and Emiratis isn't
"useful" for combating what could end up being one of the worst modern famines. Lying about the
causes of the war on Yemen is useful only to those that want the war to continue at the expense
of millions of innocent lives.
To summarize Mr Larison's article: we are supporting Saudi Arabia (a brutal, incompetent
medieval dictatorship that spreads terrorism around the globe) in order to counter Iran (a
brutal, semi-competent, medieval semi-dictatorship that spread terrorism around the globe).
On that analysis, if we have to support anyone, Iran seems to be a better bet. At least
they are not incompetent.
Never mind the number of Americans killed by Iranian terrorists (or Iranian sponsored
terrorists) in the last 20 years.
How about taking the number of women and children from any nation killed by Iranian and
Iranian sponsored terrorists in the past 20 years, and then comparing that with the number of
women and children killed by the American military, and American assisted and sponsored
groups in the Middle East over the past 20 years? When you add together Iraq, Yemen, and
Syria, the U.S. is responsible for tens of thousands of dead women and children.
By comparison with Bush, Obama, and Trump, a guy like Rouhani looks like a credible
candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
"Mike Doran and Tony Badran [say] "Mr. Trump understands the centrality of Riyadh in the
effort to counter a rising Iran "
Trump doesn't understand too f***ing much about the Middle East. And what's with the
ridiculous assumptions that 1) Iran is "rising", or, even assuming that were true, that it
needs to be "countered"? If the Saudis and Israelis want to fight Iran, go ahead. Let them knock themselves out.
They're welcome to fight Iran without any US support whatsoever for, say, seventeen years.
Like Israel and Saudi Arabia watched us fight all over the Middle East for seventeen years
without lifting a finger to help.
"Doran and Badran" The NY Times never gives up, does it? We'll never get from A to B, never end these
terrible messes in the Middle East, until people like this are hounded out of the public
square.
What is the NY Times thinking, publishing a piece by a discredited academic, author of one
of the most smugly stupid and wrong pieces ever written about the Middle East, and his
co-author, a murky sort of "research fellow" employed by a well-known Israeli propaganda
outlet?
"... When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also. ..."
"... Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. ..."
"... This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts. ..."
One of the documents lists a series of propaganda weapons to be used against Russia. One is
use of the church as a weapon. That has already been started in Ukraine with Poroshenko
buying off regligious leader to split Ukraine Orthodoxy from Russian Orthodoxy. It also
explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a 'Dirty Trick' against Russia.
The British political system is on the verge of collapse. BREXIT has finally demonstrated
that the Government/ Opposition parties are clearly aligned against the interests of the
people. The EU is nothing more than an arm of the Globalist agenda of world domination.
The US has shown its true colours - sanctioning every country that stands for independent
sovereignty is not a good foreign policy, and is destined to turn the tide of public opinion
firmly against global hegemony, endless wars, and wealth inequity.
The old Empire is in its death throes. A new paradigm awaits which will exclude all those
who have exploited the many, in order to sit at the top of the pyramid. They cannot escape
Karma.
The Western world needs to come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its
aftermath. Today, Russia is led by Putin and he obviously has objectives as any national
leader has.
Western "leaders" need to decide whether Putin:
Is trying to create Soviet Union 2.0, to have a 2nd attempt at ruling the world thru
communism and to do this by holding the world to ransom over oil/gas supplies. OR
Is wanting Russia to become a member of the family of nations and of a multi-polar world to improve the lives of
Russian people, but is being blocked at every twist and turn by manufactured events like Russia-gate and the Skripal affair
and now this latest revelation of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns being coordinated and run out of London.
Both of the above cannot be true because there are too many contradictions. Which is it??
Yes because imagine that that we lived in 1940 without any means to inform ourselves and
that media was still in control over the information that reaches us. We would already be in
a fullblown war with Russia because of it but now with the Internet and information going
around freely only a whimpy 10% of we the people stand behind their desperately wanted war.
Imagine that, an informed sheople.
Can't have that, they cannot do their usual stuff anymore.... good riddance.
"250,000 from the US State
Department , the documents allege."....... Interesting.
"During the third
Democratic debate on Saturday night, Hillary Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like
project" to break encrypted terrorist communications. The project would "bring the government and the tech communities together" to find a way
to give law enforcement access to encrypted messages, she said. It's something that some
politicians and intelligence officials have wanted for awhile,"........
***wasn't the Manhatten project a secret venture?????? Hummmmm"
Hillary Clinton has all of our encryption keys, including the FBI's . "Encryption keys" is
a general reference to several encryption functions hijacked by Hillary and her surrogate
ENTRUST. They include hash functions (used to indicate whether the contents have been altered
in transit), PKI public/private key infrastructure, SSL (secure socket layer), TLS (transport
layer security), the Dual_EC_DRBG
NSA algorithm and certificate authorities.
The convoluted structure managed by the "Federal Common Policy" group has ceded to
companies like ENTRUST INC the ability to sublicense their authority to third parties who in
turn manage entire other networks in a Gordian knot of relationships clearly designed to fool
the public to hide their devilish criminality. All roads lead back to Hillary and the Rose
Law Firm."- patriots4truth
When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with
plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also.
FBI/Anonymous can use this story to support a narrative that social media bots posting
memes is a problem for everybody, and it's not a partisan issue. The idea is that fake news
and unrestricted social media are inherently dangerous, and both the West and Russia are
exploiting that, so governments need to agree to restrict the ability to use those platforms
for political speech, especially without using True Names.
Oilygawkies in the UK and USSA seem to be letting their spooks have a good-humored (rating
here on the absurd transparency of these ops) contest to see who can come up with the most
surreal propaganda psy-ops.
But they probably also serve as LHO distractions from something genuinely sleazy.
Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. Anything that is
remotely like Nationalism is the true enemy of these Globalist/Internationalists, which is
what the Top-Ape Bolshevik promoted: see Vladimir Lenin and his quotes on how he believed
fully in "internationalism" for a world without borders. Ironic how they Love the butchers of
the Soviet Union but hate Russia. It is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY to these people and "the means
justify the ends".
Basically, if one acquires factual information from an internet source, which leads to
overturning the propaganda to which we're all subjected, then it MUST have come from Putin.
This is the direction they're headed. Anyone speaking out against the official story is
obviously a Russian spy.
Better to call it the Anti-Integrity Initiative. UK cretins up to their usual dirty tricks - let them choke on their poison. The judgement of history will eventually catch up with them.
A good 'ole economic collapse will give western countries a chance to purge their crazy
leaders before they involve us all in a thermonuclear war. Short everything with your entire
accounts.
This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have
such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the
WEST? This is nuts.
Isn't it just as likely someone in the WEST planted this cache, intending Anonymous to
find it?
Any propaganda coming from the UK or US is strictly zionist. EVERYTHING they put out is to
the benefit of Israel and the "lobby". Russia isn't perfect, but if they're an enemy of the
latter, then they should NOT be considered a foe to all thinking and conscientious
people.
Yesterday, the BBC had a thing on Thai workers in Israel, and how they keep dying of
accidents, their general level of slavery etc. Very odd to have a negative Israel story, so I
wonder who upset whom, and what the ongoing status will be.
Thai labourers in Israel tell of harrowing conditions
A year-long BBC investigation has discovered widespread abuse of Thai nationals living
and working in Israel - under a scheme organized by the two governments.
Many are subjected to unsafe working practices and squalid, unsanitary living
conditions. Some are overworked, others underpaid and there are dozens of unexplained
deaths.
England and the U.S. don't like their very poor and rotten social conditions put out for
the public to see. Both countries have severely deteriorating problems on their streets
because of bankrupt governments printing money for foreign wars.
More of the same fraudulent duality while alleged so called but not money etc continues to
flow (everything is criminal) and the cesspool of a hierarchy pretends it's business as
usual.
This isn't about maintaining balance in a lie this is about disclosing the truth and
agendas (Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030 = The New Age Religion is Never Going To Be Saturnism).
The layers of the hierarchy are a lie so unless the alleged so called leaders of those layers
are publicly providing testimony and confession then everything that is being spoon fed to
the pablum puking public through all sources is a lie.
Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity
Initiative consists of "clusters" of (((local politicians, journalists, military personnel,
scientists and academics))).
The (((team))) is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian
interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes,
the documents claim.
Here is how U.S. President Barack Obama proudly, even imperially, described it when
delivering the Commencement address to America's future generals, at West Point Military
Academy, on
28 May 2014 :
The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . [Every other nation is
therefore 'dispensable'; we therefore now have "Amerika, Amerika über alles, über
alles in der Welt".] That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the
century to come. America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else
will...
Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's
economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle
classes compete with us. [He was here telling these future U.S. military leaders that they
are to fight for the U.S. aristocracy, to help them defeat any nation that resists.] ...
In Ukraine, Russia's recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern
Europe. But this isn't the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia
right away. [He was proud of the U.S. Government's effectiveness at
propaganda, just as Hitler was proud of the German Government's propaganda-effectiveness
under Joseph Goebbels.] Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned
Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our
commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine's economy;
OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.
No other nation regularly invades other nations that never had invaded it. This is
international aggression. It is the international crime of "War of Aggression" ; and the only
nations which do it nowadays are America and its allies, such as the Sauds, Israel, France, and
UK, which often join in America's aggressions (or, in the case of the Sauds' invasion of Yemen,
the ally initiates an invasion, which the U.S. then joins). America's generals are taught this
aggression, and not only by Obama. Ever since at least George W. Bush, it has been solid U.S.
policy. (Bush even kicked out the U.N.'s weapons-inspectors, so as to bomb Iraq in 2003.)
In other words: a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international
law, and that nation's participation in an invasion immunizes also each of its allies who join
in the invasion, protecting it too from prosecution, so that a mono-polar world is one in which
the United Nations can't even possibly impose international law impartially, but can impose it
only against nations that aren't allied with the mono-polar power, which in this case is the
United States. Furthermore, because the U.S. regime reigns supreme over the entire world, as it
does, any nations -- such as Russia, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua,
Cuba, and Ecuador -- that the U.S. regime (which
has itself been scientifically proven to be a dictatorship ) chooses to treat as an enemy,
is especially disadvantaged internationally. Russia and China, however, are among the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and therefore possess a degree of international
protection that America's other chosen enemies do not. And the people who choose which nations
to identify as America's 'enemies' are America's super-rich and not the entire American
population, because
the U.S. Government is controlled by the super-rich and not by the public .
If one of the five permanent members of the Security Council would table at the U.N. a
proposal to eliminate the immunity that the U.S. regime has, from investigation and prosecution
for any future War of Aggression that it might perpetrate, then, of course, the U.S. and any of
its allies on the Security Council would veto that, but if the proposing nation would then
constantly call to the international public's attention that the U.S. and its allies had
blocked passage of such a crucially needed "procedure to amend the UN
charter" , and that this fact means that the U.S. and its allies constitute fascist regimes
as was understood and applied against Germany's fascist regime, at the Nuremberg Tribunal in
1945, then possibly some members of the U.S.-led gang (the NATO portion of it, at least) would
quit that gang, and the U.S. global dictatorship might end, so that there would then become a
multi-polar world, in which democracy could actually thrive.
Democracy can only shrivel in a mono-polar world, because all other nations then are simply
vassal nations, which accept Obama's often-repeated dictum that all other nations are
"dispensable" and that only the U.S. is not. Even the UK would actually gain in freedom, and in
democracy, by breaking away from the U.S., because it would no longer be under the U.S. thumb
-- the thumb of the global aggressor-nation.
Only one global poll has ever been taken of the question "Which
country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?" and it found
that, overwhelmingly, by a three-to-one ratio above the second-most-often named country, the
United States was identified as being precisely that, the top threat to world-peace . But then,
a few years later, another (though less-comprehensive) poll was taken on a similar question,
and it produced
similar results . Apparently, despite the effectiveness of America's propagandists, people
in other lands recognize quite well that today's America is a more successful and
longer-reigning version of Hitler's Germany. Although modern America's propaganda-operation is
far more sophisticated than Nazi Germany's was, it's not entirely successful. America's
invasions are now too common, all based on lies, just like Hitler's were.
On November 9th, Russian Television headlined "'Very insulting': Trump bashes
Macron's idea of European army for protection from Russia, China & US" and reported
that "US President Donald Trump has unloaded on his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, calling
the French president's idea of a 'real European army,' independent from Washington, an insult."
On the one hand, Trump constantly criticizes France and other European nations for allegedly
not paying enough for America's NATO military alliance, but he now is denigrating France for
proposing to other NATO members a decreasing reliance upon NATO, and increasing reliance,
instead, upon the
Permanent Structured Cooperation (or PESCO) European military alliance , which was begun on
11 December 2017, and which currently has "25 EU Member States participating: Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden." Those are the European nations that are now on the path
to eventually quitting NATO.
Once NATO is ended, the U.S. regime will find far more difficult any invasions such as of
Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, Yemen 2016-, and maybe even such as America's bloody coup
that overthrew the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and installed a racist-fascist or
nazi anti-Russian regime there in 2014 . All of these U.S. invasions (and coup) brought to
Europe millions of refugees and enormously increased burdens upon European taxpayers. Plus,
America's economic sanctions against both Russia and Iran have hurt European companies (and the
U.S. does almost no business with either country, so is immune to that, also). Consequently,
today's America is clearly Europe's actual main enemy. The continuation of NATO is actually
toxic to the peoples of Europe. Communism and the Soviet Union and its NATO-mirroring Warsaw
Pact military alliance, all ended peacefully in 1991, but
the U.S. regime has secretly continued the Cold War, now against Russia , and is
increasingly focusing its "regime-change" propaganda against Russia's
popular democratic leader, Vladimir Putin, even though this U.S. aggression against Russia
could mean a world-annihilating nuclear war.
Europe's desire to create its own army and stop relying on Washington for defense is not
only understandable, but would be "positive" for the multipolar world, Vladimir Putin said
days after Donald Trump ripped into it.
" Europe is a powerful economic union and it is only natural that they want to be
independent and sovereign in the field of defense and security," Putin told RT in Paris where
world leader gathered to mark the centenary of the end of WWI.
He also described the potential creation of a European army "a positive process," adding
that it would "strengthen the multipolar world." The Russian leader even expressed his
support to French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently championed this idea by saying that
Russia's stance on the issue "is aligned with that of France" to some extent.
Macron recently revived the ambitious plans of creating a combined EU military force by
saying that it is essential for the security of Europe. He also said that the EU must become
independent from its key ally on the other side of the Atlantic, provoking an angry reaction
from Washington.
Once NATO has shrunk to include only the pro-aggression and outright nazi European nations, such as
Ukraine (after the U.S. gang accepts Ukraine into NATO, as it almost certainly then would
do), the EU will have a degree of freedom and of democracy that it can only dream of today, and
there will then be a multi-polar world, in which the leaders of the U.S. will no longer enjoy
the type of immunity from investigation and possible prosecution, for their invasions, that
they do today. The result of this will, however, be catastrophic for the top 100
U.S. 'defense' contractors , such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon,
because then all of those firms' foreign sales except to the Sauds, Israel and a few other
feudal and fascist regimes, will greatly decline. Donald Trump is doing everything he can to
keep the Sauds to the agreements he reached with them back in 2017 to buy
$404 billion of U.S. weaponry over the following 10 years . If, in addition, those firms
lose some of their European sales, then the U.S. economic boom thus far in Trump's Presidency
will be seriously endangered. So, the U.S. regime, which is run by the owners
of its 'defense'-contractors , will do all it can to prevent this from happening.
The Democrats are politically responsible for the rise of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Obama said following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout), pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man." ..."
"... This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to exploit discontent among impoverished social layers. ..."
Pelosi's deputy in the House, Steny Hoyer, sums up the right-wing policies of the Democrats,
declaring: "His [Trump's] objectives are objectives that we share. If he really means that,
then there is an opening for us to work together."
So much for the moral imperative of voting for the Democrats to stop Trump! As Obama said
following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their
differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock
and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump.
The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama
administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout),
pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass
surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and
intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies
against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to
sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the
anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man."
This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the
working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers
obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to
exploit discontent among impoverished social layers.
The same process is taking place internationally. While strikes and other expressions of
working class opposition are growing and broad masses are moving to the left, the right-wing
policies of supposedly "left" establishment parties are enabling far-right and neo-fascist
forces to gain influence and power in countries ranging from Germany, Italy, Hungary and Poland
to Brazil.
As for Gay's injunction to vote "pragmatically," this is a crude promotion of the bankrupt
politics that are brought forward in every election to keep workers tied to the capitalist
two-party system. "You have only two choices. That is the reality, whether you like it or not."
And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy
is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting
you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today --
falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war.
The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation "graveyard of social protest
movements," and for good reason. From the Populist movement of the late 19th century, to the
semi-insurrectional industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights movement of the
1950s and 1960s, to the mass anti-war protest movements of the 1960s and the eruption of
international protests against the Iraq War in the early 2000s -- every movement against the
depredations of American capitalism has been aborted and strangled by being channeled behind
the Democratic Party.
This is a typical projection. France is a member of "dirty four". Macron government is a
typical neoliberal cabinet, not that different from Merkel government. As such it is controlled
by the USA.
"Honestly, to say that we were surprised or upset is to say nothing. I think this condition
could be better described as 'shock' when we heard the spokesman for the French government, Mr.
Griveaux, just recently said the following. I quote: there are two media outlets that I refuse
to see in the press room of the Elysee Palace, they are RT and Sputnik because I do not
consider them to be media, they are not journalists, they are engaged in propaganda," Zakharova
said at a weekly news briefing.
According to Zakharova, such an approach is the result of
"the unwillingness of the French authorities to hear alternative sources of information."
Last month, two French government's think tanks issued a report, which recommended the
country's authorities to abstain from accrediting journalists of the RT broadcaster and the
Sputnik news agency.
Last year, RT reporters were denied entry to the headquarters of then-French presidential
candidate Macron twice in April, and in May, a Sputnik reporter was not allowed to enter the
square in front of Paris' Louvre museum where Macron and his supporters were celebrating the
victory in the presidential run-off. After Macron became French president, he accused RT and
Sputnik of "spreading false information and slander."
The situation around RT and Sputnik in France is not unique for the European Union: in 2016,
the European Parliament adopted a resolution claiming that Russia was waging information
warfare and singled out RT and Sputnik. Russian President Vladimir Putin said the resolution
proved that Western democracy was failing, but expressed hope that common sense would prevail
and Russian media outlets would be able to work abroad without restrictions.
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."
By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that
Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived
the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel and concrete
building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and
conveniently fluttered to the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who
immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!
Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.
"... The cartoonishly constructed "pipebombs" made for an extremely weird story, and it's not surprising that many people found it all very hard to believe. ..."
"... The Mainstream Media has no business complaining about "conspiracy theorists" while they regularly present lies as truth and relentlessly push moronic narratives like "Russiagate" and so on, and so on, ad nauseam. ..."
"... If you ask if we should believe in men in dark overcoats meeting to hatch a plot in a country tavern on a dark and stormy night, then no, that's silly. But if you ask, do powerful people meet and confidentially agree mutually advantageous strategies that go against the public interest, then yes of course, that's so common that it's generally referred to as doing 'lunch'. ..."
"... Perhaps it's partly the competition from social media. If you're worried & worked up about issues, you'll watch more hours of programming. There's always a money trail. And advertising drives it. ..."
"... When you think about most conspiracy theories, you quickly realized that the amount of planning, secrecy, and organization involved to pull them off is far beyond the capabilities of anybody outside of a Hollywood script writer. ..."
"... This is not new. The late, great Tom Wolfe was working at the NY Herald Tribune on Dec. 22, 1963. His editor sent him out to do a "man on the street" reaction story to JFK's assassination. Wolfe came back and wrote what he learned: every political and ethnic group was blaming its favorite enemy for the murder of the President. The Trib spiked the story, said Wolfe. ..."
"... The problem is that the media has been caught in too many lies, so now the public is naturally distrustful. Pushing things like WMDs in Iraq and babies being thrown from incubators creates a level of mistrust that makes people question official narratives. ..."
"... The media, corporate executives, politicians, and essentially all figures of authority routinely lie or lie by omission, how is that conspiratorial? To believe that all facts are shared in all cases is naive and it not unreasonable to believe that there is "more to the story" than being told. Does that mean that there is a conspiracy? No, but it does mean that there are pieces of the story that were never shared and likely never will be. ..."
"... You were expecting a normal balanced set of people to be sending pipe bombs? You thought, perhaps, that a bunch of affluent DNC types sat around thinking of a clever fake terrorist attack to swing the election? That would have been "normal"? ..."
"... I think sending pipe bombs to members of your own party, hoping you won't get caught, ranks pretty high up there on the implausibility scale. You had to want to believe this to take it seriously. ..."
"... I think it is good that people question their lying politicians and these lying, partisan so-called news pundits. If that means you are going to try to slander the people as "conspiracy theorists" then so be it. I would rather be a conspiracy theorist than take anything CNN or FOX says as gospel or take anything a politician says as gospel. Skepticism is good. These people don't deserve our trust. ..."
Meh. In the last few years, how often have we seen, say, college "hate crimes" turn out to be
pathetic hoaxes? Hate to break it to you, but those were false flags. Many conspiracy
theories turn out to be conspiracy facts. I'll admit, though, that it was truly terrible when
those three brutes wearing MAGA hats attacked that poor Muslim girl Yasmin Seweid on the New
York subway, calling her a "terrorist" and telling her "get out of this country" and to "get
the f****** hijab off your head!". The media was right to report as fact that they tried to
tear off her headscarf and that no bystanders intervened while one of the men grabbed her
bag, breaking the strap. Except that it was ALL MADE UP. The media sure loved shoving the lie
down our throat, though. When the facts came out–that she was lying, and that her
father shaved her head for dating a Christian kid–the media basically buried the story.
The cartoonishly constructed "pipebombs" made for an extremely weird story, and it's
not surprising that many people found it all very hard to believe. This turned out to be
because the guy who sent them is an EXTREMELY weird person. But people have every reason to
be dubious and reserve judgement until all the facts come out.
The Mainstream Media has no business complaining about "conspiracy theorists" while
they regularly present lies as truth and relentlessly push moronic narratives like
"Russiagate" and so on, and so on, ad nauseam.
The author misstates Ockham's razor, which is that "plurality should not be posited without
necessity." The right-wing nuts who posit that everything is the Jews' fault do seem to be in
accordance with Ockham's maxim, after a fashion.
I think the person who puts it best is Peter Hitchens.
If you ask if we should believe in men in dark overcoats meeting to hatch a plot in a
country tavern on a dark and stormy night, then no, that's silly. But if you ask, do powerful
people meet and confidentially agree mutually advantageous strategies that go against the
public interest, then yes of course, that's so common that it's generally referred to as
doing 'lunch'.
Whether or not you call that believing in conspiracies is your choice.
"But this does not explain why so many Americans choose to watch Fox News and why we have
become so fearful and paranoid as a nation. "
***************
You don't think that MSNBC or CNN foment the same kind of stuff? Or every other media outlet
to some extent? Goodness, even the BBC reads like a tabloid these days. BBC storylines sound
like the National Enquirer.
Perhaps it's partly the competition from social media. If you're worried & worked
up about issues, you'll watch more hours of programming. There's always a money trail. And
advertising drives it.
"Conspiratorial thinking isn't really thinking at all. It's laziness that jumps to
conclusions before examining the facts."
And who gets to determine what is and is not a fact? I was under the seemingly mistaken
impression that individuals had not just the freedom, but the duty to form their own beliefs
and pursue what what they understand to be the truth. Americans are not united via dogmas,
but in shared values, such as the the value to think freely. The reality is conspiracy
theorists are more inquisitive, more skeptical, and are, frankly, brave enough to fight the
cognitive dissonance of an epistemological battle, and to withstand the ensuing ridicule and
ostracism spewing forth from dogmatic conformists and demagogues, such as the author of this
piece. To qoute Plato, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
Rick Steven D has it right: at least 9 times out of 10 when things go wrong it's due to
incompetence. Somebody might come out ahead because of it, but it's not due to some clever
conspiracy, it's due to somebody else screwing up.
When you think about most conspiracy theories, you quickly realized that the amount of
planning, secrecy, and organization involved to pull them off is far beyond the capabilities
of anybody outside of a Hollywood script writer.
This is not new. The late, great Tom Wolfe was working at the NY Herald Tribune on Dec.
22, 1963. His editor sent him out to do a "man on the street" reaction story to JFK's
assassination. Wolfe came back and wrote what he learned: every political and ethnic group
was blaming its favorite enemy for the murder of the President. The Trib spiked the story,
said Wolfe.
Well, the proximate reason for all this conspiracy theorizing is that the President and his
associates are promulgating them. Do you believe Barack Obama is a secret muslim terrorist
who isn't an American citizen? Well, Don did, and he promoted the idea forcefully. He's been
at this a long time. Belief being the operative term here: it's not so much that these things
are believed as that they are a means to manipulate the masses.
Also, please find better examples of Democrat conspiracy. A junior DC councilman VS POTUS?
Sounds like your party may be the one with the problem here, I am just saying
The problem is that the media has been caught in too many lies, so now the public is
naturally distrustful. Pushing things like WMDs in Iraq and babies being thrown from
incubators creates a level of mistrust that makes people question official narratives.
The federal government has embraced secrecy for its highest levels and ultimate transparency
for the rest of us. At the same time they have demonstrated over and over again that rich and
powerful actors will not be held accountable for their actions while the rest of us are made
to live in a police/prison/surveillance state. There is a massive increase in wealth
concentration.
If there was a return to government transparency, if the powerful held their own
accountable, if we did not have a culture of security clearances and secrets, if there was
rule of law, not rule of men, we might not be so conspiracy minded. But all of what I just
described is indeed a big conspiracy to wrest the right of self-determination from the masses
and put it in the hands of a few powerful actors – banks, the very rich, and countries
that the U.S. happens to approve of at a given time (S.A., Israel, etc. are above
international law while Russia, Iran, etc. are constantly being sanctioned and punished for
doing what the former nations do every day with impunity).
The media, corporate executives, politicians, and essentially all figures of authority
routinely lie or lie by omission, how is that conspiratorial? To believe that all facts are
shared in all cases is naive and it not unreasonable to believe that there is "more to the
story" than being told. Does that mean that there is a conspiracy? No, but it does mean that
there are pieces of the story that were never shared and likely never will be.
"This turned out to be because the guy who sent them is an EXTREMELY weird person."
You were expecting a normal balanced set of people to be sending pipe bombs? You
thought, perhaps, that a bunch of affluent DNC types sat around thinking of a clever fake
terrorist attack to swing the election? That would have been "normal"?
I have no problem believing that the DNC or the RNC or just about anybody in politics
might do something sleazy, as the DNC did during the 2016 primaries, but I think sending
pipe bombs to members of your own party, hoping you won't get caught, ranks pretty high up
there on the implausibility scale. You had to want to believe this to take it
seriously.
I don't reject conspiracy theories out of hand, like some of the other people in this
thread, because the phrase is meaningless. The fact is that everybody is a conspiracy
theorist these days and some conspiracies are true. There was a conspiracy to sell the Iraq
War based on flimsy evidence, for instance, and most of our glorious press corps was useless
in pointing this out.
The important thing is to be able to tell the differences between conspiracy theories with
evidence, conspiracy theories with little evidence which might still be possible, and
conspiracy theories that are so dumb no sensible person would support them unless blinded by
their stupid ideology.
"I don't reject conspiracy theories out of hand, like some of the other people in this
thread,"
Poorly phrased. I meant I agree with some of the other people in the thread who pointed
out that some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. While correcting myself, I will add
that centrist liberals seem to have gone a little nuts in the conspiratorial department
regarding Russiagate. I am agnostic about what happened with Russia during 2016, but it was
startling to see so many Democrats and liberals morphing into members of the John Birch
society, willing to believe virtually anything and everything about Russia and Trump or just
Russia. And I despise Trump. I don't doubt for a second he could be bought by anyone for the
right price. But some liberals have gone a little nuts on that subject.
We have a conspiratorial society because the press has lost all credibility and no one trusts
the corrupt, lying politicians either.
I think it is good that people question their lying politicians and these lying,
partisan so-called news pundits. If that means you are going to try to slander the people as
"conspiracy theorists" then so be it. I would rather be a conspiracy theorist than take
anything CNN or FOX says as gospel or take anything a politician says as gospel. Skepticism
is good. These people don't deserve our trust.
For 50 years we've been told that there is no absolute truth, only our own opinions; no
standard, only our own desires; no purpose, only our own passions. We've been told that the
perpetrator of the crime is always the person we're supposed to trust. We've been told that
the only way to move forward as a nation is to abandon every value we've ever held dear. In
such an environment, is it any surprise that our people mill about in the thrall of their own
fantasies and fear?
The things that tuned my conspiracy theory radar were Eric Holder being found in contempt of
Congress, and Hillary saying the maker of that video would be brought to justice.
After witnessing the FBI and DOJ plant spies in a Presidential candidates campaign then try a
soft coup to over throw said President There is no conspiracy theroy to wild or unbelievable
Well, the JFK assassination now has a deathbed confession (Hunt), so not sure how that
factors in with all this. That's the one 'conspiracy' I know of regarding which I assume
there being some actual conspiracy behind the events.
For most of them, though, probably just a product of a digitally deranged nation. And if
that's right, it will only get worse, because the internet and all its communications
capability isn't going away anytime soon. Mass media used to be controlled by relatively
intelligent and educated people, who could filter out a lot of the crazy. Now, even the crazy
can have a platform. And there seems to be a lot more crazy than reasonable out there in the
digital landscape.
Does Ms. Boland think that all those conservatives who thought that the Deep State was real,
that there was a conspiracy among high ranking Justice Dept. and FBI personnel to Destroy
Trump, does she think they were crazy conspiracy lunatics?
Does Ms. Boland think that way also about the conspiracy to
Cover Up and Protect Hillary from her clearly dangerous and illegal Email activity?
And does she think The IRS and others on the left did not conspire to cover up the clear
and admitted improper behavior
towards Conservative Tea Party Groups?
And did they not conspire on the left to Cover Up Secretary of State Hillary Clintons
irresponsible behavior with regard to the
Benghazi Attack?
I could go on and on!
The point is NOT what certain private individuals think about certain issues in the news,
ie: The Bombs, but the REAL POINT is how People In Power Actually Do Conspire to manipulate
the public.
" this does not explain why so many Americans choose to watch Fox News and why we have become
so fearful and paranoid as a nation " There's probably not a single reason, but I think the
hyper-partisan left-wing fake-news narratives that we've been seeing for several decades now
have both driven many people to distrust the "mainstream" media and have fed irrational fear
and paranoia in others.
Virtually every Conspiracy Theorist I know personally, is a nutjob. Every one. This includes
a family member who I love. I've never met a normal, level-headed Conspiracy Theorist.
Some people see conspiracies everywhere, fair enough. The problem is, there are conspiracies.
We find out about them all the time. For example, some people think 9/11 was an inside job or
the Jews did it that's hand-waved away as a "conspiracy theory" but the answer we have ie
that 19 or 20 men plotted and worked together to enter the US, obtain training in piloting
aircraft, then planned and executed an nearly simultaneous attack on 4 airplanes IS a
conspiracy. So the 9/11 truther explanation is just an ALTERNATIVE conspiracy theory. It's
probably not true, that's not my point my point is THERE ARE conspiracies, proven ones.
Add to that, only a very small minority of Americans trust either the government or the media
and the stage is set
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Yes. This is true.
But one cannot make judgements in an event vacuum.
If you are foolish enough to state that a person connecting similar events, which occur in a
close time frame, and involve the same people, if you are foolish enough to call these people
fools, then you sir or madam, are a fool.
Put on your tinfoil hat and dance for us.
I agree with the author insofar as there seems to be a proliferation of "conspiracy theories"
out there in the public domain, but I disagree with the subtle pejorative tone the author
uses, and the reasons for the proliferation.
Yes, conspiracy theories not rooted in fact are easy to dismiss. BUT, there are other
"conspiracy theories" which are ultimately vindicated by subsequent discovery of
substantiating facts. Journalists and citizens alike should [sometimes] be skeptical because
our government, businesses and media have proven records of deceit.
Finally -- with respect to the reason for the proliferation: it's simple, the Internet has
made information sharing and research exponentially easier. People are no longer limited by
what they see on the nightly news or are told by politicians as the lone reference point for
current events. Everyone should think [critically] for themselves
P.S. What I see as the bigger [societal] problem is the blurring between fact &
fiction which makes analysis difficult.
Not mentioned by the author is the growing mound of evidence that there is, in fact, some
form of an Obama or Democratic Party deep state shadow government in the federal bureaucracy,
particularly in the Department of Justice. Because mainstream media refuses to report on this
growing mound of evidence, instead spending their energy on the Mueller effort to oust the
President, it's easy to understand why the nation is so sharply divided, which in turn, will
lead to never ending conspiracy theories.
The author of this article, and some of its respondents, cause the question to arise: do you
read history? Do you not realize the importance of balance? People believe in conspiracies
because many have proven real. Others ignore conspiracies because many have proven to be
false. To deride the "plebs" for "wacky" beliefs is to ignore criminal stupidity.
Clinton wasn't being malicious, she simply acted in a CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT manner. She
still committed at least one provable felony. There are many instances in history when such
negligent behavior is absolved, only to become the pebble which rippled the pond.
Meanwhile, Bomber Man may have been a legitimate Trump supporter. He is still perfect
evidence of the willful ignorance of our yellow journalists, and the damage they have caused.
Every day, and often every hour, our "media" generate stories about the "horrors" of eating
fresh fruit or taking antibiotics. They follow drama, writing about the dozens of people who
have been attacked or victimized by vandalism. The stories range from long-term potential
danger to immediate threats.
And soon after, sometimes the next day, these same journalists, yellow as a bumble bee,
write new stories that contradict the old stories. Many stories are not written as a
correction, but instead as if the previous stories were not written. What's worse is that
they purposely ignore new FACTS, and choose not to correct stories that are eventually
exposed as hoaxes and frauds.
And now we have the conspiracies. We know why they exist, and we know that a lack of
personal responsibility is to blame. And should that day come when Trump goes out to the
street and shoots someone, he'll have a good 33% of America behind him. Occam's overused
platitude shows that it isn't the fault of the 33%, but instead of the ignorance of a few
thousand people who continue to push horse feces as information.
Maybe a conspiracy will emerge as to why it took the police 78 minutes to get to the
synagogue. All the while the shooter roamed, taking his time killing people.
The US was built on conspiracy theories. They are signs of a healthy, curious, mind. Maybe
the media should do a better job of laying out political realities, you know with history,
instead of trying to push narratives every second of every day.
Too often, those who dismiss conspiracy theories also believe every public statement by the
government. This is so naïve. They don't wear a tin foil hat but instead a dunce cap. So
many government lies go unchallenged at the time yet people barely notice when the gov't
admits the lie years later. Eg. USS Liberty attacked by Israeli air force, Gulf of Tonkin
clash, Iraq's WMD, the Lusitania in WW1, US goading Japan into war, etc.
The author has their brain in neutral, it seems, criticizing Trump out of the gates (talk
about a hobby!).
"Upon learning about the massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue on Saturday morning in
Pittsburgh, President Donald Trump claimed that armed guards might have prevented the
tragedy. He did so even though we didn't yet know how many casualties there were or that four
(presumably armed) police officers had been wounded in responding to the attack"
On what planet does an accurate accounting of caualties or wounded law enforcement workers
NULLIFY IN ANY WAY, the idea that armed security might work to prevent tragedy?
It's like Ms. Boland, our esteemed author, lacks the basic building blocks of reason.
PLEASE, be sure your authors can juggle more than one concept at a time before you publish
them.
What Trump is "guilty" of here is not being wrong, fact free, or conspiracy bent which I
thought was the thrust of the article but instead is preemptively managing an assault on the
2nd amendment, which is knows will in fact come.
For those unfamiliar with the job of the Presidency, (Ms. Boland), he is tasked with
DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION.
This is the picture of a President actually doing his job.
Obama, on the other hand, would have used this situation to actually ATTACK the
constitutions Second Amendment, in raw violantion of his oath.
Journalists: More effort on understanding the topics you are writing about, please.
I was thinking that if hats were still fashionable for men to wear, would I line mine with
foil. Then I thought that I might still be watching FOX if wmd's had been found. But I always
fall back on, the conspiracy from hell does exist. Like, part of the conspiracy from hell
would be to foment the conspiracy theories so many on the right subscribe to. And I suspect
that here at TAC, most would be ambivalent about the possible conspiracies out there because
conspiracy, especially government conspiracy, works towards the demonization of government
and works towards the stated mantra of starving the beast. We do not need to subscribe to the
conspiracy, but it does seem to work in our favor?
Also, what are we to do anyway? We are not going to vote against our interests no matter how
many people are slaughtered? We are not ever going to admit being mistaken about the
candidates we elected because that admission might mean we were wrong about other stuff and
policy. Tinkle down has not worked because taxes have not been cut enough. We could have won
in vietnam. It is not us getting slaughtered after all. Like the invasion of iraq. It was not
our kids coming home in body bags, so we subscribe to the fight for freedom and liberty bs
shoved in our face by the ignorant and uninformed republican ends justify the means base.
Then our kid comes home in a coffin and we begin to ask why we are there. Must be some
government conspiracy. I don't know, but the conspiracy from hell is plain, including the
very powerful tool of cognitive dissonance used by evil.
But TAC readers may not be up on how out there many of the trump constituents really are. Or
how racist many republicans are. Chem trails and deep state blackocrat government operatives
conjured a hurricane to keep florida republicans from being able to vote. So yes, something
is making us wacky and if hats were in style, mine would be lined with foil.
This is a weak effort at "bothsiderism". https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/hate-is-on-the-ballot-next-week.html
The young democrat serving on the DC City Council who made the ridiculous claim about climate
control immediately apologized, and took down the statement. No one was fooled.
On the Russian collusion "scandal," well, a lot of folks have already plead guilty to
felonies, and others have been indicted–that investigation is ongoing, and has in no
way been shown to be a manufactured conspiracy theory.
What the commentator on the Pittsburg massacre actually said was: "And a word to my fellow
American Jews: This president makes this possible. Here. Where you live. I hope the embassy
move over there, where you don't live was worth it."
As for the vicious Adelson rumor, that started on 4chan, not exactly a hot-bed of the
left.
Lastly, Clinton said, in SEPTEMBER OF 2017, that she "would not rule out" questioning the
election, if new information surfaced in the Russia investigation, but also recognized that
there was no "mechanism" to do that.
The media has nobody to blame but themselves for fostering this skepticism. It was proven in
the Podesta emails that the Democratic Party colludes with the mainstream media to push
certain agendas, make certain candidates look better, and even rigs political debates (Donna
Brazile lost her CNN job over this). There is no reason to take anything they report at face
value anymore.
I'd say Byron is right on the money, in a general sense, not so much for Rick D's narrower
point of view. Real conspiracies do in fact abound in all directions, and I'd say the worst
ones involve corporate manipulation. This country and its mainstream foreign owned media DOES
NOT enable people to develop a healthy skepticism based on critical thought and fully exposed
facts. But it does pretend to.
For instance, how can we ignore all the bs that is legislated upon us, thanks to lobbying
efforts of greedy corporations? Does that not exist? Are the worst of those manipulations
revealed upfront for what they are? Wake up already! We ARE awash in fake/poisonous foods,
rigged politics, rigged banking, fomented wars, fake WMDs, fake clouds, outta control
inflation/interest/taxes, better health thru pill technology or surgeries instead of
nutrition(?), etc. And 'astute' Americans want to presume all of this is on the up and up to
our collective benefit?
You anti-conspiracy guys are beyond ignorant to dismiss all such theories. Either that, or
possibly your minds are not flexible enough to fathom the scope of deep sh*t we are actually
entrenched in due to decades of predatory monopolization – can you not see the obvious?
We've got multiple gov. agencies that work like protection rackets and hide health critical
truths. Health is wealth people. There are soo many examples. Our enemies plot and succeed to
destabilize the social fabric of USA through social media, education, news, etc., at their
own admission, and you all deny that there isn't concerted effort behind that? Do you really
think Fox and CNN cover all this, fair and balanced? Admit already, you just don't care to
know, you'd rather make fun of smarter people because you are likely weak of mind and
spirit.
Also. the bombs were clearly non-functional. The 'timer' was a clock for crying out loud.
The FBI refuses to say what was inside the PVC pipe, instead opting to use the weasel words
"energetic material". If that doesn't fuel conspiracy theories, nothing else will.
We can't trust the "news", we can't trust the FBI, and we can't trust "platforms" not to
edit timelines. What the hell do you expect?!?!
Who would ever believe that a political candidate would conspire with her party to
effectively bypass the democratic process of nomination?
However, it happened.
Who would ever believe that a member of the news media would conspire with a candidate before
a debate?
However, it happened.
Who would ever believe that members of the judiciary committee would hide information until
the last minute in order to hijack a supreme court nomination?
However, it happened.
Here's something to consider about conspiracies. Ad while I opposed this executives policy
agenda, aside from two crucial areas. I keep hoping the opening quotation in the article is
inaccurate.
Uhh not really, the final word. Juries get facts wrong all the time -- they decide guilt
or innocence which doesn't have to be based on anything at save their judgement regardless of
the facts.
In fact, judges and prosecutors have greater impact on what constitutes a facts. Jury
instructions on evidence evaluation, what is or is not allowed as to argument -- -
In fact the best jury decisions in my view are those that actually nullify state
accusations. Those juries are are sincerely engaged in critically evaluating not only the
issues, the data, but whether whatever the accused did should have been considered illegal in
the first – despite the facts.
"... Also fails to point out how often we are lied to by the government and media as the reason for continuous questioning – they have lost our trust and deservedly so! ..."
"... It would be a lot easier to fight conspiracy theories if our elite opinion makers and military institutions did not try and manipulate our opinions so frequently. ..."
"... When Ms. Boland writes about how "dozens of people could orchestrate a deception that fools millions -- and then keep it secret for decades"–she knows what she's talking about. She herself has played a role–and continues to play a role–in just such a deception. ..."
As long as arrogant elitist like this author CONSPIRE to SMASH ordinary people, ordinary
people will continue to OBSERVE that the elites are conspiring to ruin us. This is not a
theory, it's an OBSERVED FACT.
In today's world of the 24/7/15-min News cycle, it becomes apparent that the Media themselves
are complicit in promoting "Conspiracy Theory" narratives – because they continually
engage in a never-ending parade of "talking head's" making commentary based in speculation,
innuendo and "shock-value" sound-bites, designed to keep people watching the "train-wreck"
that has become the MSM's version of "The Never-Ending Story"!
This article' written in the American Conservative, sounds like a left wing propaganda piece
claiming that if you dispute the mainstream narrative, you are a lazy, non-thinking,
whacked-out conspiracy nut. It fails to point our the left-wing conspiracies such as Trump is
a Nazi, all white males are violent killers, legal immigration is for racists, etc, etc, etc.
Also fails to point out how often we are lied to by the government and media as the reason
for continuous questioning – they have lost our trust and deservedly so!
Re: And who gets to determine what is and is not a fact? I
Facts are a given. You do not get to pick and chose, nor to elevate opinion to fact
status. The sun will not rise in the west no matter how much you'd like it to. And 2+2 will
always equal four.
It would be a lot easier to fight conspiracy theories if our elite opinion makers and
military institutions did not try and manipulate our opinions so frequently.
It is a misdiagnosis to see this as a bottom up problem. The top has its role to play and
having greater resources it should lead the way. But controlling people is fun and profitable
so I don't see America's leaders dropping it any time soon. America should be hyper rational
and boring like Switzerland, but it's not and I don't see how you get there when there are
two competing reality hegemonies (progressive and libertarian) fighting for the American
mind.
Barbara Boland talks about the kind of "thinking [that] isn't really thinking at all." She
says, "It's laziness that jumps to conclusions before examining the facts. It accepts that
somehow dozens of people could orchestrate a deception that fools millions -- and then keep
it secret for decades."
Ms. Boland should know. Ms. Boland – "the Boeing/Orbital ATK/Lockheed
Martin/Raytheon girl" -- is herself involved in just such "a deception that fools millions."
She beats the drums on behalf of a deception that has cost American taxpayers hundreds of
billions of dollars – the so-called anti-ballistic missile defense system.
Ms. Boland herself admits that "we cannot know for sure how these systems will function in
the real world. Department of Defense tests have typically been controlled, and there have
only been four successful ballistic missile intercept tests since 2004."
And yet Ms. Boland -- acknowledging that "we have spent $123 billion on missile defense
systems since 2002 [and] in 2017 Congress authorized hundreds of millions of dollars in
funding for missile interceptors built by Boeing, Orbital ATK, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon"
-- wants Congress to spend more money. She "Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle should agree
that this defense expenditure is a long-term investment in the safety and security of the
U.S. homeland."
When Ms. Boland writes about how "dozens of people could orchestrate a deception that
fools millions -- and then keep it secret for decades"–she knows what she's talking
about. She herself has played a role–and continues to play a role–in just such a
deception.
Some of the above are Democrats all by themselves, but there's plenty of republican and
government advocacy to go around delegitimizing the entire system.
A conservative columnist complaining about conspiracy theories taking over the uneducated
masses may be the person with the least self awareness of anyone on the internet today.
Then there are the crazies who think that the NSA is reading our emails, or that our Cuba
policy is a cynical attempt to gain votes in South Florida. Preposterous!
We say Browder, but we mean MI6. He was a part of larger plan concocted by US intelligence agencies to decimate Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
Of which Harvard mafia played even more important role. The fact that he gave up his U.S. citizenship in
1997 points to his association with MI6.
The level of distortions the US neoliberal MSM operated with in case of Magnitsky (starting with the widely repeated and
factually incorrect claim that he was a lawyers, in create a sympathy; their effort to portrait shady accountant involved in tax
fraud for Browder, as a fighter for justice should be described in a separate chapter on any modem book on the power of propaganda;
this is simply classic ) is compatible with lies and distortions of Skripal affair and point of strong interest ion
intelligence services in both.
Browder and Magnistsky affair really demonstrate that as for foreign events we already live "Matrix environment" of
artificial reality created by MSM and controlled by intelligence agencies and foreign policy establishment; and that ordinary people are forced into artificial
reality with little or no chance to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had relied on Browder's version without checking it. ..."
"... The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently investigate some of Browder's claims. ..."
"... In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion. ..."
"... The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud. ..."
"... The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler. ..."
"... A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin helped promote it. ..."
As Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya tells it, she met with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump aides in New York
last summer to press her case against a widely accepted account of Russian malfeasance, one that underpins a set of sanctions against
Russians.
Trump Jr., who agreed to the June 2016 meeting
at the request of a Russian business associate with a promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton , has said he didn't find much to interest
him in the presentation. And little wonder: The subject is a dense and tangled web, hinging on a complex case that led Congress to
pass what is known as the Magnitsky Act. The law imposed sanctions on individual Russians accused of human rights violations. It
has nothing to do with Clinton.
But the substance of what the pair of Russian advocates say they came to discuss has a fascinating backstory.
It's an epic international dispute -- one that has pitted the grandson of a former American Communist who made a fortune as a
capitalist in Russia against a Russian leader who pines for the glory days of his country's Communist past.
That dossier,
published by Buzzfeed , made other, more salacious allegations about Trump, and FBI Director James Comey briefed the Republican
about it before he took office. The dossier is not favorable to Putin and the Russian government.
Simpson's role on both sides of the Putin divide is set to be explored in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday examining
the Justice Department's requirements for foreign lobbying disclosures.
Due to testify at the hearing is Simpson's longtime opponent in the Magnitsky dispute, William Browder, an American-born hedge-fund
investor who made millions investing in post-Soviet Russia and gave up his U.S. citizenship in 1997.
Simpson's lawyer said he would defy a subpoena to appear Wednesday because he was on vacation, and that he would decline to answer
questions anyway, citing his right against self-incrimination.
Browder, whose grandfather Earl led the American Communist Party, accuses Simpson of peddling falsehoods as an agent of the Russian
government. The law firm Simpson worked with on the case accused Browder in court papers of perpetrating a web of lies. Both men
dispute the allegations.
The Death of Sergei Magnitsky
The story begins with the November 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax accountant who was working for Browder, and
who later died in prison .
Browder's account of Magnitsky's death triggered international outrage. According to Browder, Magnitsky was a lawyer who had been investigating a theft of $230 million in tax rebates paid to Browder's
companies in Russia. Browder says his companies had been taken over illegally and without his knowledge by corrupt Russian officials.
Browder says Magnitsky was arrested as a reprisal by those same corrupt officials, and then was tortured and beaten to death.
Browder presented documents suggesting that some officials who benefited from the alleged fraud purchased property abroad.
That account led Congress to pass the so-called Magnitsky Act in 2012, imposing sanctions on the Russian officials who were alleged
to have violated Magnitsky's human rights.
The Russian government soon imposed a ban on American adoptions of Russian children, ostensibly for other reasons but done in
response, many experts say, to the Magnitsky sanctions.
Forty-four Russians are currently on the Magnitsky sanctions list maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department, meaning their U.S.
assets are frozen and they are not allowed to travel to the U.S.
Once a Putin supporter, Browder became one of the Russian leader's most ardent foes, spearheading a campaign to draw international
attention to the Magnitsky case. He and his employees at Hermitage Capital Management presented information to governments, international
bodies and major news organizations.
Browder's advocacy marks a shift from 2004, when, as one of Russia's leading foreign investors, he praised Putin so vigorously
that he was labeled Putin's
"chief cheerleader" by an analyst in a Washington Post article. Browder has said that Magnitsky's death spurred him to reexamine
his view of Putin.
The State Department, lawmakers of both parties and the Western news media have described the Magnitsky case in a way that tracks
closely with Browder's account. Browder's assertions are consistent with the West's understanding of the Putin government -- an authoritarian
regime that has been widely and credibly accused of murdering journalists and political opponents.
In 2013, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office sued a Russian company, accusing it of laundering some of the proceeds of the fraud
Magnitsky allegedly uncovered. The complaint incorporated Browder's account about what happened to Magnitsky.
That lawsuit set in motion a process through which that version of events would come under challenge.
The defendant, a company called Prevezon, is owned by Denis Katsyv, who became wealthy while his father was vice governor and
transport minister for the Moscow region, according to published reports. The father, Pyotr Katsyv, is now vice president of the
state-run Russian Railways. Veselnitskaya has long represented the family.
Prevezon hired a law firm, BakerHostetler, and a team that included a longtime New York prosecutor, John Moscow. Also working
on Prevezon's behalf were Simpson, Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin.
Simpson, a former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, declined to comment.
Simpson also worked with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in the creation of the dossier that asserts Trump
collusion with Russian election interference. A source close to him said his work on the dossier was kept confidential from his other
clients.
The federal civil lawsuit by the Manhattan U.S. attorney against Prevezon was the first opportunity for the U.S. government to
publicly present whatever evidence it had to support its legal assertions regarding Magnitsky. It was also an opportunity for the
defendants to conduct their own investigation.
Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had
relied on Browder's version without checking it. Browder and the U.S. government disagreed.
The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of
the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently
investigate some of Browder's claims.
In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because
he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion.
The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud.
The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for
a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler.
A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither
Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin
helped promote it.
"... The most distracting game player of all time, Donald Gump, is trying his darndest to weaken the dollar and force lower interest rates by doing everything in his power to destabilise global trade...which of course only serves to strengthen the dollar....because any hint of monetary instability for any reason will always be met with a "flight to safety." Whether the flight is in reality "safe" is beside the point. The flight itself is all that matters. The flight itself is the existential reality. ..."
"... China is onboard out of necessity. Their economy is doldrumic without the US market to sell into. The wealthy Chinese will continue to accept dollar debt notes forever, or so long as they can continue to sell trinkets to USAryans, whichever comes first; Gump's lacklustre trade maneuvres notwithstanding. And the US needs China to keep the consumer culture afloat. This is a pure balancing act but, again, no one of the .002, including those who are of Chinese and Russian descent, will risk any imbalance. ..."
<
"Money Sings and Bullshiite Clings (to the .998)">
In part one we discovered the global world is not what it appears to be, especially to
those of us who believe we have it all figured out from wet nursing on the internets. That
is, there is an interconnected globalist world for "them" and a multipolar, disconnected,
discognitive nationalist world for the rest of "us." And "we" are further subdivided by race,
gender, class, sociopolitical and religious biases as taught to us through "their" media.
The ones who control the information flow of the internets use this control to 1.
facilitate world trade 2. create even greater wealth for "them" 3. evade taxation of that
wealth 4. make even bigger fools out of the rest of "us" who remain year after livelong year
stuck glumly online following our favourite "nation/states" as if they are World Cup
contenders. When our favourite team wins, so the delusional daydreaming goes, the .998 win
too. Rah-rah, go team!
We determined the reason the dollar's acceptance as the international currency is
existential, as it has been since time immemorial. The world's financial oligarchs made that
determination postwar and placed their bets....in fiat dollars during the 1970s. Changing the
international currency system will require a complete re-wiring of that mindset. And for that
to happen Hell will first freeze over. After all, currency is merely a medium of exchange and
the controlling mindset belongs to those who control the wealth expressed in that medium. It
isn't up for popular vote folks. And those .002 controlling are the most conservative people
on earth. They exist in every nation on earth but they aren't playing some World Cup game.
No, their game is entirely different from ours. Our game is team sports.
The most distracting game player of all time, Donald Gump, is trying his darndest to
weaken the dollar and force lower interest rates by doing everything in his power to
destabilise global trade...which of course only serves to strengthen the dollar....because
any hint of monetary instability for any reason will always be met with a "flight to safety."
Whether the flight is in reality "safe" is beside the point. The flight itself is all that
matters. The flight itself is the existential reality.
China is onboard out of necessity. Their economy is doldrumic without the US market to
sell into. The wealthy Chinese will continue to accept dollar debt notes forever, or so long
as they can continue to sell trinkets to USAryans, whichever comes first; Gump's lacklustre
trade maneuvres notwithstanding. And the US needs China to keep the consumer culture afloat.
This is a pure balancing act but, again, no one of the .002, including those who are of
Chinese and Russian descent, will risk any imbalance.
This is Gump's hole card in his silly game of pocket poker.
And whither Russia?
Vladimir now realises what so many other unlucky business partners have.....help out the
Don to achieve his greater goals and sooner than later you will be rewarded with a swift kick
in the [very manly] groin. Vlad surely thought Gump owed him, too. Lol.
The ghastly Ghaddafi murder was intentionally kept on the down low. Hillary's snafu - We
Came, We Saw, He Died. Uproarious laughter - was a PR fuck up.
This Khashoggi murder is intentionally amplified.
Amplification or squelching suits an agenda.
We can see a different agenda in each of the above cases.
Khashoggi, representing Brennan/UAE pitched the coup to palace guard in Turkey. When
earnest money was transferred (proof of treason, Guards took Khashoggi out, sending a message
to deposed MBZayed(plot mastermind)/UAE. They tried in Los Vegas and failed. MBS wants out of
Yemen. LOTS of money will be lost -- KSA's Vietnam; draining the treasury.
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends the 15th Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion
Club in Sochi on Thursday, October 18.
The Valdai Discussion Club, established in 2004, has become an internationally recognised
platform for interaction between leading world experts and Russian scholars, politicians and
government officials.
"... It's not that Putin's stance was any different than in the past. Russia will strike back at an aggressor under any circumstance where the future of Russia is at stake. It was his assurance that in doing so 1) it would be just and righteous "dying like martyrs" and 2) so swift and brutal the aggressors would "die like dogs" bereft of the chance to ask for salvation. ..."
"... Notice how there have been no attacks or even harsh language coming out of Israel or the U.S. in the past few weeks. The failure of the British/French/Israeli operation to sucker Trump into an invasion of Syria is now complete. ..."
"... Putin wasn't boasting or grandstanding about Russia's hypersonic weapons capability. He told everyone they are deployed. He did this to shut up the U.S. neoconservative chattering class who he rightly says whisper in President Trump's ear that they can win a nuclear conflict with Russia. ..."
"... They are insane. And you have to treat them that way. ..."
Every year Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the Valdai Economic Forum. And each
year his talk is important. Putin isn't one to mince words on important issues.
With tensions between Russia and the West reaching Cold War levels, Valdai represented the
first time we've heard Putin speak in a long-form discussion since Helsinki and the events
thereafter - IL-20, Khashoggi, etc.
So, this talk is worth everyone's time. And when I say everyone's I mean every single person
who could be affected by the breakdown of the U.S. political system and how that spills over
onto Russia's shores.
In other words, pretty much everyone on the planet.
Because what Putin did at Valdai was to lay down the new rules of conduct in geopolitical
affairs. He put the U.S. and European oligarchs I call The Davos Crowd on notice.
There is a limit to your provocations and attempts to undermine Russia. So don't cross that
line.
Peace Through Strength
The big quote from his talk is the one everyone is focusing on, and rightly so, Russia's
policy about using nuclear weapons.
It's not that Putin's stance was any different than in the past. Russia will strike back
at an aggressor under any circumstance where the future of Russia is at stake. It was his
assurance that in doing so 1) it would be just and righteous "dying like martyrs" and 2) so
swift and brutal the aggressors would "die like dogs" bereft of the chance to ask for
salvation.
Those are strong words. They are the words of a meek man. And the word meek, as Jordan
Peterson reminds us, describes someone who has weapons, knows how to use them and keeps them
sheathed until they have no other option.
The reaction from the audience (see video above) was nervous laughter, but I don't think
Putin was having one over on anyone.
He was serious. This is the very definition of meek.
It is really no different than the attitude of Secretary of Defense James Mattis who said,
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes:
If you f$*k with me, I'll kill you all."
Men like this are not to be tested too hard. And Putin's response to the shooting down of
the IL-20 plane and its crew was to cross a bunch of diplomatic lines by handing out S-300s to
Syria and erecting a de facto no-fly zone over Western Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Notice how there have been no attacks or even harsh language coming out of Israel or the
U.S. in the past few weeks. The failure of the British/French/Israeli operation to sucker Trump
into an invasion of Syria is now complete.
And I'm convinced that Nikki Haley paid the price.
All of this highlights the major theme that came out of Putin's comments.
Strength through resolve. Resolve comes as a consequence of defending culture.
Putin wasn't boasting or grandstanding about Russia's hypersonic weapons capability. He
told everyone they are deployed. He did this to shut up the U.S. neoconservative chattering
class who he rightly says whisper in President Trump's ear that they can win a nuclear conflict
with Russia.
They are insane. And you have to treat them that way.
Culture First
Putin sees himself, quite rightly, as the custodian of the Russian people and, as such, the
Russian state as the reflection of Russian culture. If you are going to have a state and
someone is going to be the head of it, this is the attitude that you want from that person.
In his dialogue with an Orthodox priest Putin wholeheartedly agreed with the idea that "the
state cannot dictate culture" but rather, at best, be the facilitator of it through its
applications of law.
In a back and forth with a very enthusiastic Russian dairy farmer, who was quite proud of
his cheese, Putin reminded the man that while he loved sanctions (from European competition)
protecting his business today he should not get used to them. They will be removed at some
point and the farmer would have to stand on his own wits to survive in the international
market.
Putin understands that subsidies breed sloth. That was a message he made loud and clear.
It's why when the sanctions first went into effect in 2014 over the reunification of Crimea
and during the Ruble crisis Putin shifted state subsidies away from the petroleum sector which
had thrived and gotten soft during years of $100+/bbl oil and shifted that money to
agriculture.
The fruits of that successful policy shift he confronted head on at Valdai. Russia's food
production across all sectors is flourishing thanks to a cheap ruble, which the U.S. keeps
beating down via sanctions, and the Russian state getting out of the way of investment.
At the time he incurred the wrath of Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin and Putin ignored him, much to
everyone's surprise. The message was clear, we'll help you out of your current troubles but
it's time to do business differently. Because it was Rosneft that needed the biggest bailouts
in late 2014/early 2015 having tens of billions in dollar-denominated debt which couldn't be
rolled over thanks to the sanctions.
The Limits of Empire
Ultimately, Putin looked resigned, if confused, to the insanity emanating from U.S. policy.
But it's obvious to him that Russia cannot get caught up in the tit-for-tat nuisances put up to
derail Russia's future.
He mentioned the Empire loses its way because it believed itself invulnerable or as my dad
used to say about certain athletes, "He reads his own press clippings too much."
There is a solipsism that infects dominant societies which creates the kind of
over-reactions we're witnessing today. Power is slipping away from the U.S. and Trump is both
helping the process along while also trying to preserve the core of what's left.
And no interaction during Putin's talk was more indicative of his view of the U.S. empire
than his interaction with a Japanese delegate who asked him about signing a peace treaty with
Japan.
And Putin's answer was clear. It's Japan's pride and political entanglements that preclude
this from happening. Signing the peace treaty is not necessary to solving ownership of the
Kuril Islands. Russia and Japan are both diminished by having this obstacle in the way.
The issue can resolve itself after the peace treaty is signed. The current state of things
is silly and anachronistic and keep the divide between Russians and Japanese from healing.
Create trust through agreement then move forward.
That's what is happening between Russia and Egypt and that is why Putin is winning the
diplomatic war.
And it's why Trump is losing the diplomatic war. Putin knows where Trump is. He was there
himself seventeen years ago, except an order of magnitude worse. The problems Trump is facing
are the same problems Putin faced, corruption, venality, treason all contributing to a collapse
in societal and cultural institutions.
Putin knows the U.S. is at a crossroads, and he's made his peace with whatever comes next.
The question is have we?
Although it is almost off topic, I did find one point in Putin's Valdai
speech quite telling. It was his point about the Russian automated system for detection and
tracking of missile launches. Putin tried to boost the credibility of the Russian nuclear deterant by advertising this system for detecting the First Strike launches.
Although I do not believe that this system is as reliable as advertised, I am most
encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not
even likely.
If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as
usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various
reasons which would take a while to explain.
I just hope that the Russian office corps is as prepared as Putin is to be productive
martyrs (no more Arkhipovs please).
If you are finding your way out of the dark forest of propaganda there are two speeches by
Putin that I point people toward. First, at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Video
here : Transcript
here
Second, at the UN General Assembly September 2015, Video here : Transcript here .
I fail to see how any rational person could disagree with the sentiments he expresses.
Warning! You may become a Putin-bot!
"... Russia does not have the concept of a preventive strike in its doctrine for using nuclear arms. We only consider using it in response. That means that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons only when we have hard facts that a potential aggressor is striking on Russia, on Russian territory with nuclear weapons. ..."
"... They tried to do the same by attacking South Ossetia. As a result of those criminal, basically, criminal actions, Georgia has lost significant territories -- as a result of Saakashvili's actions, this is the result of his work. It would be very sad if today's Ukrainian authorities would follow in his footsteps. ..."
One al-Masdar News item I tried to link was about Zionist jets testing the outer envelope
of Syrian airspace earlier today. Clearly they think the Ukrainian S-300 they trained against
differs little from the very upgraded versions employed in Syria, which are much closer to
S-400 in most abilities other than missile performance. I wonder if the Zionist pilots will
draw straws to see which one of them becomes the sacrificial lamb--perhaps it ought to fall
to the top Zionist air force commander.
For all Aussie Barflies, Partisangirl posts an
"Honest #australian government ad about anti-encryption laws," in which they are called "Ass
Access." Excellent short vid that ought to catch fire before YouTube yanks it.
RT has posted the full
video of the annual Valdai Club meeting with Putin. This year they've ditched the
traditional panel discussion in favor of Putin answering questions solo. For those MoA
regulars who don't have the time to watch it, I've transcribed a few of Putin's answers that
I found interesting.
Putin on Crimea school shooting
This is most likely a result of globalization, strange as that may sound. On social media,
on the internet, we see entire communities created. It all started with the well-known tragic
shootings in U.S. high schools, where young people who are mentally unstable create false
idols, false heroes for themselves. And that means that all of us, not only in Russia, but
globally, we don't react promptly to the changing realities around the Globe, we don't create
content that would be helpful and interesting for young people, and so they have to grab this
surrogate of heroic images, and that leads to tragedies like this one.
Putin on nuclear retaliation
In our concept of using nuclear weapons there is no such notion as a preventive strike.
And I would like to request all those present here and all those who will be reporting on
what I'm saying and analyzing every word I say or using what I say for their own narrative,
please take note of this fact, that Russia does not have the concept of a preventive strike
in its doctrine for using nuclear arms. We only consider using it in response. That means
that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons only when we have hard facts that a potential
aggressor is striking on Russia, on Russian territory with nuclear weapons.
Now, this is no
secret, we have prepared an early warning system, we have created it and we keep improving
it. This system analyzes globally, world-wide, where launches are being made, including
oceanic surface, they identify where missiles are being launched from, secondly, their
trajectory and the point of impact. All this is being identified and analyzed within seconds.
And so only if we identify through that system that missiles are being launched at us, only
then will we deliver a retaliatory strike, a strike in response. Only when there are missiles
airborne being launched at Russia.
Of course, that would lead to a global disaster, to a
nuclear catastrophe, but Russia cannot become its instigator or initiator, because we don't
have a preventive strike as part of our military doctrine. Of course, once someone has
launched nuclear missiles at us, it would be maybe too late to stop them, but a potential
aggressor should know that there would be a retaliation, and we will get to heaven as
martyrs, and our enemies will simply simply die as dogs, because they won't even have time to
redeem themselves (repent). (nervous laughter in the audience)
Putin on Ukraine
Currently, the Ukrainian regime is not merely deadlocking the situation. There're
conducting an anti-state and anti-public policy, the same way it was done by Saakashvili in
Georgia. They tried to do the same by attacking South Ossetia. As a result of those criminal,
basically, criminal actions, Georgia has lost significant territories -- as a result of Saakashvili's actions, this is the result of his work. It would be very sad if today's
Ukrainian authorities would follow in his footsteps.
I hope that that would not be the case.
But what has happened over the past time in social sphere, in economics? What's happening
there? What we see is de-industrialization of the Ukrainian economy. There's basically no
investments coming. They're just talking about investments, but nothing is taking place in
reality. How can you work with economy that is always shaken by some kinds of shocks or
undermined by domestic political crises? There is also war hysteria. All things have been
destroyed. Where is that ship-building industry that Ukraine was proud of? Where's the
aircraft-building industry, which was created by the whole Soviet Union throughout decades?
What about spaceship-building? It has also been lost. And the same goes for every part of
Ukrainian pride of the past. And what's happening is what I have been saying. I'm just saying
it outloud here, but I wanted to ask you a rhetorical question. Why did our Western partners
need that, especially the previous leadership of European Commission? Why did they have to
insist on such a hard choice, hard engagement of Ukraine in the European Association? What
did that give to Ukraine? The open market? So they're asking for Ukraine to bring out round
timber. But it's not Siberia -- three or four years of work, and they're going to destroy all
of the forests. And now Western partners are asking for GMO products in agriculture. Then we
will have to close borders, because GMO is prohibited in our country. Now they're going to
take the black earth soil out of Ukraine. Therefore, I believe that today's policy of
Ukrainian authorities is aimed at what, what are they trading in? They're trading in
Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiments, there are no more goods there. And they're being
forgiven for everything for that. Because the nightmare of our Western partners is that
Russia and Ukraine are cooperating in any way, because they think there will be growing
competition in the world as a result of such cooperation. But we don't a claim for that, we
just wanted to have normal work. Why did they have to open up Ukrainian markets without
giving anything in return? And demanding from the Ukrainian government, constantly, to raise
the prices for (natural) gas. They understand that the purchasing power of the population is
not so high, they used to gather just peanuts for the (natural) gas industry before (in
utility payments), and now they're basically gathering nothing -- all benefits, all pensions
are at zero. So we're gonna have to wait for the domestic political cycle to end, and I truly
hope that with a new leadership of the country we'll be capable of building at least some
kind of relations and agree on something. We are prepared for that and we want that.
Oh for the day when a western leader could speak with such intellectual rigour, such
philosophical integrity and with such basic common sense. Russia has a giant, we have a bunch
of pygmies.
Recap of Putin's
remarks at Valdai Club provided by Sputnik covers lots of ground. I'll post a link to the
full transcript when I find it. Yes, he does comment on Khashoggi affair, which I'll post
onto that thread. Haven't seen a recap of Lavrov's remarks yet.
It appears that links to al-Masdar News are now being blocked by TypePad where they weren't
previously.
Medvedev interview
transcript with Euronews TV shows he's learned a few pointers from Putin on not being
cowed. He'll represent Russia at the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). This Summit, which few have
probably heard about, is mainly a talk-shop not a deal-making venue like the G-20, but
Medvedev sees it as a useful forum. No, he wasn't asked about Khashoggi, but was queried
about Skripal affair.
karlof1 , Oct 18, 2018 2:41:08 PM |
linkS , Oct 18, 2018 3:04:23 PM |
link
RT has posted the full
video of the annual Valdai Club meeting with Putin. This year they've ditched the
traditional panel discussion in favor of Putin answering questions solo. For those MoA
regulars who don't have the time to watch it, I've transcribed a few of Putin's answers that
I found interesting.
Putin on Crimea school shooting
This is most likely a result of globalization, strange as that may sound. On social media,
on the internet, we see entire communities created. It all started with the well-known tragic
shootings in U.S. high schools, where young people who are mentally unstable create false
idols, false heroes for themselves. And that means that all of us, not only in Russia, but
globally, we don't react promptly to the changing realities around the Globe, we don't create
content that would be helpful and interesting for young people, and so they have to grab this
surrogate of heroic images, and that leads to tragedies like this one.
Putin on nuclear retaliation
In our concept of using nuclear weapons there is no such notion as a preventive strike.
And I would like to request all those present here and all those who will be reporting on
what I'm saying and analyzing every word I say or using what I say for their own narrative,
please take note of this fact, that Russia does not have the concept of a preventive strike
in its doctrine for using nuclear arms. We only consider using it in response. That means
that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons only when we have hard facts that a potential
aggressor is striking on Russia, on Russian territory with nuclear weapons. Now, this is no
secret, we have prepared an early warning system, we have created it and we keep improving
it. This system analyzes globally, world-wide, where launches are being made, including
oceanic surface, they identify where missiles are being launched from, secondly, their
trajectory and the point of impact. All this is being identified and analyzed within seconds.
And so only if we identify through that system that missiles are being launched at us, only
then will we deliver a retaliatory strike, a strike in response. Only when there are missiles
airborne being launched at Russia. Of course, that would lead to a global disaster, to a
nuclear catastrophe, but Russia cannot become its instigator or initiator, because we don't
have a preventive strike as part of our military doctrine. Of course, once someone has
launched nuclear missiles at us, it would be maybe too late to stop them, but a potential
aggressor should know that there would be a retaliation, and we will get to heaven as
martyrs, and our enemies will simply simply die as dogs, because they won't even have time to
redeem themselves (repent). (nervous laughter in the audience)
Putin on Ukraine
Currently, the Ukrainian regime is not merely deadlocking the situation. There're
conducting an anti-state and anti-public policy, the same way it was done by Saakashvili in
Georgia. They tried to do the same by attacking South Ossetia. As a result of those criminal,
basically, criminal actions, Georgia has lost significant territories -- as a result of
Saakashvili's actions, this is the result of his work. It would be very sad if today's
Ukrainian authorities would follow in his footsteps. I hope that that would not be the case.
But what has happened over the past time in social sphere, in economics? What's happening
there? What we see is de-industrialization of the Ukrainian economy. There's basically no
investments coming. They're just talking about investments, but nothing is taking place in
reality. How can you work with economy that is always shaken by some kinds of shocks or
undermined by domestic political crises? There is also war hysteria. All things have been
destroyed. Where is that ship-building industry that Ukraine was proud of? Where's the
aircraft-building industry, which was created by the whole Soviet Union throughout decades?
What about spaceship-building? It has also been lost. And the same goes for every part of
Ukrainian pride of the past. And what's happening is what I have been saying. I'm just saying
it outloud here, but I wanted to ask you a rhetorical question. Why did our Western partners
need that, especially the previous leadership of European Commission? Why did they have to
insist on such a hard choice, hard engagement of Ukraine in the European Association? What
did that give to Ukraine? The open market? So they're asking for Ukraine to bring out round
timber. But it's not Siberia -- three or four years of work, and they're going to destroy all
of the forests. And now Western partners are asking for GMO products in agriculture. Then we
will have to close borders, because GMO is prohibited in our country. Now they're going to
take the black earth soil out of Ukraine. Therefore, I believe that today's policy of
Ukrainian authorities is aimed at what, what are they trading in? They're trading in
Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiments, there are no more goods there. And they're being
forgiven for everything for that. Because the nightmare of our Western partners is that
Russia and Ukraine are cooperating in any way, because they think there will be growing
competition in the world as a result of such cooperation. But we don't a claim for that, we
just wanted to have normal work. Why did they have to open up Ukrainian markets without
giving anything in return? And demanding from the Ukrainian government, constantly, to raise
the prices for (natural) gas. They understand that the purchasing power of the population is
not so high, they used to gather just peanuts for the (natural) gas industry before (in
utility payments), and now they're basically gathering nothing -- all benefits, all pensions
are at zero. So we're gonna have to wait for the domestic political cycle to end, and I truly
hope that with a new leadership of the country we'll be capable of building at least some
kind of relations and agree on something. We are prepared for that and we want that.
Thanks for doing that work! Transcript at Kremlin website's still incomplete, containing
probably half of entire program. As usual, much of importance was stated. Putin's
matter-of-fact delivery regarding use of nuclear weapons and the nature of those who would
launch a first strike was sobering. The question today's reversed: Do Americans love their
children too? Unfortunately, given what's happening here domestically, the answer provided by
DC Duopoly policy makers is NO, they don't give a damn about their kids or anyone else's!
Politics has simply become another product, the consumption of which is regulated by
advertising. Almost none of it is true, as if the product were really good, it would sell
itself. And the world's great democracies wonder why voter turnout slips a little every year.
Barring extraordinarily divisive elections like the last one in the United States, of course.
Maybe there's something to that – elections must be made into spectacles, or the people
don't give a fuck who gets in, because they're ultimately all the same face. That's pretty
much where I am now, and have been for a decade or more. But making an election into a
bile-driven hate-fest will really only work once. When one set of supporters gives it their
all and then finds out their candidate is really no different than the rest of the political
spectrum – like Obama – or that he/she is different but certifiable like Trump,
it's enough to put you off ever voting again. Stick your democracy. Put your mother in, or
your cat. I don't care.
One of the reasons that countries fail is that collective memory is continually destroyed as
older generations pass away and are replaced by new ones who are disconnected from what came
before.
Initially, the disconnect was handled by history and by discussions around family tables.
For example, when I was a kid there were still grandparents whose fathers had fought for the
Confederacy. They had no slaves and owned no plantations. They fought because their land was
invaded by Lincoln's armies. Today if Southern families still know the facts, they would
protect their children by not telling them. Can you imagine what would happen to a child in a
public school that took this position?
Frustrated by the inability of the Union Army to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia led by
West Point graduate Robert E. Lee, Lincoln resorted to war criminals. Generals Sherman and
Sherridan, operating under the drunken General Grant, were the first modern war criminals who
conducted war against civilian women and children, their homes and food supply. Lincoln was so
out of step with common morality that he had to arrest and detain 300 Northern newspaper
editors and exile a US Congressman in order to conduct his War for Empire.
Today this history is largely erased. The court historians buried the truth with the fable
that Lincoln went to war to free the slaves. This ignorant nonsense is today the official
history of the "civil war," which most certainly was not a civil war.
A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The Confederacy was a new
country consisting of those states that seceded. Most certainly, the Confederate soldiers were
no more fighting for control over the government in Washington than they were fighting to
protect the investment of plantation owners.
Memory is lost when historical facts are cast down the memory hole
So, what does this have to do with the lesson for today? More than history can be erased by
the passage of time. Culture can be erased. Morality can be erased. Common sense can disappear
with the diplomacy that depends on it.
The younger generation which experiences threats shouted all around it at Confederate war
memorials and street names - Atlanta has just struck historic Confederate Avenue out of
existence and replaced it with United Avenue - at white males who, if they are heterosexual,
have been redefined by Identity Politics as rapists, racists, and misogynists, at distinguished
scientists who state, factually, that there are innate differences between the male and the
female, and so on, might think that it is natural for high officials in the US government to
issue a never-ending stream of war threats to Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela.
A person of my generation knows that such threats are unprecedented, not only for the US
Government but also in world history. President Trump's crazed NATO Ambassador, Kay Bailey
Hutchison, threatened to "take out Russian missiles." President Trump's crazed UN Ambassador
Nikki Hailey issues endless threats as fast as she can run her mouth against America's allies
as well as against the powerful countries that she designates as enemies. Trump's crazed
National Security Advisor John Bolten rivals the insane Haley with his wide-ranging threats.
Trump's Secretary of State Pompeo spews out threats with the best of them. So do the inane New
York Times and Washington Post. Even a lowly Secretary of the Interior assumes the prerogative
of telling Russia that the US will interdict Russian navy ships.
What do you think would be the consequences if the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians
took these threats seriously? World Wars have started on far less. Yet there is no protest
against these deranged US government officials who are doing everything in their power to
convince Russia and China that they are without any question America's worst enemies. If you
were Russia or China, how would you respond to this?
Professor Stephen Cohen, who, like myself, remembers when the United States government had a
diplomatic tradition, is as disturbed as I am that Washington's decision to chuck diplomacy
down the memory hole and replace it with war threats is going to get us all killed.
More
Cold War Extremism and Crises
Overshadowed by the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, US-Russian relations grow ever more
perilous.
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical"
mistake by exploiting the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes
that don't bow to its whims.
"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin
said.
"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring
the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic
grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."
These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia
can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions
and violate WTO rules.
... ... ...
With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian
bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar
settlements into other currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the backing of
Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the Russian ruble for imports and exports.
In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have been readily embraced by China
and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises
in Vladivostok last month, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to counter
US tariffs and sanctions.
"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think about how to minimise dependence on
the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to
be done and c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."
This will probably be deleted too but I thought it well said
"A public that can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction is left to interpret
reality through illusion. Random facts or obscure bits of data and trivia are used either to
bolster illusion and give it credibility, or discarded if they interfere with the message
When opinions cannot be distinguished from facts, when there is no universal standard to
determine truth in law, in science, in scholarship, or in reporting the events of the day,
when the most valued skill is the ability to entertain, the world becomes a place where lies
become true, where people can believe what they want to believe. This is the real danger of
pseudo-events and pseudo-events are far more pernicious than stereotypes. They do not explain
reality, as stereotypes attempt to, but replace reality. Pseudo-events redefine reality by
the parameters set by their creators. These creators, who make massive profits selling
illusions, have a vested interest in maintaining the power structures they control."
– Hedges, Chris (2009). "Empire of Illusion", Nation Books, New York, NY, 2009, page
51
One of my favorite Chris Hedges pieces, here's an excerpt:
"The political process, as the research by professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
underscores, no longer advances the interests of the average citizen. It has turned the
consent of the governed into a cruel joke. "The central point that emerges from our research
is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average
citizens have little or no independent influence." This facade of democratic process
eviscerates one of the primary social bonds in a democratic state and abolishes the vital
shared belief that citizens have the power to govern themselves, that government exists to
promote and protect their rights and interests."
"... There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out in my book The Myth of Homeland Security ..."
"... "The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance. ..."
"... One thing that did ..."
"... US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point. ..."
"... My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection." ..."
"... All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault 7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. ..."
"... the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET -- Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ] ..."
"... It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being prepared for cyberwar. ..."
"... it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools. ..."
"... My observation is that the NSA and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese? ..."
"... The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are much smaller operations? ..."
"... That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other processors have similar backdoors. ..."
"... There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at all. ..."
"... So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order to justify its actions and defend its budget. ..."
"... What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes. ..."
"... Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of same. ..."
Bob Moore asks me to comment on an article about propaganda and security/intelligence. [
article ] This is going to be a mixture of opinion and references to facts; I'll try to be
clear which is which.
Yesterday several NATO countries ran a concerted propaganda campaign against Russia. The
context for it was a NATO summit in which the U.S. presses for an intensified cyberwar
against NATO's preferred enemy.
On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's
development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is
U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big
motherland.
It is true that the US periodically makes a big push regarding "messaging" about hacking.
Whether or not it constitutes a "propaganda campaign" depends on how we choose to interpret
things and the labels we attach to them -- "propaganda campaign" has a lot of negative
connotations and one person's "outreach effort" is an other's "propaganda." An
ultra-nationalist or an authoritarian submissive who takes the government's word for anything
would call it "outreach."
There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking
to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out
in my book The Myth of Homeland Security (2004) [
wc ] claims such as that the Chinese had "40,000 highly trained hackers" are flat-out
absurd and ignore the reality of hacking; that's four army corps. Hackers don't engage in
"human wave" attacks.
"The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was
presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm
perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the
industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance.
One thing that did happen in 2010 around the same time as the nonexistent
cyberwar was China and Russia proposed trilateral talks with the US to attempt to define
appropriate limits on state-sponsored hacking. The US flatly rejected the proposal, but there
was virtually no coverage of that in the US media at the time. The UN also called for a
cyberwar treaty framework, and the effort was killed by the US. [ wired ] What's
fascinating and incomprehensible to me is that, whenever the US feels that its ability to claim
pre-emptive cyberwar is challenged, it responds with a wave of claims about Chinese (or Russian
or North Korean) cyberwar aggression.
John Negroponte, former director of US intelligence, said intelligence agencies in the
major powers would be the first to "express reservations" about such an accord.
US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to
war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in
advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the
superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to
try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point.
My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other
nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and
Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder
reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of
its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a
war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has
not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US
distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US
power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis
is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection."
The anti-Russian campaign is about alleged Russian spying, hacking and influence
operations. Britain and the Netherland took the lead. Britain accused Russia's military
intelligence service (GRU) of spying attempts against the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague and Switzerland, of spying attempts against the British
Foreign Office, of influence campaigns related to European and the U.S. elections, and of
hacking the international doping agency WADA. British media willingly
helped to exaggerate the claims: [ ]
The Netherland [sic] for its part released
a flurry
of information about the alleged spying attempts against the OPCW in The Hague. It claims
that four GRU agents traveled to The Hague on official Russian diplomatic passports to sniff
out the WiFi network of the OPCW. (WiFi networks are notoriously easy to hack. If the OPCW is
indeed using such it should not be trusted with any security relevant issues.) The Russian
officials were allegedly very secretive, even cleaning out their own hotel trash, while they,
at the same, time carried laptops with private data and even taxi receipts showing their
travel from a GRU headquarter in Moscow to the airport. Like in the Skripal/Novichok saga the
Russian spies are, at the same time, portrayed as supervillains and hapless amateurs. Real
spies are neither.
There's a lot there, and I think the interpretation is a bit over-wrought, but it's mostly
accurate. The US and the UK (and other NATO allies, as necessary) clearly coordinate when it
comes to talking points. Claims of Chinese cyberwar in the US press will be followed by claims
in the UK and Australian press, as well. My suspicion is that this is not the US Government and
UK Government coordinating a story -- it's the intelligence agencies doing it. My
opinion is that the intelligence services are fairly close to a "deep state" -- the
CIA and NSA are completely out of control and the CIA has gone far toward building its own
military, while the NSA has implemented completely unrestricted surveillance worldwide.
All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault
7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking
the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. While the attribution
that "Fancy Bear is the GRU" has been made and is probably fairly solid, the attribution of NSA
malware and CIA malware is rock solid; the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET --
Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on
Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully
said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA
wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ]
It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US
has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being
prepared for cyberwar. I tend to be extremely skeptical of US claims because: bomber gap,
missile gap, gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMD, Afghanistan, Libya and every other aggressive attack by
the US which was blamed on its target. The reason I assume the US is the most aggressive actor
in cyberspace is because the US has done a terrible job of protecting its tool-sets and
operational security: it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the
NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools.
Meanwhile, where are the leaks of Russian and Chinese tools? They have been few and far
between, if there have been any at all. Does this mean that the Russians and Chinese have
amazingly superior tradecraft, if not tools? I don't know. My observation is that the NSA
and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing
to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA
and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese?
The article does not have great depth to its understanding of the situation, I'm afraid. So
it comes off as a bit heavy on the recent news while ignoring the long-term trends. For
example:
The allegations of Chinese supply chain attacks are of course just as hypocritical as the
allegations against Russia. The very first know case of computer related supply chain
manipulation goes
back to 1982 :
A CIA operation to sabotage Soviet industry by duping Moscow into stealing booby-trapped
software was spectacularly successful when it triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian gas
pipeline, it emerged yesterday.
I wrote a piece about the "Farewell Dossier" in 2004. [ mjr
] Re-reading it, it comes off as skeptical but waffly. I think that it's self-promotion by the
CIA and exaggerates considerably ("look how clever we are!") at a time when the CIA was
suffering an attention and credibility deficit after its shitshow performance under George
Tenet. But the first known cases of computer related supply chain manipulation go back to the
70s and 80s -- the NSA even compromised Crypto AG's Hagelin M-209 system (a mechanical
ciphering machine) in order to read global communications encrypted with that product. You can
imagine Crypto AG's surprise when the Iranian secret police arrested one of their sales reps
for selling backdoor'd crypto -- the NSA had never told them about the backdoor, naturally. The
CIA was also on record for producing Xerox machines destined for the USSR, which had recorders
built into them So, while the article is portraying the historical sweep of NSA dirty tricks,
they're only looking at the recent ones. Remember: the NSA also weakened the elliptic curve
crypto library in RSA's Bsafe implementation, paying RSADSI $13 million to accept their tweaked
code.
Why haven't we been hearing about the Chinese and Russians doing that sort of thing? There
are four options:
The Russians and Chinese are doing it, they're just so darned good nobody has
caught them until just recently.
The Russians and Chinese simply resort to using existing tools developed by the
hacking/cybercrime community and rely on great operational security rather than fancy
tools.
The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts
the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence
agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is
around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are
much smaller operations?
Something else.
That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's
not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel
management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other
processors have similar backdoors.
Was the Intel IME a "backdoor" or just "a bad idea"? Well, that's tricky. Let me put my
tinfoil hat on: making a backdoor look like a sloppily developed product feature would be the
competent way to write a backdoor. Making it as sneaky as the backdoor in the Via is
unnecessary -- incompetence is eminently believable.
&
(kaspersky)
I believe all of these stories (including the Supermicro) are the tip of a great big, ugly
iceberg. The intelligence community has long known that software-only solutions are too
mutable, and are easy to decompile and figure out. They have wanted to be in the BIOS of
systems -- on the motherboard -- for a long time. If you go back to 2014, we have disclosures
about the NSA malware that hides in hard drive BIOS: [
vice ] [
vice ] That appears to have been in progress around 2000/2001.
Of note, the group recovered two modules belonging to EquationDrug and GrayFish that were
used to reprogram hard drives to give the attackers persistent control over a target machine.
These modules can target practically every hard drive manufacturer and brand on the market,
including Seagate, Western Digital, Samsung, Toshiba, Corsair, Hitachi and more. Such attacks
have traditionally been difficult to pull off, given the risk in modifying hard drive
software, which may explain why Kaspersky could only identify a handful of very specific
targets against which the attack was used, where the risk was worth the reward.
But
Equation Group's malware platforms have other tricks, too. GrayFish, for example, also has
the ability to install itself into computer's boot record -- software that loads even
before the operating system itself -- and stores all of its data inside a portion of
the operating system called the registry, where configuration data is normally stored.
EquationDrug was designed for use on older Windows operating systems, and "some of the
plugins were designed originally for use on Windows 95/98/ME" -- versions of Windows so old
that they offer a good indication of the Equation Group's age.
This is not a very good example of how to establish a "malware gap" since it just makes the
NSA look like they are incapable of keeping a secret. If you want an idea how bad it is,
Kaspersky labs' analysis of the NSA's toolchain is a good example of how to do attribution
correctly. Unfortunately for the US agenda, that solid attribution points toward Fort Meade in
Maryland. [kaspersky]
Let me be clear: I think we are fucked every which way from the start. With backdoors in the
BIOS, backdoors on the CPU, and wireless cellular-spectrum backdoors, there are probably
backdoors in the GPUs and the physical network controllers, as well. Maybe the backdoors in the
GPU come from the GRU and maybe the backdoors in the hard drives come from NSA, but who cares?
The upshot is that all of our systems are so heinously compromised that they can only be
considered marginally reliable. It is, literally, not your computer: it's theirs. They'll let
you use it so long as your information is interesting to them.
Do I believe the Chinese are capable of doing such a thing? Of course. Is the GRU? Probably.
Mossad? Sure. NSA? Well-documented attribution points toward NSA. Your computer is a free-fire
zone. It has been since the mid 1990s, when the NSA was told "no" on the Clipper chip and
decided to come up with its own Plan B, C, D, and E. Then, the CIA came up with theirs. Etc.
There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at
all.
From my 2012 RSA conference lecture "Cyberwar, you're doing it wrong."
The problem is that playing in this space is the purview of governments. Nobody in the
cybercrime or hacking world need tools like these. The intelligence operatives have huge
budgets, compared to a typical company's security budget, and it's unreasonable to expect any
business to invest such a level of effort on defending itself. So what should companies do?
They should do exactly what they are doing: expect the government to deal with it; that's what
governments are for. The problem with that strategy is that their government isn't on their
side, either! It's Hobbes' playground.
In case you think I am engaging in hyperbole, I assure you I am not. If you want another
example of the lengths (and willingness to bypass the law) "they" are willing to go, consider
'stingrays' that are in operation in every major US city and outside of every interesting hotel
and high tech park. Those devices are not passive -- they actively inject themselves into the
call set-up between your phone and your carrier -- your data goes through the stingray, or it
doesn't go at all. If there are multiple stingrays, then your latency goes through the roof.
"They" don't care. Are the stingrays NSA, FBI, CIA, Mossad, GRU, or PLA? Probably a bit of all
of the above depending on where and when.
Whenever the US gets caught with its pants down around its ankles, it blames the Chinese or
the Russians because they have done a good job of building the idea that the most serious
hackers on the planet at the Chinese. I don't believe that we're seeing complex propaganda
campaigns that are tied to specific incidents -- I think we see ongoing organic
propaganda campaigns that all serve the same end: protect the agencies, protect their budgets,
justify their existence, and downplay their incompetence.
So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been
consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order
to justify its actions and defend its budget.
The government also engages in propaganda, and is influenced by the intelligence
community's propaganda as well. And the propaganda campaigns work because everyone
involved assumes, "well, given what the NSA has been able to do, I should assume the Chinese
can do likewise." That's a perfectly reasonable assumption and I think it's probably true that
the Chinese have capabilities. The situation is what Chuck Spinney calls "A self-licking ice
cream cone" -- it's a justifying structure that makes participation in endless aggression seem
like a sensible thing to do. And, when there's inevitably a disaster, it's going to be like a
cyber-9/11 and will serve as a justification for even more unrestrained aggression.
Want to see what it looks like? A thousand thanks to Commentariat member [redacted] for this
link. If you don't like video, there's an article here. [ toms ]
Is this an NSA backdoor, or normal incompetence? Is Intel Management Engine an NSA-inspired
backdoor, or did some system engineers at Intel think that was a good idea? There are other
scary indications of embedded compromise: the CIA's Vault7 archive included code that appeared
to be intended to embed in the firmware of "smart" flatscreen TVs. That would make every LG
flat panel in every hotel room, a listening device just waiting to be turned on.
We know the Chinese didn't do that particular bug but why wouldn't they do
something similar, in something else? China is the world's oldest mature culture -- they
literally wrote the book on strategy -- Americans acting as though it's a great
surprise to learn that the Chinese are not stupid, it's just the parochialism of a 250 year-old
culture looking at a 3,000 year-old culture and saying "wow, you guys haven't been asleep at
the switch after all!"
What little I've been able to find out the new
Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive
retribution against (perceived) foes.
Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of
same.
Pierce R. Butler@#1: What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that
it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes.
Yes. Since 2001, as far as most of us can tell, federal cybersecurity spend has been 80%
offense, 20% defense. And a lot of the offensive spend has been aimed at We, The
People.
Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media). I mean, I've seen interviews with retired US intelligence
people since the 90s complain that since the late 1980s, the intelligence agencies have
been crippled by management in love with hi-tech "SIGINT" solutions to problems that never
deliver and neglecting old-fashioned "HUMINT" intelligence-gathering.
The thing is, Kevin Mitnick got away with a lot of what he did because people didn't
take security seriously then, and still don't. On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember
reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of the researchers who helped in the analysis of
the Morris worm
that took down a significant chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a
year or so afterwards and some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it
still hadn't patched the holes that had let the worm infect them in the first
place.
Cat Mara@#3: Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media).
I think that's right, to a high degree. What if Edward Snowden was an agent provocateur
instead of a well-meaning naive kid? A tremendous amount of damage could be done, as well
as stealing the US' expensive toys. The Russians have been very good at doing exactly that
sort of operation, since WWII. The Chinese are, if anything, more subtle than the
Russians.
The Chinese attitude, as expressed to me by someone who might be a credible source is,
"why are you picking a fight with us? We don't care, you're too far away for us to threaten
you, we both have loads of our own fish to fry. To them, the US is young, hyperactive, and
stupid.
The FBI is not competent, at all, against old-school humint intelligence-gathering.
Compared to the US' cyber-toys, the old ways are probably more efficient and cost
effective. China's intelligence community is also much more team-oriented than the CIA/NSA;
they're actually a disciplined operation under the strategic control of policy-makers.
That, by the way, is why Russians and Chinese stare in amazement when Americans ask things
like "Do you think Putin knew about this?" What a stupid question! It's an autocracy; they
don't have intelligence operatives just going an deciding "it's a nice day to go to England
with some Novichok." The entire American attitude toward espionage lacks maturity.
On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of
the researchers who helped in the analysis of the Morris worm that took down a significant
chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a year or so afterwards and
some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it still hadn't patched the
holes that had let the worm infect them in the first place.
That as an exciting time. We were downstream from University of Maryland, which got hit
pretty badly. Pete Cottrel and Chris Torek from UMD were also in on Bostic's dissection. We
were doing uucp over TCP for our email (that changed pretty soon after the worm) and our
uucp queue blew up. I cured the worm with a reboot into single-user mode and a quick 'rm
-f' in the uucp queue.
Thanks. I appreciate your measured analysis and the making explicit of the bottom line:
" agencies, protect their budgets, justify their existence, and downplay their
incompetence."
Yes, the great Obama, who bombed more countries and dropped more bombs, than Bush and
Cheney; who sold more military weapons to foreign countries than any president in history.
Who backed an illegal in Ukraine and restarted the Cold War. That Obama?
Of course the USA is the biggest terrorist on the planet and the biggest war monger bar
none.The USA is the largest arms dealer and the pentagon alone is the world largest
employer ALL happened before Trump.
And WHY is the middle east in turmoil? ..Didnt Bush lie the world into war? .while
Hillary stood with him?Didn't Obama refuse to prosecute the multitude of crimes committed
by the Bush regime?" Moving forward"? ..Didnt Obama overthrow Libya's Qaddafi and they now
have open air slavery markets where they once had Education and healthcare and equal rights
for women?
Didnt Obama support " the rebels { ISIS} trying to over throw Assad and creating the
largest refugee crisis since WW2?Didnt Obama help the Saudi's commit genocide in Yemen ?
and that just the middle east
Didnt Obama not only allow the criminal banks to commit massive fraud and keep their
loot but continue their crime spree? ..too big to jail is bigger than ever and AG Eric
Holder now works for those same banks.Trump Fault?
As for Tarrifs? .other countries have tariffs and yet we allow the US to be undercut and
over run by other countries who purposely undermine US manufactures .you know why Solindra
went under? ..they couldnt compete with Chinese solar companies who who cheat by
manipulation of prices and currency.
Remember Gen Flynn? .who wanted to work with Russia and was hounded out by the deep
state? .while democrats cheered?
Democrats have been pushing for WW3 with Russia and sneering at Trumps steps toward
peace with N Korea ..and derided him for not pushing harder at Syria to topple Assad .and
what comes after ASSAD? ISIS.
Democrats are now the BUSH Neo con party .they arent even bright enough to know .their
new hero's are BUSH war criminals and torture enthusiasts Meuller,Brennan ,Clapper and
Hadnen?Democrats are far more dangerous than Trump.They are omnicidal.
The Democrats haven't even tried to figure out why Trump won.
After all, he was a genuinely appalling candidate. If the Republicans had put a decent
candidate on the same platform they'd have won by a landslide.
Trump is a symptom
Trumps fault?
Trump tied to pull out of Syria and the CIA pulled another false flag attack and
The extra component BS story on the Chinee manufactured circuit boards is total baloney. Such
a change after manufacture is virtually impossible for anything other than the most basic
component and therefore ineffective. These are multi layer boards.
Regardless the hardware design and assembly is a rigorous and meticulous process that
pares componentry to the bare minimum. Components fail, the more you have the higher the risk
of failure. Designers spend inordinate effort getting design absolutely right for high level
boards as described in this BS story. For this story to true implies that many people at the
initial concept and design stage were corrupted. Unlikely in the extreme!
Then there is the sophistication of software hacking as Snowden revealed. Look up video of
'the god bit' at blackhat conferences and you will see that no matter what motherboards are
made they can all be hacked by software.
thanks b.. excellent information and insights as usual..
of course the USA and coalition of imbeciles are busy projecting onto Russia and China
what they themselves are guilty of.. the use of propaganda has gone into overdrive and is now
an accepted policy of the west.. screw facts.. who needs facts when you have a war to
pursue... and that is just what it looks like to me, as there is no end in sight to any of
this western madness...
the financial sanctions have not worked.. that much is clear.. another approach via
propaganda is to be the new regular feature.. claim all sorts of lies and supposition on
russia, china, iran, north korea, venezuela or any country that dares to get out of line with
the official ''coalition'' and you will be targeted with propaganda and or worse..
Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party
organization within their organization and party members head the mandatory unions in every
company. Indeed some of the designers are no doubt party members. Significant pressure can be
exerted on companies in China by the party, even foreign companies , especially with but not
limited to Joint ventures.
In any other country your skepticism is warranted. Not China.
That said, given how little attention the Bloomberg story received yesterday by MSM web
sites (havent checked today) beyond a denial story by msnbc I think its far more likely
that a friendly foreign intelligence agency or the US had something to do with it. Blame
China not Israel or CIA/NSA
steven t johnson , Sep 28, 2018 5:39:39 PM |
53 ">link
ashley albanese@26 says
Putin wrote about "what Russia could do to protect herself in this new era of
potentially violent struggle for resources."
The violent struggle for resources will not be the impoverished rabble nations mobbing the
rich nations: It will be the rich nations keeping their riches at the expense of the poorer
nations. That is, it will be pretty much the US foreign policy where there is no hegemony but
a glorious free-for-all of independent states supposedly protecting themselves. When Bangla
Desh destabilizes because of sea level rise, it will be India attacking them. Putin is
opposed to any international authority. He wants a world where the strong nations can
exercise their leadership over weaker nations without interference from a hegemonic power.
This is not the problem.
The problem is the US, the current hegemonic power, is the fortress of a decayed empire
that can no longer move forward. It can only maintain itself by looting a series of weaker
nations. The terror of destruction supports the US role in the world. The dollar is based on
blood, not gold the declining economic power of the US cannot earn. But, Putin is not an
enemy of this decadence. He is not even an enemy of the flagrant fascism of the Kyiv
government!
"... Yet while initially sympathizing with Hillary in her defeat, Moore shows no mercy at all to her husband for his late '80s and '90s Third Way triangulations and neoliberalism, blaming Bubba every bit as much as Ronald Reagan and the Bushes for the orgy of Wall Street and Silicon Valley deregulation and casino capitalism of the last three decades. Moore underlines this with a montage of A-list Democrats saying the word "compromise" over and over again during the worst of the Great Recession. ..."
"... Fahrenheit 11/9 ..."
"... All told, Michael Moore's thesis is that we may be able to "make America great again," whether your definition of greatness is Moore's or Trump's -- but that either way, there's no going back to some mythical center. We've arrived at this crazytown we call the "new normal" precisely because politicians clung to their own self-serving "norms." ..."
"... Whatever your politics, Fahrenheit 11/9 is a veritable symphony of systems failure, and a deeply unsettling rollercoaster of where we seem to be headed -- whether we want to go there or not. ..."
For conservatives who feel the media is almost instinctively biased and corrupt, Michael
Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9 -- a sequel of sorts (or at least follow-up) to the highest
grossing documentary movie of all time, Moore's 2004 Bush-whacker Fahrenheit 9/11 --
offers one of the most damning portraits of media industry cravenness since Network
.
Moore dives deep into how the feedback-looping and self-validating punditocracy consistently
pushed back against blue-collar economic populism, marginalized and erased legitimate economic
anxiety among downscale whites, and refused to adequately cover police shootings and brutality
in minority communities until they reached a state of emergency. (The water quality scandal in
Moore's hometown of largely black Flint gets major play.)
Recently disgraced CBS chief Les Moonves is quoted bragging that Trump may be bad for
America but he's great for business. CNN topper and former NBC program chief Jeff Zucker hems
and haws when asked whether his network covered Trump because he was newsworthy or because he
was ratings gold. The movie suggests Trump initially ran for president as a marketing ploy to
build leverage for his own media branding. And Moore quite rightly makes fun of how
ballistically wrong the major papers got the election -- with TheNew York
Times giving Hillary better than four-to-one odds of winning on the very Election Day
that she lost .
In one snarkadelic sequence, we see smug media mavens like Matt Lauer, Mark Halperin, Roger
Ailes, and Charlie Rose smugly grilling and cross-examining Hillary Clinton before being
"stamped" with laundry lists of their own Weinstein-esque sexual assault shenanigans.
Yet while initially sympathizing with Hillary in her defeat, Moore shows no mercy at all
to her husband for his late '80s and '90s Third Way triangulations and neoliberalism, blaming
Bubba every bit as much as Ronald Reagan and the Bushes for the orgy of Wall Street and Silicon
Valley deregulation and casino capitalism of the last three decades. Moore underlines this with
a montage of A-list Democrats saying the word "compromise" over and over again during the worst
of the Great Recession.
Even Obama himself is not immune from criticism. Moore accuses him of being too centrist and
accommodating, showing him staging a media-op in Flint and, instead of calling a full-on
emergency, literally "drinking the water" and telling people that everything was on its way to
being fine.
But for all the leftist preaching to the choir, there's trouble brewing in Moore's liberal
paradise. There are plenty of progressive voices -- especially women, LGBTs, and people of
color under 50 -- who believe Moore is giving Trump voters an "excuse" for voting as they
did.
Let's not forget that George W. Bush was the best thing that ever happened to Michael
Moore's bank account. Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and (less than a
year into Obama's first term in fall 2009) Capitalism: A Love Story all attracted
round-the-block lines, cable ratings, and even an Oscar or two. In light of that, some liberals
think that Moore all but secretly wanted Trump to win so he could go ka-ching!
with yet another right-wing archvillain.
Liberal film and TV critics are also singing from the same hymnal. Jake Cole of Slant
mentions Moore's "hollowness," his penchant for centering and "foregrounding himself" at the
expense of victims, his "empty shock value," "grotesque history of exploiting atrocities," and
"circus-showman duplicity that is as crass and self-promoting" as Trump himself. Matt Goldberg
of Collider accuses Moore of caring "more about stunts than policy details," and David
Sims in The Atlantic also gives him a decided thumbs-down.
In short, not even a team of Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh could have come
up with a harsher or more cynical assessment of Moore's work. The surprise is, for someone of
such ego and self-righteousness, Moore seems to have actually listened to his critics -- at
least the ones on the identity politics left.
In Fahrenheit 11/9 , Moore comes as close to admitting to (if not "checking") his
privilege as he ever has in a movie or TV show. He still sports his everyman uniform of
T-shirts, jeans, and baseball caps, and still does his David versus Goliath stunts (like
spraying Michigan governor Rick Snyder's gate-guarded mansion and front lawn with a tanker from
Flint's contaminated water supply). But he also frankly admits to rubbing shoulders with Trump
Train royalty like Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner (who provided funds and/or distribution for
his health care doc Sicko a decade ago). He shows footage of himself joking around on
Roseanne's talk show in 1998 with Trump, and even posing for unbelievably campy selfies while
hugging it out with Kellyanne Conway.
Moore is a Baby Boomer liberal who is saying in no uncertain terms that it is time for
Boomer (and Silent) generation Democrats who still largely hold top-of-the-line power in the
party to sit down and shut up. Not surprisingly, Bernie is the only older politician who comes
off as even marginally acceptable. (And of course, the movie revisits how the superdelegate
system and DNC machinations effectively "stole" the nomination from him.)
Of course there are the perhaps inevitable comparisons of Trump to Hitler and Trumpism to
Nazism (one "humorous" sequence has Trump's words dubbed over a Hitler speech newsreel; a
significantly more gratuitous one shows an interview with a nearly 100-year-old Nuremberg
prosecutor).
All told, Michael Moore's thesis is that we may be able to "make America great again,"
whether your definition of greatness is Moore's or Trump's -- but that either way, there's no
going back to some mythical center. We've arrived at this crazytown we call the "new normal"
precisely because politicians clung to their own self-serving "norms."
Whatever your politics, Fahrenheit 11/9 is a veritable symphony of systems
failure, and a deeply unsettling rollercoaster of where we seem to be headed -- whether we want
to go there or not.
Telly Davidson is the author of a new book,
Culture War: How the 90's Made Us Who We Are Today (Like it Or Not) . He has written on
culture for ATTN, FrumForum, All About Jazz, FilmStew, and Guitar Player, and worked on the
Emmy-nominated PBS series "Pioneers of Television."
"... "A lot of the statements about Brett Kavanaugh, like from Krugman, 'Oh, he's smirking' and a lot on Twitter and elsewhere, 'Oh, he's a white male, his white privilege,' if you fit the narrative, you are guilty and there is no coming back from that," Coulter said. ..."
"... The author told host Tucker Carlson it's not even the Democrats running the country, "it's the media" because the same allegation made against Kavanaugh could be used all the time and it is "absolutely non-disprovable." ..."
"... COULTER: I think some of them and this is - this is the only thing that I think makes it dangerous for Republicans, for Kavanaugh, and for the republic because there are certain Republicans in the Senate who so hate Trump-- ..."
"... And it's not just Democrats and the media running the country, it's any white male can be accused with an evidence reacting ..."
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter said hate for the president from anti-Trump Republicans like Ben Sasse and Bob Corker could
end up hurting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh even more after he was accused of sexual assault by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford
for an incident that took place in high school 36 years ago.
"A lot of the statements about Brett Kavanaugh, like from Krugman, 'Oh, he's smirking' and a lot on Twitter and elsewhere,
'Oh, he's a white male, his white privilege,' if you fit the narrative, you are guilty and there is no coming back from that," Coulter
said.
Coulter said the media can use the tag "white male Republican" to make any "non-disprovable claim" against somebody to impugn
their character. She said these Senators, several outgoing, are putting their egos over the country if they voted against Kavanaugh
to spite Trump.
"This is the only thing that I think makes it dangerous for Republicans, for Kavanaugh, and for the republic because there are
certain Republicans in the Senate who so hate Trump they would put their egos above the good of the country," Coulter said of anti-Trump
Republicans.
Coulter said if Democrats are able to stop Kavanaugh either because of vengeful Republicans or the testimony of the accuser, Dr.
Ford, then "you have CNN running the country."
"What so many Republicans said about voting and, every four years, say about voting for any Republican, we have to do it for the
Supreme Court nominees. No, maybe not for Ben Sasse, maybe not for Senator Bob Corker, they just so hate Trump, that could end up
hurting Kavanaugh," she said.
The author told host Tucker Carlson it's not even the Democrats running the country, "it's the media" because the same allegation
made against Kavanaugh could be used all the time and it is "absolutely non-disprovable."
"If they get away with this there's then you have CNN running the country," she said about Kavanaugh and sexual assault claims.
"It's not even just the Democrats running the country," she continued. "It's the media running the country because this allegation
could be made against anyone at any time absolutely non-disprovable."
Coulter warned that as long as you are a "presumed white male Republican," with privilege, "if you fit the narrative, you are
guilty and there is no coming back from that." She cited incidents like the Duke Lacrosse case and 'Haven Monahan,' the male name
behind the 2014 fake Rolling Stone magazine story.
"This isn't a new thing," she said. "As long as you are a presumed white male Republican, whether it's the Duke Lacrosse case
or oh, that dastardly Haven Monahan in the Rolling Stone story about the frat boys gang-raping the gal, the whole thing turned out
to be fake, there is no Haven Monahan."
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: How about Elizabeth Warren? She tweeted this. "I can't imagine any parent accepting this view.
Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?" If you can even imagine texting something like that or putting
it on Twitter, mindless.
Ann Coulter is a writer, author of 'Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Has Lost Its Collective Mind' as if she
needed another example of it, she joins us tonight.
So, what do you make of the fact? I was trying to get a straight answer from my last guest. I'm not sure what I even think
of it. What do you make of the fact that Dianne Feinstein is saying "I'm not sure I believe Christine Ford now."
ANN COULTER: CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, LAWYER, AUTHOR: Well, Dianne Feinstein has always been one of my favorite
senators, a Republican or a Democrat, I was sort of surprised. She was the one who held on to this letter.
I don't - I don't think the big issue is that it's the 11th hour. I think the big issue is last week we start - started getting
polls showing the Democrats have a shot at taking the Senate.
CARLSON: Right.
COULTER: They really want to stop this nomination. It's been kind of hilarious listening to the Democrats, oh and the New York
Times editorial page, and Schumer and Blumenthal, we need a major FBI investigation. As you point out, there's nothing to investigate.
They want to appoint a blue-ribbon commission and maybe, you know, they'll wrap up their work sometime next February. It really
is just purely for delay--
CARLSON: So - so can I ask this - so I mean why not an independent counsel and he can take maybe four or five years to get
to the bottom of it (ph). Why would the Republic - look, this I - I am giving everybody every benefit of every doubt? I'm not
attacking Ford who, again, as I said last night, Ford is a nice person.
But this is a political tactic designed to prevent the President from putting his nominee on the court. Why are Republicans
in the Congress playing along with this?
COULTER: I think some of them and this is - this is the only thing that I think makes it dangerous for Republicans, for
Kavanaugh, and for the republic because there are certain Republicans in the Senate who so hate Trump--
CARLSON: Right.
COULTER: --they would put their egos above the good of the country. And - and what so many Republicans said about voting and,
every four years, say about voting for any Republican, we have to do it for the Supreme Court nominees.
No, maybe not for Ben Sasse, maybe not for - for Senator Bob Corker, they just so hate Trump, that could end up hurting - hurting
Kavanaugh. But I - I think your points that if they get away with this there's then you have CNN running the country.
It's not even just the Democrats running the country. It's the media running the country because this allegation could be made
against anyone at any time absolutely un - non-disprovable.
The - the New York Times, I - I - I wanted to mention here since you've cited, Teddy Kennedy. One of the great things in the
New York Times editorial on this case was to say that things were totally different in the 1980s.
That's why this woman, Dr. Ford, didn't report it at the time because you remember the 1980s, Tucker. You used to be - there
was (ph) sexual assault like mad at every place.
Their proof of this that women weren't taken seriously in the 1980s was to link to an article in The Washington Post citing
the New York Times treatment of the accuser of William Kennedy Smith. So yes, the Kennedys, they've always had free rein to rape,
murder--
CARLSON: Yes.
COULTER: --and the New York Times would go after the accusers. But that's really what the division is here. This isn't a new
thing. As long as you are a presumed white male Republican, whether it's the Duke Lacrosse case or oh, that dastardly Haven Monahan
in the Rolling Stone story about the frat boys gang-raping the gal--
CARLSON: Yes.
COULTER: --the whole thing turned out to be fake, there is no Haven Monahan. Or now, a lot of the statements about Brett Kavanaugh,
like from Krugman, "Oh, he's smirking" and a lot on Twitter and elsewhere, "Oh, he's a white male, his white privilege," if you
fit the narrative, you are guilty and there is no coming back from that.
And it's not just Democrats and the media running the country, it's any white male can be accused with an evidence reacting
(ph)--
CARLSON: Well you shouldn't judge people--
COULTER: --they shouldn't like this.
CARLSON: --on the basis of their immutable characteristics. Period. So, I don't know why the Leftists all (ph) say that. Ann
Coulter, thank you. It's great to see you tonight.
President Donald Trump held a media availability on the White House lawn Wednesday afternoon prior to departing on Marine One.
The president said it would be "wonderful" if Dr. Christine Blasey Ford showed up at a Congressional hearing to discuss her accusation
of sexual misconduct against Supreme...
Joe diGenova said Dr. Christian Ford, Judge Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, doesn't really want to testify because when she does,
"she's going to look like the loon that she is." "She may very well believe everything she's saying, and that is one of the signs
of lunacy, believing something that isn't...
Chuck Todd, NBC News Moderator on 'Meet the Press,' shares his insight into Judge Brett Kavanaugh's latest controversy: "The
White House will defend Kavanaugh as much as he defends himself - I think you got to look at Judge Kavanaugh as a day to day proposition
here. He made it through yesterday."
"... "none of this would in any way exculpate the Israelis for the very simple reason that had the Israelis warned the Russians on time this entire tragedy might have been avoided even if the prime culprits are cowardly Israeli pilots, less than competent Syrian air defense crews or too trusting Russians. " ..."
"... No, none of this would have happened if Putin had refused to allow his bosom buddy Nazinyahu to bomb his ally, Syria, with impunity. ..."
"... It is definitely worth reading not only the quoted article but other commentaries, because the inventors of shutzpah are now collectively dancing on the graves of the 15 Russian officers. ..."
@J Since
the Russians largely control the Syrian antiair defenses, one could also conclude that they
share the responsibility in downing their own aircraft. Maybe the Israelis overestimated
Russian readiness and response capabilities. In Tzahal, one minute is a lot of time. As Putin
said, it was a tragic fuckup.
In Tzahal, one minute is a lot of time.
No, this can not be true!!! I always knew that Tzahal operates on millisecond increments.
In fact, it can also travel back in time. You know, because they are that good.
"none of this would in any way exculpate the Israelis for the very simple reason
that had the Israelis warned the Russians on time this entire tragedy might have been
avoided even if the prime culprits are cowardly Israeli pilots, less than competent Syrian
air defense crews or too trusting Russians. "
No, none of this would have happened if Putin had refused to allow his bosom buddy
Nazinyahu to bomb his ally, Syria, with impunity. Russia is being treated with contempt
by the zionazi pseudostate for the simple reason that the Zios were bombing a "target" right
next to the Russian Hmeimim airbase.
Nor is the loss of the Il 20 something minor. It was a very expensive, highly capable
system manned by extremely well trained, hard to replace, valuable crew, each of whom had
many years of irreplaceable experience. Do *not* attempt to whitewash that.
The Saker needs to stop defending the zionazi stooge and capitalist roader Putin. His
"restraint" is making Russia look like a pushover and emboldening its enemies. What is the
Amerikastani aircraft carrier Harry Truman doing in the Mediterranean right now, a health
cruise?
There is absolutely nothing stopping Putin from ordering his bosom buddy Nazinyahu to
immediately stop all bombing of Syria, on the pain of having his zionazi war criminals being
shot out of the air. What exactly is preventing Putin from doing this, assuming that the S400
actually works as advertised? Can any of the professional Putinite propaganda purveyors, as
despicable a breed as the Trumpets, Obamopologists, and Hillarybots, explain?
First, let me start by a very simple and primitive question:
Why in the world has nobody considered that the Israelis might have truly
screwed-up?
'Careless' is the word I would use. Israelis are being careless, because they
never have to pay a price for their aggressions and their mistakes. Putin encourages this
carelessness , when he refuses to impose costs on Israel. The lesson Israelis are
learning from this incident is that Russia is weak, and Putin has "little choice", but allow
Israelis free hand in Syria. This is what Israelis newspapers are saying, check this out:
https://twitter.com/DanielS22647562/status/1043070311355301889 It is definitely worth
reading not only the quoted article but other commentaries, because the inventors of shutzpah
are now collectively dancing on the graves of the 15 Russian officers. Just as they
placed sofas to watch the destruction of Gaza. Thank you for the link Felix.
Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and
Martyanov, at the level of the IDF delegations sent to Moscow, to ensure that the Russian
military does not get any "reserved" ideas (reserve the right to huff & puff).
Here is my favorite piece from this Jewish BS machine above:
unconfirmed sources from Syria have reported that Russian military police abducted and
are brutally interrogating officers and soldiers from the Syrian air-defense battery that
fired the fateful missile
But, but I naively thought that the Russians discovered a secret link which proves that
those now brutally interrogated Syrians did 911 , not the Iraqis accused before.
I do understand that Putin does not have any good option now and that his premature and
dumb commentary about the "accident" was for his own ass-covering not to protect those Jews
who made such a total ass of him. But whenever the Russians die, as when the SU-24 pilot
died, he learned nothing and continues on making and trusting the deals with
the sponsors of terrorism.
Finally, I do note that the smart people, such as Israel Shamir, keep their mouths shut
for now, till the fog clears and the emotions blow-over. I am looking forward to his next
article to understand the feelings in the Russian military regarding Putin.
@Kiza It
is definitely worth reading not only the quoted article but other commentaries, because the
inventors of shutzpah are now collectively dancing on the graves of the 15 Russian officers.
Just as they placed sofas to watch the destruction of Gaza. Thank you for the link Felix.
Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and
Martyanov, at the level of the IDF delegations sent to Moscow, to ensure that the Russian
military does not get any "reserved" ideas (reserve the right to ... huff & puff).
Here is my favorite piece from this Jewish BS machine above:
unconfirmed sources from Syria have reported that Russian military police abducted and are
brutally interrogating officers and soldiers from the Syrian air-defense battery that fired
the fateful missile
But, but I naively thought that the Russians discovered a secret link which
proves that those now brutally interrogated Syrians did 911 , not the Iraqis accused
before.
I do understand that Putin does not have any good option now and that his premature and
dumb commentary about the "accident" was for his own ass-covering not to protect those Jews
who made such a total ass of him. But whenever the Russians die, as when the SU-24 pilot
died, he learned nothing and continues on making and trusting the deals with
the sponsors of terrorism.
Finally, I do note that the smart people, such as Israel Shamir, keep their mouths shut
for now, till the fog clears and the emotions blow-over. I am looking forward to his next
article to understand the feelings in the Russian military regarding Putin.
Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and
Martyanov
Do you want me to prove, using you as an example, for all other present here hysterical
non-men, that none of you have any idea of what was and is going on by me merely introducing
a simple tactical-technical parameter which defines tactical reality in any radar systems.
I'll give you hint–it is reported to all military radar operating units (from ground to
the sea) and is logged and accounted for (with proper adjustments in procedures) every single
day, sometimes on 12 hour increments. This factor could be of prime importance, especially
against the background of old S-200 AD complex. Are you game? Then we will compare who are
real "armchair strategists" here.
Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and
Martyanov
Do you want me to prove, using you as an example, for all other present here
hysterical non-men, that none of you have any idea of what was and is going on by me merely
introducing a simple tactical-technical parameter which defines tactical reality in any radar
systems. I'll give you hint--it is reported to all military radar operating units (from
ground to the sea) and is logged and accounted for (with proper adjustments in procedures)
every single day, sometimes on 12 hour increments. This factor could be of prime importance,
especially against the background of old S-200 AD complex. Are you game? Then we will compare
who are real "armchair strategists" here. This is some irrelevant technical mumbo-jumbo. Kiza
was making a comment about political side of the issue:
Israelis have no respect for Russia and Putin. They feel emboldened by Putin's weak
reaction.
@Felix
Keverich This is some irrelevant technical mumbo-jumbo. Kiza was making a comment about
political side of the issue:
Israelis have no respect for Russia and Putin. They feel emboldened by Putin's weak
reaction.
This is some irrelevant technical mumbo-jumbo.
Well, then I am sure you will treat your future illnesses (God forbids you to become ill,
stay healthy) at Voodoo doctors, since all this medical mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant. I heard
Haiti Voodoo healthcare is great and very-very affordable.
Kiza was making a comment about political side of the issue:
Only few posts here are real comments, most of them is some hysterical weeping in an
adrenaline deprived organisms upon understanding that Israel is not going to be destroyed
immediately by Russians. Hence, your posts included, either hysterical reactions or trolling,
mostly, sorry for being blunt, by people who have zero knowledge of Russia in general, and
her military in particular. So, a wonderful unification of pseudo-patriots and all kinds of
ignorant trolls happened. It is rather interesting to observe.
As if in any other country this situation is different...
Putin priority was avoiding larger confrontation, which if spun out of control can lead to WWIII. And I think he was right
trying to downplay the situation.
This is terribly empty ramble and it is time to stop reading this rambler. But before I stop I will quote myself:
My critique of Putin is not that he did not kill back the Turks, the US military and the Israelis, it is that he keeps making
agreements with the non-agreement capable sponsors of terrorism and then entrusts the lives of his soldiers to such agreements.
In other words, the four Israeli planes should have never been tagged "friendlies", which was obviously the Putin's standing
order to the Russian military based on his agreement with these sponsors of terrorism. The rest in this tragic event for Russia
is what usually happens in war – fear, huge and costly mistakes, and incompetence all around.
Saker, I hope you and Martyanov both, as a reward for your insightful writing about the panicking Israeli pilots, get to
read your recent articles to the 10-year old daughter of one of the Russian officers killed.
You two are the Marshals of all the Armchair Generals that you laugh at. With "intellectuals" such as you, now I understand
why the Russian always die in wars like cattle and win wars by sacrificing the most/only valuable human capital (why do they call
such 'a Pyrrhic victory' when it should be called 'a Russian victory'). I will be watching the Russian Mayday parades with photos
of killed relatives in a totally different light from now on – those people in the photos are the victims of the Russian "elite"
and the self-declared Russian Armchair Marshals.
The unfortunate Syrians are the beggars, so they cannot be choosers who their "friends" are.
Since the Russians largely control the Syrian antiair defenses, one could also conclude that they share the responsibility in
downing their own aircraft. Maybe the Israelis overestimated Russian readiness and response capabilities. In Tzahal, one minute
is a lot of time. As Putin said, it was a tragic fuckup.
"I tried to post a short commentary suggesting that before we jump to conclusions about anything, we ought to wait for the fact
to come out."
Well Putin didn't waste anytime jumping to the conclusion that it was an "accident," right? I blame him for being too quick
to say that.
And I blame him for allowing the Israeli attacks to continue for so long. Something bad (for Russia) was bound to happen eventually.
And they're war crimes, aren't they? It would've been okay with everybody if it was a Syrian plane that went down?
"So why is everybody assuming that the Israelis carefully planned the whole thing?"
King David Hotel, USS Liberty, 9/11, etc.
"First, let me start by a very simple and primitive question: Why in the world has nobody considered that the Israelis might
have truly screwed-up?"
When someone "screws up" during the commission of a crime, a crime "evincing a depraved indifference to human life" and someone
dies because of it, it's known in Western jurisprudence as a "depraved heart murder" not an "accident."
"At this point, I need to ask another question: what would the Israelis gain from shooting down the Il-20?"
You could also ask for example: what did they gain by running over Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer? And the answer would be
the same IMO: They do what they do because they're evil.
Mr. you are a very naïve person. One doesn't have to be a
Putin or Jew hater to see with clarity. In fact we the gojims are the ones
who is in our face is being hated, and planed to be destroyed. They declaring
a new world order. The very word of new implies a departure from what we
have today, a culture of nation states. The very word of order implies Dictatorial slavery.
According to Assange , we are the last generation of free people.
The western countries being overrun by primitives who are the biological
weapons of the elites, one economical crises and everybody is against everybody,
until only the well protected elites remain. The murder of a highly trained
Russian military persons were premeditated planed murder. In earlier
analysis of yours you called this form of warfare " leapfrogging " . And the
hollywooding of the Izraeli leadersip, is a part of deceiveing the gojim.
The did what they do best they draw blood of the gojim, and getting away
with it again with an explanation, playing on our fears of not to escalating further.
Putin calling it an accident, he remind me of an other historic figure
who's name was Marshall Emanuel Grouchy. He was Napoleon's trusted general
in 1815 at waterloo , when he heard the battle drums he started to march with his
units to the opposite direction away from the warzone, so the French army was slathered.
What does it count if they are the best and bravest and have a best missile systems,
if they are being mislead and betrayed? Try to analyzing that.
What's funny is that The Saker wants to stick to the "facts" but all he gives is, when you read his article closely is apologizing
for the failure of Russian policy with regards to the Israelis, a mix of contradictions, Putin-ifallibility and the usual "Russia
good, rest meh"
@hunor Mr. you are
a very naïve person. One doesn't have to be a
Putin or Jew hater to see with clarity. In fact we the gojims are the ones
who is in our face is being hated, and planed to be destroyed. They declaring
a new world order. The very word of new implies a departure from what we
have today, a culture of nation states. The very word of order implies Dictatorial slavery.
According to Assange , we are the last generation of free people.
The western countries being overrun by primitives who are the biological
weapons of the elites, one economical crises and everybody is against everybody,
until only the well protected elites remain. The murder of a highly trained
Russian military persons were premeditated planed murder. In earlier
analysis of yours you called this form of warfare " leapfrogging " . And the
hollywooding of the Izraeli leadersip, is a part of deceiveing the gojim.
The did what they do best they draw blood of the gojim, and getting away
with it again with an explanation, playing on our fears of not to escalating further.
Putin calling it an accident, he remind me of an other historic figure
who's name was Marshall Emanuel Grouchy. He was Napoleon's trusted general
in 1815 at waterloo , when he heard the battle drums he started to march with his
units to the opposite direction away from the warzone, so the French army was slathered.
What does it count if they are the best and bravest and have a best missile systems,
if they are being mislead and betrayed? Try to analyzing that.
One doesn't have to be a Putin or Jew hater to see with clarity
So, you do then, I assume, have now or had in the past Form 1A clearance to know how and what Tactical and Operational Manuals
describe in terms of setting Air Defense systems, establishment of communications networks ah, never mind–I am sure "Jews The
Almighty" bible of yours gives all necessary answers. Including describing issues of angular separation of targets, principles
of development of command decisions from tactical to operational level and other irrelevant crap.
@Mike P We
should focus more on the overall situation than on the technical details of this event. The
calls for Russian retaliation against Israel, while emotionally relatable, ignore one crucial
aspect - any direct Russian attack on Israel, whether retaliatory or not, will inevitably
drag in FUKUS on Israel's side. Thus, if Putins wants to avoid this sort of conflagration, he
can't fight with Israel. This is the reason for his deals with the devil (aka Satanyahoo) -
give the Israelis free reign for going after Iran, as long as they abstain from engaging
Russian troops directly. By and large, Israel has abided by this agreement - until now.
In this situation, what options does Putin have to punish Israel, while still
abstaining from a direct hit? Suspend their right to go after Iran by setting up no-fly
zones, ostensibly for "protecting Russian troops." I'm sure the Iranians will make the most
of this opportunity to further strengthen Hezbollah and their own position in Syria.
Why are the Israelis acting this way? It is clear that they are very, very nervous about
the way things have been going. Despite all their efforts, the Iranian military and Hezbollah
are still there and only growing stronger. Apparently, they feel that time is working against
them and that they cannot look on any longer. Therefore, they are trying now to escalate the
conflict, while hiding behind FUKUS and their (other) terrorist stooges.
If Russian intelligence communications are to be believed, then the terrorist puppets in
Idlib had been preparing for another staged gas attack in Idlib, or rather they had already
staged and filmed it, and they were simply waiting for the most opportune time to publish
their stunt. At the same time, the U.S. were proclaiming that a chemical attack was imminent,
and that it would be considered a casus belli . The Russians did their best to defuse
this situation first by leaking their intelligence about the staging of the attacks; and when
that did not do the trick, by putting the entire Idlib operation on hold via the agreement
with Turkey.
Having been foiled yet again and left without a pretext for stepping up the war, Israel
then resorted to creating this hastily improvised IL20 incident. (It is noticeable, however,
that a French war ship was also on the scene, indicating that this was indeed coordinated
with other governments beforehand.)
Even though the provocation is severe, the strategic situation has not changed - Russia
and Syria are winning, and the only way for Israel to change this is to escalate the war. It
is clear that they want to provoke Russia into shooting from the hip and thus allow herself
to be blamed for such an escalation. It is also clear that Israel again intends to fight the
war to the last American (and European) soldier.
We in the West, who would again be the cannon fodder for such insanity, once more owe a
debt of gratitude to Putin's statesmanship and levelheadedness. It is also noteworthy that
Trump not only abstained from fanning the flames, but also soon after the event stated that
the "Iraq and Afghanistan wars were the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our
country." THIS is the real Trump, and THIS is why the Zio-infested U.S. deep state is trying
so hard to overthrow him. Putin and Trump are trying to preserve peace, while Israel is
pushing for war - as is anyone who is calling for Putin to "man up" and shoot some Israeli
planes out of the sky or similar. "We in the West, who would again be the cannon fodder for
such insanity, once more owe a debt of gratitude to Putin's statesmanship and
levelheadedness."
All that Vladimir Putin is doing is prolonging the inevitable, at a cost of increasing
resentment among Syrian troops, his own military personnel and the Russian people, IMO. The
enemy is not going to stop of their own volition; so the more he turns the other cheek the
more he will be slapped. To quote Paul Craig Roberts (from his latest essay):
"The question before President Putin and the Russian people is whether Russia can be a
sovereign country independent of Washington's control without going to war. My concern is
that unless a hard Russian foot comes down quickly, the only alternatives are Russian
surrender or nuclear war."
"It is also noteworthy that Trump not only abstained from fanning the flames, but also
soon after the event stated that the "Iraq and Afghanistan wars were the worst single mistake
ever made in the history of our country." THIS is the real Trump, and THIS is why the
Zio-infested U.S. deep state is trying so hard to overthrow him."
The real Trump is all talk. He's a liar and a complete fraud. The real Trump had a chance
to get out of Afghanistan and Syria but chose to escalate instead. The real Trump is
apparently a PNAC zionist warmonger who puts the Zionist agenda first and America last. And
the deep state will never try to get rid of such a loyal puppet.
Putin and Trump are trying to preserve peace, while Israel is pushing for war – as
is anyone who is calling for Putin to "man up" and shoot some Israeli planes out of the sky
or similar.
"... It has a cruise speed of about ~600 km/hr, which is 10 km/minute that's at its cruise altitude of 8,000 meters the MoD reported that the airplane was hit while flying at 5,000 m and on its descent to land at Hmeimim ..."
"... Russia has drawn a line in the sand and Israel must grow up (impossible, I know for the chosen people). Unless Russia stands firm and enforces that line in the sand (i.e. Obey. The. Deconfliction. Agreement.), it will not succeed in restoring Syria's sovereignty. Considering that Russia has stated its goal of restoring Syria's full sovereignty over all its territory, it is clear that Russia will do whatever is necessary to achieve this goal. ..."
"... The complicating factor is that IFUKUS is willing to risk a hot war to defeat Russia in its goal. I strongly suspect that Putin will play for as much time as needed to defeat IFUKUS economically to the point where IFUKUS is militarily incapable. Keep in mind, Russia has already determined that IFUKUS is 'agreement incapable.' ..."
"... The Russian Federation faces an enemy that does not recognize any international laws. The only way to stop the predator is by waging a hot war against the "deciders" in the D.C., London, and Tel Aviv. That would result in a massive loss of life in Europe, the Middle East, the US, and in the Russian Federation. The predator, ZUSA, is not able to contain its predatory urges. They high-placed scoundrels begging for being destroyed. But there are also innocent people that will die during the hot war. ..."
"... It is not illogical at all that the US/Israel/EU/UK have sided with radical Islamists (ISIS, Al Qaeda and such) and with banderites (neo-Nazi). The flooding of the EU with the desperate refugees (the victims of the ongoing Wars for Israel) and opportunistic migrants from sub-Saharan Africa (welcome, extraordinary low IQ!) is tearing apart the societal fabric of the EU and makes the war-mongers and war-profiteers even less accountable to vox populi. ..."
One doesn't have to be a Putin or Zionist hater to see with clarity
So, you do then, I assume, have now or had in the past Form 1A clearance to know
how and what Tactical and Operational Manuals describe in terms of setting Air Defense
systems, establishment of communications networks...ah, never mind -- I am sure "Jews The
Almighty" bible of yours gives all necessary answers.
Including describing issues of angular separation of targets, principles of development of
command decisions from tactical to operational level and other irrelevant crap.
Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and Martyanov
Do you want me to prove, using you as an example, for all other present here
hysterical non-men, that none of you have any idea of what was and is going on by me merely
introducing a simple tactical-technical parameter which defines tactical reality in any radar
systems. I'll give you hint--it is reported to all military radar operating units (from
ground to the sea) and is logged and accounted for (with proper adjustments in procedures)
every single day, sometimes on 12 hour increments. This factor could be of prime importance,
especially against the background of old S-200 AD complex. Are you game? Then we will compare
who are real "armchair strategists" here.
'Do you want me to prove by me merely introducing a simple tactical-technical parameter
which defines tactical reality in any radar systems against the background of old S-200 AD
complex '
Yes Andrei..I will take you up on your offer to 'prove' to us the 'technical parameters'
that ALLOW THE S200 AND IL20 TO DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
You see friends, Saker and especially Martyanov are full of crapola
It is IMPOSSIBLE for an S200 which flies at 2.5 kilometers per second and would
cover 100 km in just 40 seconds to have hit an airplane that continued flying for
another ~5 minutes after that close call with the flight of Israeli F16s
Here is the infographic map released by the Russian MoD
The flight path of the F16s is recorded with the dashed blue line the flight of the
Ilyushin Il20 spy plane is recorded in the solid red line [that from the MoD]
I have circled the close encounter point in yellow, with a yellow arrow pointing to it
that is the point where the F16s are supposed to have 'hidden' behind the radar reflection of
the much bigger Ilyushin, and is the ONLY point at which this could possibly occur
But the Ilyushin somehow manages to fly north for another 40 km and even make a 90 degree
east turn to come in to land at Hmeimim a total flight time of around FIVE MINUTES
BUT the S200 cannot fly for FIVE MINUTES
it is one of the fastest SAM rockets in the world, with a flight speed of 2.5 kilometers per
second and would cover 100 kilometers in JUST 40 SECONDS
Its maximum flight time is 150 SECONDS [2.5 MINUTES] IN WHICH TIME IT WOULD COVER ITS
MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF 375 KM
It has a cruise speed of about ~600 km/hr, which is 10 km/minute that's at its cruise
altitude of 8,000 meters the MoD reported that the airplane was hit while flying at 5,000 m
and on its descent to land at Hmeimim
The MoD map clearly shows that the Ilyushin flew north for 40 km after that 'close
encounter' with the F16s and then made another right 90 degree turn back toward the Syria
coast on its final descent back into Hmeimim
Only after making that turn to final was the airplane hit
So we have the airplane flying for FIVE MINUTES AFTER THAT SUPPOSED 'RADAR MASKING' ?
And the S200 which can cover 300 km in TWO MINUTES FLAT was doing what exactly for those
missing THREE MINUTES ?
It was maybe hovering in midair with its engine shut off just waiting for the Ilyushin to
slowly make its way to the point 40 km from the 'radar masking'..before it decided to turn
its engine back on and then come and hit the Ilyushin ?
It is a matter of simple flight physics the official story is IMPOSSIBLE
If an S200 was even launched, it would have been from a range of probably 100 km so it
would have got to the Ilyushin in under a minute from that close encounter point
The Ilyushin in that one minute would have been able to fly for maybe 10 km AT MOST and
would have come down where I have place the red arrow on the map
Now I have seen many commenters here ridiculing Saker and Martyanov and that is completely
warranted Saker has no technical credentials whatsoever, in either physics or mathematics he
has made that abundantly clear over the course of hundreds of thousands of words of fluff
Martyanov at least has a bona fide military education, but he also does not seem to think
much about basic physics he has some explaining to do here as to why he is pushing the
'official' story
Folks the fact of the matter is that 'official' information is often a blatant lie we all
know that for those who have some relevant expertise in technical matters such as flight
physics, it is not so easy to pull the wool over our eyes
Remember when Turkey shot down that Russian Su24 ground attack jet in November 2015 ?
there was a lot of discussion at the time as to the claim from the Turkish side about the
Sukhoi flying through Turkish airspace for 17 seconds
At the time PCR picked up on the debate, it revolved around the physical possibility of
the Sukhoi flying that slow as to remain in Turkish airspace for so long, while covering a
very short distance the debate among the laypeople revolved around the aerodynamic 'stall'
speed of the Sukhoi ie the minimum flying speed of the airplane
I mentioned to PCR that the debate was nonsensical and explained a couple of pertinent
basics of the flight physics involved PCR encouraged me to expand that into an article, which
he graciously
published on his website
We have a similar situation here it is important to figure out what is and what is not
physically possible
Martyyanov especially, and of course Saker, are trying to tell us here that it was all a
mistake as Putin said that the 'old' S200 took down a state of the art electronic warfare
airplane, with 15 very highly trained specialists on board a HUGE LOSS
Now I will say here that Putin has a good reason to take this action and not reveal
what actually happened and I will get to that in a minute
But let us first consider some peripheral facts surrounding this entire incident it is
probable that the downed 'Il20′ was in fact the latest, modernized iteration of this
electronic intelligence aircraft, the
Il22PP, which entered into service two years ago
This is in keeping with the MoD's stated practice of subjecting Russia's latest and most
sophisticated weapons systems to actual combat conditions in Syria even Putin has said that
much has been learned,both good and bad, in Syria, and that fixing these deficiencies is
possible only due to the opportunity to deploy these systems in Syria
Now if we assume that this was in fact that state of the art Il22PP [we are speculating
here, but it is a solid assumption] then one must ask how careful the entire Russian
contingent in Syria would be with such a valuable asset ?
How is it possible that while this airplane is in the air that 'Syrian' air defense
commanders are shooting willy-nilly at a chunk of airspace where at this very moment this
extremely valuable aircraft is flying ?
How stupid does this sound on its face ?
Now we have already proved that the 'radar masking' story is physically impossible, due to
the respective flight speeds of the Ilyushin turboprop and the S200 rocket
That means that the S200 would have to have been launched when THERE WAS NO RADAR MASKING
ie the Ilyushin would have been very close to the point where it was shot down which is 40 km
away from the 'close encounter' site
So now we are supposed to believe that the Syrian air defense crews, which somehow are
acting independently while supposedly 'integrated' with the Russian air defense staff that
they have now targeted the Ilyushin WHILE IT IS FLYING ALONE WITH NOTHING NEARBY ?
Again, I ask Martyanov here to explain this especially in light of his dismissive comment
to others objecting here, and citing his vast knowledge of radar systems
How is it possible that this Ilyushin was targeted by an S200 when it was nowhere near
those F16s at that moment as the laws of physics require ?
Of course I realize that he cannot rebut these questions in any way shape or form he is
caught again with his pants down
Now let us consider some more relevant facts on that night the Russian MoD stated clearly
two additional piece of information
1 the French frigate Auvergne was nearby the Ilyushin flight, as depicted on the map, and
was in fact recorded firing missiles
2 British jets were also in the air, with their transponders turned on making it possible
to track them even with civilian ATC radar
Now we also know that a number of Russian ships were in that area at the time, and still
are and are in fact this entire week conducting live fire drills more on that in a moment
Those ships also have sophisticated radar and also infrared sensors which picked up the
missile firing from the French ship
Besides that we have the Beriev A50U AWACS aircraft in Syria..and it
is safe to assume that they would have been in the air at the time of the Ilyushin flight
At the same time, we also know that the US is flying the high altitude U2 spy plane out of Akrotiri
So there is a lot of cat and mouse going on between Nato and Russia in the area all the
more reason to seriously doubt that a Syrian S200 would shoot down such an important flight
as the Ilyushin we notice also the flight path of the Ilyushin it first flew a circuit over
Idlib, then, instead of coming in to land directly at Hmeimim, the airplane continued out
over the Med for about 40 km off the coast of Syria, well outside the Syrian territorial
airspace why ?
Perhaps because the Ilyushin might have been gathering data and perhaps engaging in
electronic interference of those Nato ships and aircraft in the area ?
We do not know but if it was doing something like that, the flight would have had the
utmost security attached to it it would be unthinkable for a Syrian SAM to take a shot at
that airplane
So why the ruse on the part of Putin and the Russians ?
Let's first examine who had the opportunity to down that Ilyushin the French ship firing
missiles [what kind of missiles surface to air...?...the frigate is equipped with very
capable Aster SAMs... ]
And also the British aircraft in the air at the time and flying out of Akrotiri there are
9 Eurofighter Typhoons there, equipped with long range air to air AIM120 radar guided missiles and also 10
Tornados equipped with shorter range heat seeking AIM9x
Now since we know already that the only way an S200 could have shot down the Ilyushin
would be if it fired practically intentionally at a high value friendly aircraft flying with
no enemy aircraft nearby it would seem at least as probable that the missile that brought
down the Ilyushin could have been fired by a French ship or a British airplane
[The Israeli jets could not have fired at the Ilyushin, since they were flying in the
opposite direction at the time the airplane was hit...and it is impossible to aim a missile
at a target behind your airplane...]
At this point, having made some logical physical observations and built up a situational
picture of what and who was there at the time, it seems much more likely that the French or
British brought down the Ilyushin with the Israelis playing a supporting role to cause
confusion and 'fog of war'
Now we examine another clue this one coming just 24 hours after the Ilyushin was shot down
namely the massive Russian live fire naval exercises in the exact area of the Med where all
the action took place here is a look at the NOTAM
published by the Cyprus Civil Aviation Authority
Is this air exclusion zone the Russians have enacted in a semi-ring around the RAF
Akrotiri air base a clue ?
I leave it to readers to make their own judgements
Now let us consider the question of why Putin is not saying anything about possible
British or French involvement in the shooting down of the valuable Ilyushin electronic
warfare aircraft
First what purpose would it serve to now come out and accuse two Nato countries of an act
of war ?
Is not this kind of escalation exactly what Nato is looking to provoke in Syria ?
Is Putin supposed to now declare war on Nato ?
Or does it make more sense to blame Israel because Israel is the only party that can be
proved to have been doing something illegal at the time ie bombing a sovereign country [an
illegal act of aggression] and at the same time trampling all the protocol and agreements in
place between Russia and Israel on the matter of Israeli operations against 'Iranian' forces
in Syria ?
We must remember here that Putin is interested in only one thing in Syria that is to
defeat the West's regime change project
The West on the other hand is trying to do everything possible to provoke Russia into a
military response, that would then lead to escalation and a possible shooting war
Let us recall that the US twice launched cruise missile strikes against Syria in the last
year in the last attack back in April, the French and British also participated no response
came from Russia
In 2015, Turkey shot down a Russian jet so how much of a stretch is it to think that
Britain and France [together with Israel playing a supporting role] decided to shoot down the
Russian spy plane ?
Now Russia holding its fire makes perfect sense and is the smart thing to do, in spite of
how bad these provocations look for one thing Russia even turning on its air defense systems
to shoot down US and Nato or Israeli missiles would give the opponent valuable information
about how the Russian AD systems operate this is very valuable tactical information
Russia is better served not firing its systems unnecessarily because when it does, the
enemy will have little chance to calculate an escape
As things stand now no one can defend Israel's actions on that night Israel realizes that
Russia is very angry and Israel must now alter its behavior as to bombing Syria Russia will
also take steps to increase the security of all Russian assets in Syria there will not be a
repeat performance of this carefully planned ambush of the Ilyushin
As for retribution for whoever it was that pulled the trigger on that Ilyushin I think
Putin realizes that revenge is a dish best served cold two can play the game of 'accidents'
happening
Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to
be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.
No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general
should fight a battle simply out of pique.
If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are.
Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.
But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the
dead ever be brought back to life.
Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution. This is
the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.
'An investigation is underway to establish what exactly happened when the
Ilyushin IL-20 reconnaissance plane was shot down on Monday night, as it was coming into
land at the Russian airbase at Hmeimim in northwest Syria. The plane was lost some 20 kms
off the Syrian coast, with all 15 service onboard killed.
There appears to have been an accidental shoot-down by Syrian air defenses using
an outdated Soviet-made S-200 system.'
So this semi-official organ of Russian media is not so sure as our two resident 'experts'
here and any comments that question their 'authority' are unceremoniously dismissed
Looking forward to hearing back from Martyanov on this
I'm not completely convinced about the Russian MoD's interpretation of events as one of the
F16s hiding behind the I-20. I think they stretched that part up because of their
anger and embarrassment. The bottom line is that Russia has itself to blame because
- Russia and Syria use different IFF systems "and Israel knows". It is reckless for them to
have uncoordinated IFF with Syrian air-defense and even more reckless to have divulged this
to Israel. If fact, even assuming Syria had its own S-400 instead of S-200, it would still be
totally reckless for them not to coordinate IFF.
- Russia did not fire its S-400 to shoot down the F-16s. Even after they knew the I-20 was
down, 20 minutes after -- they politely asked the F-16s to vacate, which they only did 13
minutes later.
This is a wake-up call that Russia is pursuing an untenable policy in Syria by trying to
be friends with opposing sides of a war and having its armed forces in the middle, while
prohibiting them from fully using their weapons to defend themselves. Just as they portray
Israel as hiding behind Russian aircraft, Hezbullah can be portrayed as hiding behind the
nearby Russian airbase so that Israel gets in trouble trying to attack there. If Russia
declares a no-fly-zone around its base that's incentive for Iran and/or Hezbullah to put its
bases there.
Russia needs to either get out of Syria or choose sides and stick with its allies.
@Bill65
Can The Saker tell us what right Israel has to bomb targets in Syria ? The Russians were
invited in to save Syria as were the Iranians and Hezbollah but Israel is on the side of the
attackers of Syria . What right? The right of self defense. The establishment of Iranian
bases in Syria is a mortal danger for us, the secret Syrian nuclear reactor was a potential
catastrophe for everybody. Technically we have been in war with Syria for the last seventy
years.
@OilcanFloyd
The Soviets didn't go to war with the U.S. over Syria and Israel 50 years ago, and I don't
think the Russians will now. Israel is pretty much confined to beating up on defenseless
Palestinians and invading the mostly undefended airspace of its immediate neighbors. Russia
seems to have the situation in Syria under control, and attacking Israel would be the
quickest way to have a war with the U.S., which Putin says he doesn't want.
One aircraft and its crew is apparently a price the Russians are willing to pay in a proxy
war with the U.S. What happened 50 years ago has little bearing on today.
Russia's blinkered present position in Syria makes little sense and is unsustainable.
Basically it seems to be saying that it will fight Syria's enemies when they are the
western/Israeli proxy armies but it will not defend Syrian airspace against attacks which
emanate from the very same sources. This naked air aggression, it seems, is approved by
agreements with Israel and perhaps also some others. We have now seen the results of this
approach and it has meant the needless Russian deaths, both in the air and on the ground.
The defenders of the status quo tell us that Russia won't defend Syrian airspace, as this
might lead to WW3. The same could be much more justifiably said about NATO/Israel and their
attacks on Syria, but magically the aggressors have been absolved from this responsibility,
as it is not their concern. Strangely, only Russia has the duty of preventing global war, so
it must always turn the other cheek, no matter the provocation. If Russia continues on this
path, it is finished and may as well surrender right now.
@Mr M. I
do believe it was a deliberate attempt by Israel to get a Russian plane shot down.
The biggest problem Israel and the Zionist Socialist USA faces when it comes to destroying
Syria for the sake of making Israel greater again, is Russia. So long as Russia is allied
with Syria the western client states of Israel can't invade and destroy this hated enemy of
Jews.
Likewise, Russia can't attack Israel for what it does in Syria, because that would bring
down the whole western world in retaliation and start off WWIII before the time is right.
No, I think this was a poorly planned and clumsy attempt at creating a false flag attack
in the form of luring Syria into shooting down a Russia plane in an attempt to cause a
diplomatic crisis between Syria and Russia that would end with Russia leaving Syria to be
destroyed the Israel and its client states of the US/UK and the rest of the bullied Nato
states.
It most likely failed because someone did not get informed and that someone had the brain
power required to grab the phone and tell the Russians at the last minute because they saw
that chances of the plan backfiring was too great to even think about it.
I do believe it was a deliberate attempt by Israel to get a Russian plane shot down.
After reading the MoD briefing notes, it is more likely that it was another example of
Israeli arrogance and immaturity that will have consequences Israel will find most
unpleasant.
The biggest problem Israel and the Zionist Socialist USA faces when it comes to
destroying Syria for the sake of making Israel greater again, is Russia. So long as Russia
is allied with Syria the western client states of Israel can't invade and destroy this
hated enemy of Jews.
The biggest problem Israel and the Neocons face is their own delusion that they have the
right and the power to decide that they have any options regarding Syria. The world does not
need Israel.
Likewise, Russia can't attack Israel for what it does in Syria, because that would bring
down the whole western world in retaliation and start off WWIII before the time is
right.
Russia can draw lines in the sand that represent Russian self-interest as well as the
interests of other nations Russia deems important to the success of its Syria project. Russia
can attack Israel when it crosses one of these lines. Allowing Iran to build a facility in
Latakia was one of these lines, and Israel crossed it, stupidly I might add.
No, I think this was a poorly planned and clumsy attempt at creating a false flag attack
in the form of luring Syria into shooting down a Russia plane in an attempt to cause a
diplomatic crisis between Syria and Russia that would end with Russia leaving Syria to be
destroyed the Israel and its client states of the US/UK and the rest of the bullied Nato
states.
It merely another example of the sort of immature provocations Israel engages in on a
daily basis. Remember, they are the chosen people and they can do whatever they want.
It most likely failed because someone did not get informed and that someone had the
brain power required to grab the phone and tell the Russians at the last minute because
they saw that chances of the plan backfiring was too great to even think about it.
What failed was not a false-flag attack, but rather a long-standing practice of treating
Russia as a second class nation.
Sometimes you have to draw a clear boundary. After watching the MoD briefing (excerpts),
it is clear that Russia has been extremely accommodating to Israel's quasi-legitimate
interests. In return, an adult nation would honor Russia's decision to allow Iranians to
build a factory near to its airport.
Think of the consequences. The key to winning this conflict means the foreign nationals
must feel safe inside the borders of Syria. It is no excuse that Iran and Hezbollah have
challenged Israel militarily. Israel has challenged these countries militarily, too. For
Russia to allow any nation to dictate to Syria and Russia who may or may not have a presence
inside Syria is to admit that Russia will not achieve the goal of full sovereignty for Syria
over Syrian territory.
Russia has already announced plans to build an automobile factory in Syria. Recall my
earlier assertion that Syria will be the western terminus of the New Silk Road; the key to
Syria's full recovery will be China's investment. Can Russia allow Israel to decide that
China is not allowed to build factories wherever Syria allows it to build? The answer is
obviously NO.
Russia has drawn a line in the sand and Israel must grow up (impossible, I know for
the chosen people). Unless Russia stands firm and enforces that line in the sand (i.e. Obey.
The. Deconfliction. Agreement.), it will not succeed in restoring Syria's sovereignty.
Considering that Russia has stated its goal of restoring Syria's full sovereignty over all
its territory, it is clear that Russia will do whatever is necessary to achieve this
goal.
The complicating factor is that IFUKUS is willing to risk a hot war to defeat Russia
in its goal. I strongly suspect that Putin will play for as much time as needed to defeat
IFUKUS economically to the point where IFUKUS is militarily incapable. Keep in mind, Russia
has already determined that IFUKUS is 'agreement incapable.'
'Do you want me to prove...by me merely introducing a simple tactical-technical parameter
which defines tactical reality in any radar systems...against the background of old S-200
AD complex...'
Yes...Andrei..I will take you up on your offer to 'prove' to us the 'technical
parameters' that ALLOW THE S200 AND IL20 TO DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS...
You see friends, Saker and especially Martyanov are full of crapola...
It is IMPOSSIBLE for an S200 which flies at 2.5 kilometers per second and would
cover 100 km in just 40 seconds... to have hit an airplane that continued flying for
another ~5 minutes after that close call with the flight of Israeli F16s...
Here is the infographic map released by the Russian MoD...
The flight path of the F16s is recorded with the dashed blue line...the flight of the
Ilyushin Il20 spy plane is recorded in the solid red line...[that from the MoD]
I have circled the close encounter point in yellow, with a yellow arrow pointing to
it...that is the point where the F16s are supposed to have 'hidden' behind the radar
reflection of the much bigger Ilyushin, and is the ONLY point at which this could
possibly occur...
But the Ilyushin somehow manages to fly north for another 40 km...and even make a 90
degree east turn to come in to land at Hmeimim...a total flight time of around FIVE
MINUTES...
BUT the S200 cannot fly for FIVE
MINUTES...it is one of the fastest SAM rockets in the world, with a flight speed of 2.5
kilometers per second and would cover 100 kilometers in JUST 40 SECONDS...
Its maximum flight time is 150 SECONDS [2.5 MINUTES]...IN WHICH TIME IT WOULD COVER ITS
MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF 375 KM...
It has a cruise speed of about ~600 km/hr, which is 10 km/minute...that's at its cruise
altitude of 8,000 meters...the MoD reported that the airplane was hit while flying at 5,000 m
and on its descent to land at Hmeimim...
The MoD map clearly shows that the Ilyushin flew north for 40 km after that 'close
encounter' with the F16s...and then made another right 90 degree turn back toward the Syria
coast on its final descent back into Hmeimim...
Only after making that turn to final was the airplane hit...
So we have the airplane flying for FIVE MINUTES AFTER THAT SUPPOSED 'RADAR
MASKING'...?
And the S200 which can cover 300 km in TWO MINUTES FLAT was doing what exactly for those
missing THREE MINUTES...?
It was maybe hovering in midair with its engine shut off...just waiting for the Ilyushin
to slowly make its way to the point 40 km from the 'radar masking'..before it decided to turn
its engine back on and then come and hit the Ilyushin...?
It is a matter of simple flight physics...the official story is IMPOSSIBLE...
If an s200 was even launched, it would have been from a range of probably 100 km... so it
would have got to the Ilyushin in under a minute from that close encounter point...
The Ilyushin in that one minute would have been able to fly for maybe 10 km AT MOST...and
would have come down where I have place the red arrow on the map...
Now I have seen many commenters here ridiculing Saker and Martyanov and that is completely
warranted...Saker has no technical credentials whatsoever, in either physics or
mathematics...he has made that abundantly clear over the course of hundreds of thousands of
words of fluff...
Martyanov at least has a bona fide military education, but he also does not seem to think
much about basic physics...he has some explaining to do here as to why he is pushing the
'official' story...
Folks...the fact of the matter is that 'official' information is often a blatant lie...we
all know that...for those who have some relevant expertise in technical matters such as
flight physics, it is not so easy to pull the wool over our eyes...
Remember when Turkey shot down that Russian Su24 ground attack jet in November
2015...?...there was a lot of discussion at the time as to the claim from the Turkish side
about the Sukhoi flying through Turkish airspace for 17 seconds...
At the time PCR picked up on the debate, it revolved around the physical possibility of
the Sukhoi flying that slow as to remain in Turkish airspace for so long, while covering a
very short distance...the debate among the laypeople revolved around the aerodynamic 'stall'
speed of the Sukhoi...ie the minimum flying speed of the airplane...
I mentioned to PCR that the debate was nonsensical and explained a couple of pertinent
basics of the flight physics involved...PCR encouraged me to expand that into an article,
which he graciously
published on his website...
We have a similar situation here...it is important to figure out what is and what is not
physically possible...
Martyyanov especially, and of course Saker, are trying to tell us here that it was all a
mistake as Putin said...that the 'old' S200 took down a state of the art electronic warfare
airplane, with 15 very highly trained specialists on board...a HUGE LOSS...
Now I will say here that Putin has a good reason to take this action and not reveal
what actually happened...and I will get to that in a minute...
But let us first consider some peripheral facts surrounding this entire incident...it is
probable that the downed 'Il20' was in fact the latest, modernized iteration of this
electronic intelligence aircraft, the
Il22PP, which entered into service two years ago...
This is in keeping with the MoD's stated practice of subjecting Russia's latest and most
sophisticated weapons systems to actual combat conditions in Syria...even Putin has said that
much has been learned,both good and bad, in Syria, and that fixing these deficiencies is
possible only due to the opportunity to deploy these systems in Syria...
Now if we assume that this was in fact that state of the art Il22PP [we are speculating
here, but it is a solid assumption]...then one must ask how careful the entire Russian
contingent in Syria would be with such a valuable asset...?
How is it possible that while this airplane is in the air that 'Syrian' air defense
commanders are shooting willy-nilly at a chunk of airspace where at this very moment this
extremely valuable aircraft is flying...?
How stupid does this sound on its face...?
Now we have already proved that the 'radar masking' story is physically impossible, due to
the respective flight speeds of the Ilyushin turboprop and the S200 rocket...
That means that the S200 would have to have been launched when THERE WAS NO RADAR
MASKING...ie the Ilyushin would have been very close to the point where it was shot
down...which is 40 km away from the 'close encounter' site...
So now we are supposed to believe that the Syrian air defense crews, which somehow are
acting independently while supposedly 'integrated' with the Russian air defense staff...that
they have now targeted the Ilyushin WHILE IT IS FLYING ALONE WITH NOTHING NEARBY...?
Again, I ask Martyanov here to explain this...especially in light of his dismissive
comment to others objecting here, and citing his vast knowledge of radar systems...
How is it possible that this Ilyushin was targeted by an S200 when it was nowhere near
those F16s at that moment...as the laws of physics require...?
Of course I realize that he cannot rebut these questions in any way shape or form...he is
caught again with his pants down...
Now let us consider some more relevant facts on that night...the Russian MoD stated
clearly two additional piece of information...
1...the French frigate Auvergne was nearby the Ilyushin flight, as depicted on the map,
and was in fact recorded firing missiles...
2...British jets were also in the air, with their transponders turned on...making it
possible to track them even with civilian ATC radar...
Now we also know that a number of Russian ships were in that area at the time, and still
are...and are in fact this entire week conducting live fire drills...more on that in a
moment...
Those ships also have sophisticated radar and also infrared sensors which picked up the
missile firing from the French ship...
Besides that we have the Beriev A50U AWACS aircraft in Syria..and it
is safe to assume that they would have been in the air at the time of the Ilyushin
flight...
At the same time, we also know that the US is flying the high altitude U2 spy plane out of Akrotiri...
So there is a lot of cat and mouse going on between Nato and Russia in the area...all the
more reason to seriously doubt that a Syrian S200 would shoot down such an important flight
as the Ilyushin...we notice also the flight path of the Ilyushin...it first flew a circuit
over Idlib, then, instead of coming in to land directly at Hmeimim, the airplane continued
out over the Med for about 40 km off the coast of Syria, well outside the Syrian territorial
airspace...why...?
Perhaps because the Ilyushin might have been gathering data and perhaps engaging in
electronic interference of those Nato ships and aircraft in the area...?
We do not know...but if it was doing something like that, the flight would have had the
utmost security attached to it...it would be unthinkable for a Syrian SAM to take a shot at
that airplane...
So why the ruse on the part of Putin and the Russians...?
Let's first examine who had the opportunity to down that Ilyushin...the French ship firing
missiles [what kind of missiles surface to air...?...the frigate is equipped with very
capable Aster SAMs... ]
And also the British aircraft in the air at the time and flying out of Akrotiri...there
are 9 Eurofighter Typhoons there, equipped with long range air to air AIM120 radar guided missiles... and
also 10 Tornados equipped with shorter range heat seeking AIM9x...
Now since we know already that the only way an S200 could have shot down the Ilyushin
would be if it fired practically intentionally at a high value friendly aircraft flying with
no enemy aircraft nearby...it would seem at least as probable that the missile that brought
down the Ilyushin could have been fired by a French ship or a British airplane...
[The Israeli jets could not have fired at the Ilyushin, since they were flying in the
opposite direction at the time the airplane was hit...and it is impossible to aim a missile
at a target behind your airplane...]
At this point, having made some logical physical observations and built up a situational
picture of what and who was there at the time, it seems much more likely that the French or
British brought down the Ilyushin...with the Israelis playing a supporting role to cause
confusion and 'fog of war'...
Now we examine another clue...this one coming just 24 hours after the Ilyushin was shot
down...namely the massive Russian live fire naval exercises in the exact area of the Med
where all the action took place...here is a look at the NOTAM
published by the Cyprus Civil Aviation Authority...
Is this air exclusion zone the Russians have enacted in a semi-ring around the RAF
Akrotiri air base a clue...?
I leave it to readers to make their own judgements...
Now let us consider the question of why Putin is not saying anything about possible
British or French involvement in the shooting down of the valuable Ilyushin electronic
warfare aircraft...
First...what purpose would it serve to now come out and accuse two Nato countries of an
act of war...?
Is not this kind of escalation exactly what Nato is looking to provoke in Syria...?
Is Putin supposed to now declare war on Nato...?
Or does it make more sense to blame Israel because Israel is the only party that can be
proved to have been doing something illegal at the time...ie bombing a sovereign country [an
illegal act of aggression]...and at the same time trampling all the protocol and agreements
in place between Russia and Israel on the matter of Israeli operations against 'Iranian'
forces in Syria...?
We must remember here that Putin is interested in only one thing in Syria...that is to
defeat the West's regime change project
The West on the other hand is trying to do everything possible to provoke Russia into a
military response, that would then lead to escalation and a possible shooting war...
Let us recall that the US twice launched cruise missile strikes against Syria in the last
year...in the last attack back in April, the French and British also participated...no
response came from Russia...
In 2015, Turkey shot down a Russian jet...so how much of a stretch is it to think that
Britain and France [together with Israel playing a supporting role] decided to shoot down the
Russian spy plane...?
Now Russia holding its fire makes perfect sense and is the smart thing to do, in spite of
how bad these provocations look...for one thing Russia even turning on its air defense
systems to shoot down US and Nato or Israeli missiles would give the opponent valuable
information about how the Russian AD systems operate...this is very valuable tactical
information...
Russia is better served not firing its systems unnecessarily...because when it does, the
enemy will have little chance to calculate an escape...
As things stand now...no one can defend Israel's actions on that night...Israel realizes
that Russia is very angry and Israel must now alter its behavior as to bombing Syria...Russia
will also take steps to increase the security of all Russian assets in Syria...there will not
be a repeat performance of this carefully planned ambush of the Ilyushin...
As for retribution for whoever it was that pulled the trigger on that Ilyushin...I think
Putin realizes that revenge is a dish best served cold...two can play the game of 'accidents'
happening...
Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be
gained; fight not unless the position is critical.
No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general
should fight a battle simply out of pique.
If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are.
Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.
But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the
dead ever be brought back to life.
Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution. This is
the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.
'An investigation is underway to establish what exactly happened when the Ilyushin
IL-20 reconnaissance plane was shot down on Monday night, as it was coming into land at the
Russian airbase at Hmeimim in northwest Syria. The plane was lost some 20 kms off the
Syrian coast, with all 15 service onboard killed.
There appears to have been an accidental shoot-down by Syrian air defenses using
an outdated Soviet-made S-200 system.'
So this semi-official organ of Russian media is not so sure as our two resident
'experts' here...and any comments that question their 'authority' are unceremoniously
dismissed...
Looking forward to hearing back from Martyanov on this... A very interesting take
indeed.
The french frigate seems to no longer be mentioned at all in official statements. Macron
Control must have the full tapes, wonder whether these will appear at some point.
The Russian military has now conclusively established that the Israelis were responsible for
this disaster. They made that conclusion based on the objective evidence. If that evidence
showed something differently, they would have drawn a different conclusion. They have no
convincing reason to lie about it.
The Russians should now declare a no-fly zone over all of Syria and its territorial
waters, not only for Israel but for America and NATO as well. If the Israelis repeat this
act, their planes should be shot down and the air base from which they took off should be
bombed and destroyed. Israel would do nothing to retaliate. It risks total destruction if it
does.
Nor would America do anything. In fact, the Russians could shoot down American aircraft
and even sink American ships. The Americans will not be involved in a war with Russia.
America does not get into wars with countries that have nuclear weapons and the means to
deliver them to the continental United States. The only time America would use its nuclear
weapons is if its homeland is attacked with nuclear weapons. That is why countries like
Russia, China and North Korea need not fear America and why America will not attack them
militarily.
In other words the lives of American servicemen are not worth the destruction of the
continental United States. The first principle of American foreign policy is the prevention
of a nuclear war. That is what American foreign policy is based on.
@pyrrhus
The USA pretended that the Liberty attack didn't happen because LBJ wanted campaign money
from (((you know who)))...and of course, LBJ and Admiral McCain, who did the coverup, were
two of the worst criminals ever to occupy the upper ranks of the Deep State. "Putin and Trump
are trying to preserve peace, while Israel is pushing for war -- as is anyone who is calling
for Putin to "man up" and shoot some Israeli planes out of the sky or similar."
-- Agree. Israelis live by terrorism.
Thank you, sir, for your superb comment. I read and reread it several times, the only
useful comment on the entire thread. I too noticed at the very beginning the Russian military
announced it had detected a missile launch from the French warship, and I could not square
this fact with the S200 shoot down story, but being merely a layman in military affairs I had
to watch and wait for someone with knowledge and a brain to weigh in. Again, thank you.
Don't hold your breath waiting to hear from the two posers The Faker and Martyanov.
Aaron Hilel says: September 23, 2018 at 9:40 pm GMT • 200 Words
@VICB3
Yes, well as you said a war is a dark room easily entered, but full of unknown danger. US
does not need to lose an expensive carrier and thousands of sailors to start one.
Imo Israel will never, ever permit US to start an all-out war with Russia, as Israel is a
very small country, with extremely fragile, tightly packed population – which in case
of nuclear escalation would take 80%+ losses. Look at it this way – the core of jewish
power is concentrated in big cities, especially NY and Londonistan – and Israel. Russia
and US can absorb a more or less limited nuclear exchange – the Jews, as a people,
cannot.
In the current idiotic and useless war on Syria the Russians will lose soldiers, pilots,
planes – it has no bearing on the outcome. The Russians and more precisely VV Putin
will win this war in time, and Israel will suffer a strategic defeat ranging from minor
(negotiations with Assad and polite expulsion of Hezbollah) to cataclysmic (creation of Shia
crescent and fall of Iraq into Iranian sphere).
If you prefer a comparison to WW 2 , look at it as summer 1943 – everyone with a
pulse in German OKH knew that the war is lost and yet how many hundreds of thousands of
Russian soldiers had to die to arrive in Berlin?
@Hindsight
I have great respect for Mr. Saker. But this analysis makes me wonder, what has made him to
come up with such a forced explanation. It's more of an apology than an objective
analysis.
I wish he could stay objective to remain relevant. " .a forced explanation. It's more of an
apology than an objective analysis."
– What shall Saker tell you? -- That zionists have zero dignity? That mega
war-profiteers among "deciders" want more wars? That the US has been drowning in debt and
that the US/UK financial sector would not survive without a major war? These are well-known
facts.
The Russian Federation faces an enemy that does not recognize any international laws. The
only way to stop the predator is by waging a hot war against the "deciders" in the D.C.,
London, and Tel Aviv. That would result in a massive loss of life in Europe, the Middle East,
the US, and in the Russian Federation. The predator, ZUSA, is not able to contain its
predatory urges. They high-placed scoundrels begging for being destroyed. But there are also
innocent people that will die during the hot war.
The European civilization has developed many important mechanisms for protecting both the
individuals and the world peace. The ZUSA, the UK and the Jewish State have decided to end
the European civilization and establish a New World Order.
It is not illogical at all that the US/Israel/EU/UK have sided with radical Islamists
(ISIS, Al Qaeda and such) and with banderites (neo-Nazi). The flooding of the EU with the
desperate refugees (the victims of the ongoing Wars for Israel) and opportunistic migrants
from sub-Saharan Africa (welcome, extraordinary low IQ!) is tearing apart the societal fabric
of the EU and makes the war-mongers and war-profiteers even less accountable to vox
populi.
What should Russians do? The more time they buy, the better the outcome for the humanity
at large.
Russia now awaits possible new sanctions as a result of its involvement in the United
States election and as a result of the potential nerve agent attack in England.
Who the **** writes this ****? Who believes those baldfaced lies?
Hass C. , 49 minutes ago
A little glimpse into how much influence Putin has on his own economy. Which is not much.
He is trying hard to remove Russia's testicles from the vice of US control but this is a slow
process as the economy and capital market are totally open, except for military production
which is under his own control and pretty much protected from the whims of markets.
The steady increase of sanctions has the objective of forcing Putin's hand into lashing
out and trying a dirigistic neo-stalinist approach, but this would cut Russia from foreign
technology and capital, make the best work force fly abroad, resulting in final
implosion.
Whether Russia survives as an industrial economy till US and the dollar loses its power
over it is anybody's guess. The more Russia is weakened at that time, the more likely China
will flood it with its love.
Ms No , 51 minutes ago
The thing with Putin is that he is a great leader and Patriot. He wishes us no harm and
would like to be our friends (the western population); however, Putin isn't motivated by
saving the world, your nation or you personally. His loyalty is to his people and their
future.
All actions that Putin has taken that ended up saving your *** were simply a benefit
gained by the happenstance of what benefits us benefitting him.
Putin will save his own (hopefully) but you have to save yourself. Remember that.
LaugherNYC , 8 minutes ago
If Putin wants to be friends with the West, then why did he reverse the course of openness
to the EU and NATO, the trend towards normalization, and turn hard right into an
ultra-nationalist despot, starting to spout the diseased philosophy of Ilyin, becoming a
xenophobic tin pot kleptocrat, like some African warlord, funneling funds and assets offshore
through shell companies and his buddies?
It will be interesting to see what happens when/if there is a real global investigation of
Putin's offshored assets, and an expose of how he has plundered his country. He will be the
very last to repatriate - nor should we want him to be forced into it. If you close his
escape hatch, Vlad will be forced to live up to his rhetoric, which is very Rapture-esque,
very nuclear nightmare, very Judgement Day Armageddon
Anonymous IX , 1 hour ago
Where's Billy Browder? What's next on his agenda? Billy, btw, the next time you allow
anyone to film you, have your handlers minimize the obvious drug and/or electronic mind
control over you a little earlier. You seem to "wake up" an awful lot...you know...where your
head snaps up like you didn't realize something...or you're "waking up" from something. Just
a helpful hint. You did so chronically throughout the Magnitsky film. Here's what a mind
looks like on "mind control." Don't look for eggs in a frying pan.
Ms No , 50 minutes ago
So mind control looks something like sleep apnea?
Savvy , 1 hour ago
the desire to keep assets out of the reach of the United States Treasury
Can you say 'capital flight'? I knew you could. Not a country in the world is going to
trust the US with a grain of salt.
Well done Trump and your $864billon/month deficit spending.
Ms No , 49 minutes ago
We really should stop referring to it as the US treasury. Its something else.
opport.knocks , 3 minutes ago
Lendery?
Cashlaudratomat?
Ponzi-prefecture?
The US Usury?
hooligan2009 , 1 hour ago
according to polls aired by tv station "euro news", putin's ratings are down 10% because
he wants to raise the retirement ages of men to 65 from 60 (male life expectancy is 66) and
womens retirement age from 55 to 60 (womens life expectancy is 71).
i guess this is proof that sanctions are working. putin has to raise the retirement age
and russians die 12-15 years earlier than those in the west.
oh, the humanity!
sanctions work: they hurt the bottom 50%, not those better off.
Balance-Sheet , 58 minutes ago
Good to note this and it appears to be correct. Male life expectancy is 65/66 on average
so many will die reaching for their first tiny pension check. I do not know why Putin simply
does not seek to save money by ordering people to be shot at 65 as a humane measure. Russia
has shot 10s of millions over the past 100 years so this will maintain a tradition.
I am interested in your remark on Putin's popularity- he appears to be slipping into
megalomania also typical of Russian leaders so perhaps he will be removed. Raising the
retirement age in Russia is recklessly stupid from a political perspective in an impoverished
country established as Earth's largest resource treasure house.
Ms No , 44 minutes ago
War and sanctions are expensive. Through this evil the world is impoverished. Zionist fiat
currency is also crushingly expensive. We would be exceedingly wealthy without all of this. A
whole different world could exist.
That probably wont happen until the next age (a golden age) though because people now are
inherently stupid and lack any connection. Sticking their appendenges in everything and
sinking completely in dense materialism is more important.
Hass C. , 39 minutes ago
Can you specify why you say he "appears to be slipping into megalomania"? Been observing
him for years and his megalomania index seems stable to me.
Also, Russian demography makes raising the retirement age necessary, they say. Their birth
rate is increasing but so does life expectancy.
opport.knocks , 1 minute ago
He will not be able to run for re-election so now is the time to implement necessary but
unpopular reforms.
Shemp 4 Victory , 38 minutes ago
according to polls aired by tv station "euro news"
Well, if "euro news" said, then so it is. Free European press can't lie.
hooligan2009 , 28 minutes ago
haha.. yes.. i watched it for ten minutes, so the same four headlines scrolled through in
a cycle three times in those ten minutes. pope, a survivor underneath a boat after two days
in lake victoria, blunt brexit and putins popularity.
nothing approcahing any quality whatsoever. i was just making sure the other side of the
house hadn't got past "stupid"!!!
123dobryden , 1 hour ago
Rossia. Davaj
notfeelinthebern , 1 hour ago
Yeah, he's giving the west the proverbial finger. Instead of creating a bridge to trade
and friendship, the west is doing nothing but trying to destroy an imaginary enemy.
Matteo S. , 1 hour ago
It is not imaginary from the anglo-saxon empire's point of view.
The anglo-saxon empire has been playing this game for more than 3 centuries.
It first constantly attacked France until it definitely emasculated it with Napoleon's
downfall.
Then it immediately went to the jugular of Russia. And on this occasion was formulated
Mackinder's gropolitics principles.
Then it went for Germany.
Then in again against USSR/Russia.
This is not due to imagination. This is a deliberate and structural way to interact with
the rest of the world. The anglo-saxon empire hates competition and tries to destroy any
potential competitor instead of agreeing to cooperate with peers.
Ms No , 42 minutes ago
The Anglo Saxon empire was occupied by Zionist money lending. They controlled the British
empire. A lot of those blueblood royal were theirs to begin with also. They were also the
bankers of Rome.
Matteo S. , 27 minutes ago
Forget your fantasies about the Catholic Church and the pope.
It is Protestants who have always dominated the anglo-saxon empire. Protestants from
Britain but also from Netherlands, Germany, France, who allied with the English and Scot
Protestants to build their mammonite empire.
And for one Rothschild family, you had the Astors, Vanderbilt's, Rockefellers, Carnegie's,
Morgans, Fords, ... etc, none of which were jewish.
The Zionists are just the tail of the anglo-saxon dog.
justdues , 1 hour ago
"Russia now awaits possible new sanctions as a result of it,s ALLEGED involvement in the
United States election and as a result of the ALLEGED nerve agent attack in England .
FIFTylers
hooligan2009 , 1 hour ago
quite right. no trial, no evidence and harsh sentences/convictions via trade
embargoes.
russia offered reciprocation so it could try Browder. the west said no, invented crimes
culminating in a Magnitsy act.
if individuals in Europe, the UK or the US were convicted and imprisoned without trial
governments in those places would be thrown out on their ear.
as it is, western governments can bring the entire planet to the brink of war, based on
their political opinions - with no evidence, no trial and no opportunity to argue a case for
a defence of charges.
JibjeResearch , 1 hour ago
lolz ahaha.... a bad choice..., any fiat is a bad choice...
Go phy.gold or cryptos (BTC, ETH, XTZ),
phy.silver is good too...
An Shrubbery , 40 minutes ago
Cryptosporidiosis are no different than fiat, maybe even a little worse. They are NOT
anonymous, and are becoming less and less so and eventually will be co-opted by deep state
operatives such as googoyle, facefuck, Twatter, amazog, etc. for the deep state. There is an
absolute record of your every transaction in the blockchain.
It's just a matter of time. There will be a crypto that we're all forced to use in the
near future, and big brother will have absolute control of it.
my new username , 1 hour ago
This has zero impact on working class Americans. It only affects liberals and rich
people.
DEDA CVETKO , 1 hour ago
Everything has impact on everything else. We are all, in some bizarre ways,
interconnected. Deripaska (pictured above) has a virtual global monopoly on aluminum trade.
Guess who uses aluminum? You guessed it: people like you and I. The airplane industry.
Consumer industry. The military. Medical equipment industry. Construction industry. Food
industry. Everyone!
There is no such thing as isolationism anymore. It wasn't possible even during Warren
Harding's presidency, let alone now. This deranged notion that Donald Trump will somehow
insulate us all from the effects of his aggressive overseas posturing is deranged beyond
description.
"... It is interesting that all the "draconian" election, etc. laws recently put into practice in Russia have to do with foreigners attempted misusing and lying about Russia's elections for "western" advantage. By now we should all know how the Western media will lie in every way to make it appear that their traitorous lackeys being used to destroy some other nation are the true "patriots" of that nation, even when they are not even citizens of it. ..."
At the time that Putin was in the KGB, had it not become a de facto ethnic Russian
organization? Would not Putin's origins have been established prior to his joining?
You ask when Putin has stood up to the 'West'. It was Medvedev as President who was duped
over Libya through the UN, not having been aware of the subtle shift in US policy from
sabre-rattling and shock-and-awe to more discretely aiding 'rebels' to overthrow 'tyrants'
under the guise of promoting the protection of civilians through no-fly zones etc. (Same
policy, different tactics).
The response over Russia to Georgia's attack on S. Ossetia was entirely unequivocal and it
remains to be seen how Putin, now back in the Presidential driving seat plays Syria and
Iran.
Tony B said (January 4, 2013):
Of course, I can't know for certain but this article to me has the now familiar odor of
disinformation to a very high degree. Putin is treated as a God by the majority of the Russian
people but he is daily demonized by the "West." The suffering of the Russian people after the
collapse of the USSR was due to the weakling and drunk Yeltsin. Once the rape of Russia by the
west, including many American "businessmen," that Yeltsin allowed was stopped (mostly by
Putin), life has gradually gotten better for the average Russian.
It is interesting that all the "draconian" election, etc. laws recently put into practice in
Russia have to do with foreigners attempted misusing and lying about Russia's elections for
"western" advantage. By now we should all know how the Western media will lie in every way to
make it appear that their traitorous lackeys being used to destroy some other nation are the
true "patriots" of that nation, even when they are not even citizens of it.
In my lifetime no one on earth, other than Putin, has stood up to the Rothschild empire,
more or less telling them that if they really think they own Russia's oil business to try and
get it. Would that American presidents would be such "Jews!"
"... If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be. ..."
"... The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. ..."
"... They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. ..."
"... US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition. ..."
"... In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push. ..."
"... The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression. ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com . ..."
"... Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal ..."
A new article from the Wall Street
Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian
casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion
dollars for war profiteers.
This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have
been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst
humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees
scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has
placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are
now eating
leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel
once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King
Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot
operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from
the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to
override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war
plutocrats.
If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this
administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for
days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for
days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.
It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to
hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on
this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the
stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which
end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian
government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at
the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope
of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And
they won't.
The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by
a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and
Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget
since the
height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential
damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal
parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as
Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.
The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does
not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the
reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them
know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump
because, as Julian Assange once said , they are
Trump.
In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community
which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one
another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell
it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him
into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream
parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give
the illusion of competition.
In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give
their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote
for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of
a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that
government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to
care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video
game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.
The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start
waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them
the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace
whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride
toward war, ecocide and oppression.
If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie
factory, we can wake
the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big
enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.
Reprinted with author's permission from
Medium.com .
So much of mainstream journalism has descended to the level of a cult-like formula of bias,
hearsay and omission. Subjectivism is all; slogans and outrage are proof enough. What matters
is 'perception'...
The death of Robert Parry earlier this year felt like a farewell to the age of the reporter.
Parry was "a trailblazer for independent journalism", wrote Seymour Hersh, with whom he shared
much in common.
Hersh revealed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Cambodia, Parry
exposed Iran-Contra, a drugs and gun-running conspiracy that led to the White House. In 2016,
they separately produced compelling evidence that the Assad government in Syria had not used
chemical weapons. They were not forgiven.
Driven from the "mainstream", Hersh must publish his work outside the United States. Parry
set up his own independent news website Consortium News, where, in a final piece following a
stroke, he referred to journalism's veneration of "approved opinions" while "unapproved
evidence is brushed aside or disparaged regardless of its quality."
Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has
changed in recent years. Dissent tolerated when I joined a national newspaper in Britain in the
1960s has regressed to a metaphoric underground as liberal capitalism moves towards a form of
corporate dictatorship.
This is a seismic shift, with journalists policing the new "groupthink", as Parry called it,
dispensing its myths and distractions, pursuing its enemies.
Witness the witch-hunts against refugees and immigrants, the willful abandonment by the
"MeToo" zealots of our oldest freedom, presumption of innocence, the anti-Russia racism and
anti-Brexit hysteria, the growing anti-China campaign and the suppression of a warning of world
war.
With many if not most independent journalists barred or ejected from the "mainstream", a
corner of the Internet has become a vital source of disclosure and evidence-based analysis:
true journalism sites such as wikileaks.org, consortiumnews.com, wsws.org, truthdig.com,
globalresearch.org, counterpunch.org and informationclearinghouse.com are required reading for
those trying to make sense of a world in which science and technology advance wondrously while
political and economic life in the fearful "democracies" regress behind a media facade of
narcissistic spectacle.
Propaganda Blitz
In Britain, just one website offers consistently independent media criticism. This is the
remarkable Media Lens -- remarkable partly because its founders and editors as well as its only
writers, David Edwards and David Cromwell, since 2001 have concentrated their gaze not on the
usual suspects, the Tory press, but the paragons of reputable liberal journalism: the BBC, The
Guardian , Channel 4 News.
Cromwell and Edwards (The Ghandi Foundation)
Their method is simple. Meticulous in their research, they are respectful and polite when
they ask why a journalist why he or she produced such a one-sided report, or failed to disclose
essential facts or promoted discredited myths.
The replies they receive are often defensive, at times abusive; some are hysterical, as if
they have pushed back a screen on a protected species.
I would say Media Lens has shattered a silence about corporate journalism. Like Noam Chomsky
and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent, they represent a Fifth Estate that deconstructs and
demystifies the media's power.
What is especially interesting about them is that neither is a journalist. David Edwards is
a former teacher, David Cromwell is an oceanographer. Yet, their understanding of the morality
of journalism -- a term rarely used; let's call it true objectivity -- is a bracing quality of
their online Media Lens dispatches.
I think their work is heroic and I would place a copy of their just published book,
Propaganda Blitz , in every journalism school that services the corporate system, as they all
do.
Take the chapter, Dismantling the National Health Service, in which Edwards and Cromwell
describe the critical part played by journalists in the crisis facing Britain's pioneering
health service.
The NHS crisis is the product of a political and media construct known as "austerity", with
its deceitful, weasel language of "efficiency savings" (the BBC term for slashing public
expenditure) and "hard choices" (the willful destruction of the premises of civilized life in
modern Britain).
"Austerity" is an invention. Britain is a rich country with a debt owed by its crooked
banks, not its people. The resources that would comfortably fund the National Health Service
have been stolen in broad daylight by the few allowed to avoid and evade billions in taxes.
Using a vocabulary of corporate euphemisms, the publicly-funded Health Service is being
deliberately run down by free market fanatics, to justify its selling-off. The Labour Party of
Jeremy Corbyn may appear to oppose this, but is it? The answer is very likely no. Little of any
of this is alluded to in the media, let alone explained.
Edwards and Cromwell have dissected the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, whose innocuous
title belies its dire consequences. Unknown to most of the population, the Act ends the legal
obligation of British governments to provide universal free health care: the bedrock on which
the NHS was set up following the Second World War. Private companies can now insinuate
themselves into the NHS, piece by piece.
Where, asks Edwards and Cromwell, was the BBC while this momentous Bill was making its way
through Parliament? With a statutory commitment to "providing a breadth of view" and to
properly inform the public of "matters of public policy," the BBC never spelt out the threat
posed to one of the nation's most cherished institutions. A BBC headline said: "Bill which
gives power to GPs passes." This was pure state propaganda.
Media and Iraq Invasion
Blair: Lawless (Office of Tony Blair)
There is a striking similarity with the BBC's coverage of Prime Minister Tony Blair's
lawless invasion of Iraq in 2003, which left a million dead and many more dispossessed. A study
by the University of Wales, Cardiff, found that the BBC reflected the government line
"overwhelmingly" while relegating reports of civilian suffering. A Media Tenor study placed the
BBC at the bottom of a league of western broadcasters in the time they gave to opponents of the
invasion. The corporation's much-vaunted "principle" of impartiality was never a
consideration.
One of the most telling chapters in Propaganda Blitz describes the smear campaigns mounted
by journalists against dissenters, political mavericks and whistleblowers.
The Guardian' s campaign against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the most
disturbing. Assange, whose epic WikiLeaks disclosures brought fame, journalism prizes and
largesse to The Guardian , was abandoned when he was no longer useful. He was then subjected to
a vituperative – and cowardly -- onslaught of a kind I have rarely known.
With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood
movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as
a "damaged personality" and "callous." They also disclosed the secret password he had given the
paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy
cables.
With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police
outside, gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh."
The Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore wrote, "I bet Assange is stuffing himself full of
flattened guinea pigs. He really is the most massive turd."
Moore, who describes herself as a feminist, later complained that, after attacking Assange,
she had suffered "vile abuse." Edwards and Cromwell wrote to her: "That's a real shame, sorry
to hear that. But how would you describe calling someone 'the most massive turd'? Vile
abuse?"
Moore replied that no, she would not, adding, "I would advise you to stop being so bloody
patronizing." Her former Guardian colleague James Ball wrote, "It's difficult to imagine what
Ecuador's London embassy smells like more than five and a half years after Julian Assange moved
in."
Such slow-witted viciousness appeared in a newspaper described by its editor, Katharine
Viner, as "thoughtful and progressive." What is the root of this vindictiveness? Is it
jealousy, a perverse recognition that Assange has achieved more journalistic firsts than his
snipers can claim in a lifetime? Is it that he refuses to be "one of us" and shames those who
have long sold out the independence of journalism?
Journalism students should study this to understand that the source of "fake news" is not
only trollism, or the likes of Fox News, or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a
false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in
reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. The amorality of the years of Tony
Blair, whom The Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo.
"[It is] an age in which people yearn for new ideas and fresh alternatives," wrote Katharine
Viner. Her political writer Jonathan Freedland dismissed the yearning of young people who
supported the modest policies of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as "a form of narcissism."
"How did this man .," brayed the Guardian 's Zoe Williams, "get on the ballot in the first
place?" A choir of the paper's precocious windbags joined in, thereafter queuing to fall on
their blunt swords when Corbyn came close to winning the 2017 general election in spite of the
media.
Complex stories are reported to a cult-like formula of bias, hearsay and omission: Brexit,
Venezuela, Russia, Syria. On Syria, only the investigations of a group of independent
journalists have countered this, revealing the network of Anglo-American backing of jihadists
in Syria, including those related to ISIS.
Leni Riefenstahl (r.) (Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)
Supported by a "psyops" campaign
funded by the British Foreign Office and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the
aim is to hoodwink the Western public and speed the overthrow of the government in Damascus,
regardless of the medieval alternative and the risk of war with Russia.
The Syria Campaign, set up by a New York PR agency called Purpose, funds a group known as
the White Helmets, who claim falsely to be "Syria Civil Defense" and are seen uncritically on
TV news and social media, apparently rescuing the victims of bombing, which they film and edit
themselves, though viewers are unlikely to be told this. George Clooney is a fan.
The White Helmets are appendages to the jihadists with whom they share addresses. Their
media-smart uniforms and equipment are supplied by their Western paymasters. That their
exploits are not questioned by major news organizations is an indication of how deep the
influence of state-backed PR now runs in the media. As Robert Fisk noted recently, no
"mainstream" reporter reports Syria.
In what is known as a hatchet job, a Guardian reporter based in San Francisco, Olivia Solon,
who has never visited Syria, was allowed to smear the substantiated investigative work of
journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett on the White Helmets as "propagated online by a
network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the
Russian government."
This abuse was published without permitting a single correction, let alone a right-of-reply.
The Guardian Comment page was blocked, as Edwards and Cromwell document. I saw the list of
questions Solon sent to Beeley, which reads like a McCarthyite charge sheet -- "Have you ever
been invited to North Korea?"
So much of the mainstream has descended to this level. Subjectivism is all; slogans and
outrage are proof enough. What matters is the "perception."
When he was U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus declared what he called "a
war of perception conducted continuously using the news media." What really mattered was not
the facts but the way the story played in the United States. The undeclared enemy was, as
always, an informed and critical public at home.
Nothing has changed. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's film-maker, whose
propaganda mesmerized the German public.
She told me the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on
the "submissive void" of an uninformed public.
"Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked.
"Everyone," she said. "Propaganda always wins, if you allow it."
Propaganda Blitz by David
Edwards and David Cromwell is published by Pluto Press.
The whole nonsense about Russian interference, which was obviously nonsense from Day One
and has never, for a moment looked like anything but nonsense, seems to indicate that we
have entered a post political era in which policy discussions and debates are forgotten and
smears and false accusations take their place.
Currently in the US the Kavanaugh nomination which ought to be about the meaning of the law
and the consequences of having a Supreme Court which will make Judge Taney look like
Solomon at his most impressive. Instead it is about an alleged teenage incident in which
the nominee is said to have caressed a girls breasts at a drunken party when all involved
were at High School. Before that we had a Senatorial election in Alabama in which the
Republican candidate was charged with having shown a sexual interest in teenage girls-
whether this was a 'first' in Alabama is unknown but it is believed to have happened
elsewhere, in the unenlightened past.
Then we have the matter of whether Jeremy Corbyn is such a danger to Jews that they will
all leave the country if he is ever elected to power. This long campaign, completely devoid
of evidence, like 'Russiagate' has the potential of going on forever, simply because there
being no evidence it cannot be refuted.
Which is also the case with the Skripal affair, because of which even as we speak, massive
trade and financial sanctions are being imposed against Russia and its enormous, innocent
and plundered population.
In none of these cases has any real evidence, of the minimal quality that might justify the
hanging of a dog, ever advanced. But that doesn't matter, the important thing is to choose
a side and if it is Hillary Clinton's to believe or to pretend to believe and to convince
others to believe (as Marcy at Emptywheel has been doing for close to three years now) in
the incredible.
Who says that we no longer live in a Christian society in which faith is everything?
This is a very weak article, but it raises several important questions such as the role or neoliberal MSM in color revolution
against Trump and which social group constituted the voting block that brought Trump to victory. The author answers incorrectly on
both those questions.
I think overall Tremblay analysis of Trump (and by extension of national neoliberalism he promotes) is incorrect. Probably the largest group
of voters which voted for Trump were voters who were against neoliberal globalization and who now feel real distrust and aversion to
the ruling neoliberal elite.
Trump is probably right to view neoliberal journalists as enemies: they are tools of intelligence agencies which as agents of
Wall Street promote globalization
At the same time Trump turned to be Obama II: he instantly betrayed his voters after the election. His
election slogan "make Ameraca great again" bacem that same joke as Obama "Change we can believe in". And he proved to be as
jingoistic as Obama (A Nobel Pease Price laureate who was militarists dream come true)
In discussion of groups who votes for Trump the author forgot to mention part of professional which skeptically view neoliberal
globalization and its destrction of jobs (for example programmer jobs in the USA) as well as blue color
workers decimated by offshoring of major industries.
Notable quotes:
"... "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. " ..."
"... Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018) ..."
"... "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." ..."
"... This is a White House where everybody lies ..."
"... I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ..."
"... The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. ..."
"... ad hominem' ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
"... He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication. ..."
"... checks and balance ..."
"... The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones. ..."
"Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what
you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. "
Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas
City, July 24, 2018)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) (1903-1950), English novelist, essayist, and social critic, (in '1984', Ch. 7, 1949)
" This is a White House where everybody lies ." Omarosa Manigault Newman (1974- ), former White House aide to President
Donald Trump, (on Sunday August 12, 2018, while releasing tapes recording conversations with Donald Trump.)
" I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ." Benjamin Franklin (
1706 –
1790 ), American inventor and US Founding Father, (in 'Words of
the Founding Fathers', 2012).
***
In this day and age, with instant information, how does a politician succeed in double-talking, in bragging, in scapegoating and
in shamefully distorting the truth, most of the time, without being unmasked as a charlatan and discredited? Why? That is the mysterious
and enigmatic question that one may ask about U. S. President Donald Trump, as a politician.
The most obvious answer is the fact that Trump's one-issue and cult-like followers do not care what he does or says and whether
or not he has declared a
war on truth and reality , provided he delivers the political and financial benefits they demand of him, based on their ideological
or pecuniary interests. These groups of voters live in their own reality and only their personal interests count.
1- Four groups of one-issue voters behind Trump
There are four groups of one-issue voters to
whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme Court with ultra conservative
judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel. Again, on that score, President
Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition
to attacking the Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners, whose main demand to Trump was substantial tax cuts and
deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public
debt increases, which are going to be paid for by all taxpayers.
The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm themselves to the teeth, including
with military assault weapons, with as few strings attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them
and against students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible
support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing
health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims
can be considered members of the above lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on
hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite
but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does
and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his
record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to
control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record,
according to the
Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his
inauguration.)
The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form
of
entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is
OK to lie
and to ask his assistants to
lie
. In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of
post-democracy .
The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and
manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda.
When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his
insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant
threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient
changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks
' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and
by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly,
on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric
when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor
Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of "
Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a
pet
project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald
Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the
coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a
war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times
and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear
case for impeachment .
Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as
Fox News and
Sinclair Broadcasting , have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some
'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the
Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio
and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the
mass conglomeration of local broadcasting
in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well
financed, and they have essentially become powerful
political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative
facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners
and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also
made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in
his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved.
Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and
he conveniently
shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck
never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical
showman diva , behaving
in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than
a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists
to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First
Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if
he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.
The ABC News network
has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he
have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright
lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration.
The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, --
an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year,
he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and
not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which
are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare
of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by
improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning
for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution
and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump
has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own
Cabinet
, whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself.
If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current
administration and for future ones.
"... There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming. ..."
"... That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America. ..."
"... With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula). ..."
"... Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself. ..."
"... That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on. ..."
"... The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria. ..."
"... Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations. ..."
"... How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims! ..."
"... They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel ..."
"... Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth. ..."
"... Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege. ..."
"... Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east. ..."
"... The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II. ..."
"... However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world." ..."
"... That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued. ..."
"... The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved." ..."
"... Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free. ..."
"... From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies. ..."
"... Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe. ..."
"... For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia. ..."
"... It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been. ..."
"... If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too. ..."
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though,
"Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear
that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989,
followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed
that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was
triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of
others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was
comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing
Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became
clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War
anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew
that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and
nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of
the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain
the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin,
Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard
to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain
in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era
name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war
regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only
endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded,
fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed
far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its
largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the
story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to
the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long
been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean
War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However,
unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and
many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to
make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol
– of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed
over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian
intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections
looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a
justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on
earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of
their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that
all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is
still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional
wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting
the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts
in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the
American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and
that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is
comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News
demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who
are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been
unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016
election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself,
is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their
media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared
to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and
gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can
therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with
which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet
republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse
American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American
"democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about
has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with
free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so
long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is
that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees
fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering
for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is
merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to
withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky –
especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of
"democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan
"socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted,
homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil
market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could
nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could
actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and
in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is
Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons,
liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
– that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's
Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the
Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently
anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian
speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international
law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they
were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since
the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a
huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian
aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading
Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other
insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has
designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is
actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders
of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the
American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States.
This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations
shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill
Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo
away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic
systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist
centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one
that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War
revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism,
suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had
little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with
maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a
demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be
radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by
getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in
Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they"
are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America
and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that
ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago
never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's
Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to
say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But
this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply
cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of
corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being
taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done;
and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward
off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at
blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails
in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and
abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to
advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for
meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two
years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That
problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified.
But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be
even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a
vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between
them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very
relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm,
Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as
hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have
realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be
of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for
America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be
ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for
overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out
as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a
perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never
quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.
The past is not dead; it is people who are sleeping . The current night and daymares that we
are having arise out of murders lodged deep in our past that have continued into the present.
No amount of feigned amnesia will erase the bloody truth of American history, the cheap grace
we bestow upon ourselves.
We have, as Harold Pinter said in his Nobel address, been feeding on "a vast tapestry of
lies" that surrounds us, lies uttered by nihilistic leaders and their media mouthpieces for a
very long time. We have, or should have, bad consciences for not acknowledging being active or
silent accomplices in the suppression of truth and the vicious murdering of millions at home
and abroad.
But, as Pinter said,
"I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce
intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our
societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory."
No one is more emblematic of this noble effort than David Ray Griffin, who, in book after
book since the attacks of 11 September 2001, has meticulously exposed the underside of the
American empire and its evil masters. His persistence in trying to reach people and to warn
them of the horrors that have resulted is extraordinary. Excluding his philosophical and
theological works, this is his fifteenth book since 2004 on these grave issues of life and
death and the future of the world.
In this masterful book, he provides a powerful historical argument that right from the start
with the arrival of the first European settlers, this country, despite all the rhetoric about
it having been divinely founded and guided, has been "more malign that benign, more demonic
than divine." He chronologically presents this history, supported by meticulous documentation,
to prove his thesis. In his previous book, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the
World , Griffin cataloged the evil actions that flowed from the inside job/false flag attacks
of September 11th, while in this one -- a prequel -- he offers a lesson in American history
going back centuries, and he shows that one would be correct in calling the United States a
"false flag empire."
The attacks of 11 September 2001 are the false flag fulcrum upon which his two books pivot.
Their importance cannot be overestimated, not just for their inherent cruelty that resulted in
thousands of innocent American deaths, but since they became the justification for the United
States' ongoing murderous campaigns termed "the war on terror" that have brought death to
millions of people around the world. An international array of expendable people. Terrifying as
they were, and were meant to be, they have many precedents, although much of this history is
hidden in the shadows. Griffin shines a bright light on them, with most of his analysis focused
on the years 1850-2018.
As a theological and philosophical scholar, he is well aware of the great importance of
society's need for religious legitimation for its secular authority, a way to offer its people
a shield against terror and life's myriad fears through a protective myth that has been used
successfully by the United States to terrorize others. He shows how the terms by which the U.S.
has been legitimated as God's "chosen nation" and Americans as God's "chosen people" have
changed over the years as secularization and pluralism have made inroads. The names have
changed, but the meaning has not. God is on our side, and when that is so, the other side is
cursed and can be killed by God's people, who are always battling el diabalo.
He exemplifies this by opening with a quote from George Washington's first Inaugural Address
where Washington speaks of "the Invisible Hand" and "Providential agency" guiding the country,
and by ending with Obama saying "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my
being." In between we hear Andrew Jackson say that "Providence has showered on this favored
land blessings without number" and Henry Cabot Lodge in 1900 characterize America's divine
mission as "manifest destiny." The American religion today is American Exceptionalism, an
updated euphemism for the old-fashioned "God's New Israel" or the "Redeemer Nation."
At the core of this verbiage lies the delusion that the United States, as a blessed and good
country, has a divine mission to spread "democracy" and "freedom" throughout the world, as
Hilary Clinton declared during the 2016 presidential campaign when she said that "we are great
because we are good," and in 2004 when George W. Bush said, "Like generations before us, we
have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom." Such sentiments could only be
received with sardonic laughter by the countless victims made "free" by America's violent
leaders, now and then, as Griffin documents.
Having established the fact of America's claim to divine status, he then walks the reader
through various thinkers who have taken sides on the issue of the United States being benign or
malign. This is all preliminary to the heart of the book, which is a history lesson documenting
the malignancy at the core of the American trajectory.
"American imperialism is often said to have begun in 1898, when Cuba and the Philippines
were the main prizes," he begins. "What was new at this time, however, was only that America
took control of countries beyond the North American continent."
The "divine right" to seize others' lands and kill them started long before, and although no
seas were crossed in the usual understanding of imperialism, the genocide of Native Americans
long preceded 1898. So too did the "manifest destiny" that impelled war with Mexico and the
seizure of its land and the expansion west to the Pacific. This period of empire building
depended heavily on the "other great crime against humanity" that was the slave trade, wherein
it is estimated that 10 million Africans died, in addition to the sick brutality of slavery
itself. "No matter how brutal the methods, Americans were instruments of divine purposes,"
writes Griffin. And, he correctly adds, it is not even true that America's overseas
imperialistic ventures only started in 1898, for in the 1850s Commodore Perry forced "the
haughty Japanese" to open their ports to American commerce through gunboat diplomacy.
Then in 1898 the pace of overseas imperial expansion picked up dramatically with what has
been called "The Spanish-American War" that resulted in the seizure of Cuba and the Philippines
and the annexing of Hawaii. Griffin says these wars could more accurately be termed "the wars
to take Spanish colonies." His analysis of the brutality and arrogance of these actions makes
the reader realize that My Lai and other more recent atrocities have a long pedigree that is
part of an institutional structure, and while Filipinos and Cubans and so many others were
being slaughtered, Griffin writes, "Anticipating Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's
declaration that 'we don't do empire,' [President] McKinley said that imperialism is 'foreign
to the temper and genius of this free and generous people.'"
Then as now, perhaps mad laughter is the only response to such unadulterated bullshit, as
Griffin quotes Mark Twain saying that it would be easy creating a flag for the Philippines:
We can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars
replaced by the skull and cross-bones.
That would have also worked for Columbia, Panama, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic,
Haiti, Nicaragua, and other countries subjugated under the ideology of the Monroe Doctrine;
wherever freedom and national independence raised its ugly head, the United States was quick to
intervene with its powerful anti-revolutionary military and its financial bullying. In the Far
East the "Open Door" policy was used to loot China, Japan, and other countries.
But all this was just the beginning. Griffin shows how Woodrow Wilson, the quintessentially
devious and treacherous liberal Democrat, who claimed he wanted to keep America out of WW I,
did just the opposite to make sure the U.S. would come to dominate the foreign markets his
capitalist masters demanded. Thus Griffin explores how Wilson conspired with Winston Churchill
to use the sinking of the Lusitania as a casus belli and how the Treaty of Versailles's harsh
treatment of Germany set the stage for WW II.
He tells us how in the intervening years between the world wars the demonization of Russia
and the new Soviet Union was started. This deprecation of Russia, which is roaring at
full-throttle today, is a theme that recurs throughout The American Trajectory. Its importance
cannot be overemphasized. Wilson called the Bolshevik government "a government by terror," and
in 1918 "sent thousands of troops into northern and eastern Russia, leaving them there until
1920."
That the U. S. invaded Russia is a fact rarely mentioned and even barely known to Americans.
Perhaps awareness of it and the century-long demonizing of the U.S.S.R./Russia would enlighten
those who buy the current anti-Russia propaganda called "Russiagate."
To match that "divine" act of imperial intervention abroad, Wilson fomented the Red Scare at
home, which, as Griffin says, had lasting and incalculable importance because it created the
American fear of radical thought and revolution that exists to this very day and serves as a
justification for supporting brutal dictators around the world and crackdowns on freedom at
home (as is happening today).
He gives us brief summaries of some dictators the U.S has supported, and reminds us of the
saying of that other liberal Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, who famously said of the brutal
Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, that "he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our
son-of-a-bitch." And thus Somoza would terrorize his own people for 43 years. The same took
place in Cuba, Chile, Iran, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, etc. The U.S. also
supported Mussolini, did nothing to prevent Franco's fascist toppling of the Spanish Republic,
and supported the right-wing government of Chiang-Kai Shek in its efforts to dominate
China.
It is a very dark and ugly history that confirms the demonic nature of American actions
around the world.
Then Griffin explodes the many myths about the so-called "Good War" -- WW II. He explains
the lies told about the Japanese "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor; how Roosevelt wished to get
the U.S. into the war, both in the Pacific and in Europe; and how much American economic
self-interest lay behind it. He critiques the myth that America selflessly wished to defend
freedom loving people in their battles with brutal, fascist regimes. That, he tells us, is but
a small part of the story:
This, however, is not an accurate picture of American policies during the Second World
War. Many people were, to be sure, liberated from terrible tyrannies by the Allied victories.
But the fact that these people benefited was an incidental outcome, not a motive of American
policies. These policies, as [Andrew] Bacevich discovered, were based on 'unflagging
self-interest.'
Then there are the conventional and atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing could
be more demonic, as Griffin shows. If these cold-blooded mass massacres of civilians and the
lies told to justify them don't convince a reader that there has long been something radically
evil at the heart of American history, nothing will. Griffin shows how Truman and his advisers
and top generals, including Dwight Eisenhower and Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's Chief of
Staff, knew the dropping of the atomic bombs were unnecessary to end the war, but they did so
anyway.
He reminds us of Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright's response to the question
whether she thought the deaths of more than 500, 000 Iraqi children as a result of Clinton's
crippling economic sanctions were worth it: "But, yes, we think the price is worth it." (Notice
the "is," the ongoing nature of these war crimes, as she spoke.) But this is the woman who also
said, "We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall "
Griffin devotes other chapters to the creation of the Cold War, American imperialism during
the Cold War, Post-Cold War interventions, the Vietnam War, the drive for global dominance, and
false flag operations, among other topics.
As for false flag operations, he says, "Indeed, the trajectory of the American Empire has
relied so heavily on these types of attacks that one could describe it as a false flag empire."
In the false flag chapter and throughout the book, he discusses many of the false flags the
U.S. has engaged in, including Operation Gladio, the U.S./NATO terrorist operation throughout
Europe that Swiss historian Daniele Ganser has extensively documented, an operation meant to
discredit communists and socialists. Such operations were directly connected to the OSS, the
CIA and its director Allen Dulles, his henchman James Jesus Angleton, and their Nazi
accomplices, such as General Reinhard Gehlen. In one such attack in 1980 at the Bologna, Italy
railway station, these U.S. terrorists killed 85 people and wounded 20 others. As with the
bombs dropped by Saudi Arabia today on Yemeni school children, the explosive used was made for
the U.S. military. About these documented U.S. atrocities, Griffin says:
These revelations show the falsity of an assumption widely held by Americans. While
recognizing that the US military sometimes does terrible things to their enemies, most
Americans have assumed that US military leaders would not order the killing of innocent
civilians in allied countries for political purposes. Operation Gladio showed this assumption
to be false.
He is right, but I would add that the leaders behind this were civilian, as much as, or more
than military.
In the case of "Operation Northwoods," it was the Joint Chiefs of Staff who presented to
President Kennedy this false flag proposal that would provide justification for a U.S. invasion
of Cuba. It would have involved the killing of American citizens on American soil, bombings,
plane hijacking, etc. President Kennedy considered such people and such plans insane, and he
rejected it as such. His doing so tells us much, for many other presidents would have approved
it. And again, how many Americans are aware of this depraved proposal that is documented and
easily available? How many even want to contemplate it? For the need to remain in denial of the
facts of history and believe in the essential goodness of America's rulers is a very hard nut
to crack. Griffin has written a dozen books about 11 September 2001, trying to do exactly
that.
If one is willing to embrace historical facts, however, then this outstanding book will open
one's eyes to the long-standing demonic nature of the actions of America's rulers. A reader
cannot come away from its lucidly presented history unaffected, unless one lives in a
self-imposed fantasy world. The record is clear, and Griffin lays it out in all its graphic
horror. Which is not to say that the U.S. has not "done both good and bad things, so it could
not sensibly be called purely divine or purely demonic." Questions of purity are meant to
obfuscate basic truths. And the question he asks in his subtitle -- Divine or Demonic? -- is
really a rhetorical question, and when it comes to the "trajectory" of American history, the
demonic wins hands down.
I would be remiss if I didn't point out one place where Griffin fails the reader. In his
long chapter on Vietnam, which is replete with excellent facts and analyses, he makes a crucial
mistake, which is unusual for him. This mistake appears in a four page section on President
Kennedy's policies on Vietnam. In those pages, Griffin relies on Noam Chomsky's terrible book
-- Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture (1993), a book wherein
Chomsky shows no regard for evidence or facts -- to paint Kennedy as being in accord with his
advisers, the CIA, and the military regarding Vietnam. This is factually false. Griffin should
have been more careful and have understood this. The truth is that Kennedy was besieged and
surrounded by these demonic people, who were intent on isolating him, disregarding his
instructions, and murdering him to achieve their goals in Vietnam. In the last year of his
life, JFK had taken a radical turn toward peace-making, not only in Vietnam, but with the
Soviet Union, Cuba, and around the globe. Such a turn was anathema to the war lovers. Thus he
had to die. Contrary to Chomsky's deceptions, motivated by his hatred of Kennedy and perhaps
something more sinister (he also backs the Warren Commission, thinks JFK's assassination was no
big deal, and accepts the patently false official version of the attacks of 11 September 2001),
Griffin should have emphatically asserted that Kennedy had issued NSAM 263 on October 11, 1963
calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, and that after he was assassinated
a month later, Lyndon Johnson reversed that withdrawal order with NSAM 273. Chomsky
notwithstanding, all the best scholarship and documentary evidence proves this. And for
Griffin, a wonderful scholar, to write that with the change from Kennedy to Johnson that "this
change of presidents would bring no basic change in policy" is so shockingly wrong that I
imagine Griffin, a man passionate about truth, simply slipped up and got sloppy here. For
nothing could be further from the truth.
Ironically, Griffin makes a masterful case for his thesis, while forgetting the one pivotal
man, President John Kennedy, who sacrificed his life in an effort to change the trajectory of
American history from its demonic course.
It is one mistake in an otherwise very important and excellent book that should be required
reading for anyone who doubts the evil nature of this country's continuing foreign policy.
Those who are already convinced should also read it, for it provides a needed historical
resource and impetus to help change the trajectory that is transporting the world toward
nuclear oblivion, if continued.
If -- a fantastic wish! -- The American Trajectory: Divine or Demonic ? were
required reading in American schools and colleges, perhaps a new generation would arise to
change our devils into angels, the arc of America's future moral universe
CHX13 ,
For many decades, the US has been preying upon the ROTW via the petro-$. The late $trength
will prove it$ ultimate downfall, IMHO. The world is imploding as we speak. Too much bad debt
all over, tens if not hundred of trillions in the US and the ROTW combined. US debt 21T plus
(21T that is unaccounted for) plus 100+ T unfunded liabilities and a totally pension system
on the verge of collapse etc etc etc and this is the "good ol' U S(S) of A... No need to pull
China or Europe through the meat grinder, there's plenty of unsolved (read "unsolvable")
problems at home already. No finger pointing needed, the US is a wolf in sheepskin, that's
for sure. There's a lot of good-natured folk in the US though that simply have no clue
whatsoever about what is about to be going down. I feel sorry for them, they really believe
in "their duty for the country", in "liberty and justice for all" et al. Things that once
made the US indeed great, but that was lost many many many moons ago. So I'd say divinely
diabolic. #So sad.
Adolfsteinbergovitch ,
A country is exceptional, until it isn't any longer.
khnum ,
Reuters has just run a story International criminal court judges at the Hague will face
heavy sanctions if they investigate American war crimes in Afghanistan,lawlessness next stop
perdition.
The matrix has u ,
That would be right. Americunt "Exceptionalism" still at work.
The crimes of 11 September 2001 have never been judged in your country. I
am writing to you as a French citizen, the first person to denounce the inconsistencies
of the official version and to open the world to the debate and the search for
the real perpetrators.
In a criminal court, as the jury, we have to determine whether the suspect
presented to us is guilty or not, and eventually, to decide what punishment
he should receive. When we suffered the events of 9/11, the Bush Junior administration
told us that the guilty party was Al-Qaïda, and the punishment they should receive
was the overthrow of those who had helped them – the Afghan Taliban, then the
Iraqi régime of Saddam Hussein.
However, there is a weight of evidence which attests to the impossibility
of this thesis. If we were members of a jury, we would have to declare objectively
that the Taliban and the régime of Saddam Hussein were innocent of this crime.
Of course, this alone would not enable us to name the real culprits, and we
would thus be frustrated. But we could not conceive of condemning parties innocent
of such a crime simply because we have not known how, or not been able, to find
the guilty parties.
We all understood that certain senior personalities were lying when the Secretary
of State for Justice and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, revealed the names
of the 19 presumed hijackers, because we already had in front of us the lists
disclosed by the airline companies of all of the passengers embarked - lists
on which none of the suspects were mentioned.
From there, we became suspicious of the " Continuity of Government ", the
instance tasked with taking over from the elected authorities if they should
be killed during a nuclear confrontation. We advanced the hypothesis that these
attacks masked a coup d'état, in conformity with Edward Luttwak's method of
maintaining the appearance of the Executive, but imposing a different policy.
In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration made several decisions:
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous
anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot
Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ",
this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It
unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph
of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes
of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
The Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the Office of Force Transformation,
under the command of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, who immediately presented a programme,
conceived a long time earlier, planning for the control of access to the natural
resources of the countries of the geopolitical South. He demanded the destruction
of State and social structures in the half of the world which was not yet globalised.
Simultaneously, the Director of the CIA launched the " Worldwide Attack Matrix
", a package of secret operations in 85 countries where Rumsfeld and Cebrowski
intended to destroy the State structures. Considering that only those countries
whose economies were globalised would remain stable, and that the others would
be destroyed, the men from 9/11 placed US armed forces in the service of transnational
financial interests. They betrayed your country and transformed it into the
armed wing of these predators.
For the last 17 years, we have witnessed what is being given to your compatriots
by the government of the successors of those who drew up the Constitution and
opposed at that time - without success – the Bill of Rights. These rich men
have become the super-rich, while the middle class has been reduced by a fifth
and poverty has increased.
We have also seen the implementation of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy –
phoney " civil wars " have devastated almost all of the Greater Middle East.
Entire cities have been wiped from the map, from Afghanistan to Libya, via Saudi
Arabia and Turkey, who were not themselves at war.
In 2001, only two US citizens denounced the incoherence of the Bush version,
two real estate promoters – the Democrat Jimmy Walter, who was forced into exile,
and yourself, who entered into politics and was elected President.
In 2011, we saw the commander of AfriCom relieved of his mission and replaced
by NATO for having refused to support Al-Qaïda in the liquidation of the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya. Then we saw NATO's LandCom organise Western support for jihadists
in general and Al-Qaïda in particular in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian
Arab Republic.
So the jihadists, who were considered as " freedom fighters " against the
Soviets, then as " terrorists " after 9/11, once again became the allies of
the deep state, which, in fact, they have always been.
So, with an immense upsurge of hope, we have watched your actions to suppress,
one by one, all support for the jihadists. It is with the same hope that we
see today that you are talking with your Russian counterpart in order to bring
back life to the devastated Middle East. And it is with equal anxiety that we
see Robert Mueller, now a special prosecutor, pursuing the destruction of your
homeland by attacking your position.
Mister President, not only are you and your compatriots suffering from the
diarchy which has sneaked into power in your country since the coup d'état of
11 September 2001, but the whole world is a victim.
Mister President, 9/11 is not ancient history. It is the triumph of transnational
interests which are crushing not only your people, but all of humanity which
aspires to freedom.
Thierry Meyssan brought to the world stage the debate on the real
perpetrators of 11 September 2001. He has worked as a political analyst
alongside Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mouamar Kadhafi. He is today
a political refugee in Syria.
See :
Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth -- False Flag Deep State
Truth! , by : Kevin Barrett; Scott Bennett; Christopher Bollyn; Fred
Burks; Steve De'ak; A. K. Dewdney; Gordon Duff; Aero Engineer; Greg Felton;
James Fetzer; Richard Gage; Tom-Scott Gordon; David Ray Griffin; Sander Hicks;
T. Mark Hightower; Barbara Honegger; Eric Hufschmid; Ed Jewett; Nicholas Kollerstrom;
John Lear; Susan Lindauer; Joe Olson; Peter Dale Scott; Robert David Steele;
and indirectly, Victor Thorn and Judy Wood.
"... THE US carries out and encourages 'active measures' in EURASIA to destabilise and confuse governments and societies. But these are often opportunistic and shaped by local conditions. There is no grand strategy, beyond weakening the EEU, CSTO, SCO and creating a more conducive environment for itself. ..."
"... "This involves a wide range of actors, from officials and the media, through military threats, to business lobbies and spies. Russia pursues different priorities in different countries. This is largely determined by the correlation between the strength of countries' national institutions and their vulnerability to WESTERN influence. ..."
"... "Nonetheless, there is an effort to coordinate certain operations across platforms. Insofar as there is a command-and-control node, it is within the WHITE HOUSE, which is perhaps the most important single organ within the US's INCREASINGLY de-institutionalised state: POLITICIZED INTELLIGENCE, PRESIDENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTION, CORRUPTION BENEFITTING FAMILY AND FRIENDS, ETC. ..."
"... "Without giving up hope of persuading WASHINGTON to change its policies DEMOCRACY-PROMOTION AND DESTABILIZING COLOR REVOLUTION POLICIES, RUSSIA AND EURASIA must nonetheless address its own vulnerabilities: 'fixing the roof' rather than simply hoping the rain will stop. Among other things, this includes addressing democratic backsliding in parts of the continent ..."
"... A breakthrough arrived in August 2008 with the five-day Russo-Georgian War. Provoked by widespread Western condemnation of Russia's invasion of Georgia, Russia Today shot back with highly defensive, pro-Russian coverage of the conflict, framing Georgia as the aggressor against the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.13 In particular, its false reports of genocide in Ossetia by the Georgians captured international attention for their brazenness and cemented the network's reputation as a mouthpiece of the Kremlin.14 Ultimately, an EU post-mortem report revealed that responsibility for the conflict had been divided between Georgian initiative and a disproportionate Russian response; neither the Western nor Russian narratives about the war had been factually accurate.15 However, Russia Today remained unrepentant about its bias, claiming that it had been an intentional stratagem to counter the anti-Russian bias of Western media. Margarita Simonyan proudly declared that Russia Today gained greater international visibility and recognition for being the only English-language outlet 'giving the other side of the story – the South Ossetian side'.16 ..."
As the West has turned more and more to Soviet/Russian methods of the 'big lie' in order to
advance democracy and its interests, the Russia-West propaganda war had produced a post-fact
world in which disinformation comes to be believed by its purveyors. Both sides, forgetting the
previous disinformation and lies from the most recent crisis of the day, reiterate their
previous claims as part of the reason for believing the next series of disinformation and lies
surrounding the current crisis of the day. This process of propaganda plague has filled the
fake news on both sides of the Atlantic since Georgia through Syria, Ukraine, Syria, Skrypal,
Syria again. Russia has its RT and state television; the US has RFERL and state-tied mass media
across the West.
To be sure, the West has a problem with promoting a united message with messy changes of
ruling parties and presidents and the like, but these are usually papered over rather
easily.
Obama promised a 'reset' but behind the scenes the administration was backing the financing
of revolutionary forces in Yanukovych's Ukraine. What followed was the lie of the century so
far: that Yanukovych deployed Berkut snipers on 20 February 2014 to shoot 100 demonstrators on
the Maidan, sparking and more than justifying his overthrow. In reality -- and the evidence is
now overwhelming -- the Maidan revolution's neofascist elements organized and executed the
snipers' massacre firing at both police and demonstrators and then using the anger and chaos to
seize power in the name of the Maidan demonstrators but in the interests of oligarchs and
neofascists that hijacked the significantly Western-seeded and -funded movement.
The Maidan is one of the few proven lies -- another is Putin's 'operational' lie that the
'polite little green men' of March 2014 Crimea were not Russian soldiers. Another is Russian
state television news' claim that an ethnic Russian boy had been crucified by Ukrainians during
the Donbass civil war. There many others. A Ukrainian propagandist claimed early in the Donbass
civil war that thousands of bodies had been found in a lake in rebel-occupied territories in
the Donbass, implying that they had been killed by the rebels and/or Russians. This piece of
disinformation contained no other 'information' and no source and was never reported again. For
most all of the remaining lies, truth is a function performed by which 'facts' one's political
orientation prefers. In such a world, the truth is all but unattainable because facts are
unattainable as well.
The problem is that system's built on lies are vulnerable to collapse upon revelation of the
truth. Even in the post-fact world, some will seek the truth and the true facts. Therefore,
lies can sweep a problem under the rug temporarily, but sooner or later facts threaten to
expose the dirt. Meanwhile, the first lie may require further lies to maintain the fiction and
eventually one's true statements will begin to be taken as more lies.
As authoritarian regimes have constructed a democratic facade and democratic regimes
degenerate towards authoritarianism, the disinformation imperative renders the still
substantial differences imperceptible. The fact that the Russians have gotten better at lying
and disinformation compared with their Soviet predecessors and that the West has thrown to the
wind any past compunctions it may have had about manufacturing facts has brought the two sides
closer together in the information sphere. Andrei Sakharov envisaged a different kind of
convergence in which the best in capitalism and socialism would merge to form a more perfect
system. Instead, the worst of Eastern disinformation and Western strategic communications and
marketing have converged to create an almost impenetrable wall of distortions wrapped in
falsehoods inside big lies. As a result, when a Westerner mirror-images Russia through the
prism of his expectations from Western life, he or she no longer distorts but enlightens. A few
years ago the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) published the following assessment
of Russian reality. Interesting perhaps, but it was one-sided and therefore, to a great degree,
funny stuff if in high demand. Let's turn it around a little bit as an object lesson on how in
the disinformation age East has become West and West has become East. I WRITE IN CAPITALS WHERE
I 'TURNED AROUND' ECFR'S TEXT REPLACING 'RUSSIA' AND THINGS RUSSIAN WITH 'THE US' AND THINGS
AMERICAN:
" THE US carries out and encourages 'active measures' in EURASIA to destabilise and
confuse governments and societies. But these are often opportunistic and shaped by local
conditions. There is no grand strategy, beyond weakening the EEU, CSTO, SCO and creating a more
conducive environment for itself.
"This involves a wide range of actors, from officials and the media, through military
threats, to business lobbies and spies. Russia pursues different priorities in different
countries. This is largely determined by the correlation between the strength of countries'
national institutions and their vulnerability to WESTERN influence.
"Nonetheless, there is an effort to coordinate certain operations across platforms.
Insofar as there is a command-and-control node, it is within the WHITE HOUSE, which is perhaps
the most important single organ within the US's INCREASINGLY de-institutionalised state:
POLITICIZED INTELLIGENCE, PRESIDENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTION, CORRUPTION BENEFITTING
FAMILY AND FRIENDS, ETC.
"Without giving up hope of persuading WASHINGTON to change its policies
DEMOCRACY-PROMOTION AND DESTABILIZING COLOR REVOLUTION POLICIES, RUSSIA AND EURASIA must
nonetheless address its own vulnerabilities: 'fixing the roof' rather than simply hoping the
rain will stop. Among other things, this includes addressing democratic backsliding in parts of
the continent " (
www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/controlling_chaos_how_russia_manages_its_political_war_in_europe
).
Thus, assuming the ECFR's analysis is correct, Russia has simply returned the West's favor,
turning to internal influence and destabilization operations in response to the West's
democracy- and opposition-promotion measures, which, in the West's case, however, is backed up
and followed up by NATO expansion.
The disinformation continues even when one side is writing about the supposedly unique
disinformation efforts of the other side. Thus, a Western analysis of Russia Today's bias and
propagandistic distortions is filled with one-sided inaccuracies:
" A breakthrough arrived in August 2008 with the five-day Russo-Georgian War. Provoked
by widespread Western condemnation of Russia's invasion of Georgia, Russia Today shot back with
highly defensive, pro-Russian coverage of the conflict, framing Georgia as the aggressor
against the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.13 In particular, its false
reports of genocide in Ossetia by the Georgians captured international attention for their
brazenness and cemented the network's reputation as a mouthpiece of the Kremlin.14 Ultimately,
an EU post-mortem report revealed that responsibility for the conflict had been divided between
Georgian initiative and a disproportionate Russian response; neither the Western nor Russian
narratives about the war had been factually accurate.15 However, Russia Today remained
unrepentant about its bias, claiming that it had been an intentional stratagem to counter the
anti-Russian bias of Western media. Margarita Simonyan proudly declared that Russia Today
gained greater international visibility and recognition for being the only English-language
outlet 'giving the other side of the story – the South Ossetian side'.16 "
(www.europeanvalues.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Overview-of-RTs-Editorial-Strategy-and-Evidence-of-Impact.pdf).
The above leaves out Georgia's claims of a Russian genocide committed against Georgians in
the war. It also leaves out Sky News's own claims that Russian forces were killing thousands in
the first hours of the 5-Day War in which less than a thousand were killed altogether, counting
all sides. I still have yet to see RFERL repent for its continuing lies about the Maidan or Sky
News about its Georgian war lies. Then of course there is the infamous FOX News mistake of
putting South Ossetians on the air in the expectation that any non-Russian will damn the
Russians only to find out that Ossetians, North and South, view Russia as an ally and protector
against Georgians and Muslims in the region. FOX's response to their mistake was not to try and
learn something about the region and inform their viewers but it was rather to cut off the
Ossetians hoping they would correct their views during a break. When that did not happen the
interview was abruptly terminated (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBPBdW2wXpc ).
Did the Russians learn that even their own cynicism was too limited. You can decide listening
to Putin's remarks on the FOX faux pas (
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iwSsIBQm68 ).
There was a time when the US government lied only when the most vital interests were at
stake, not as a matter of course in daily 'public diplomacy' work. No more.
Not just Russians, not just Americans, not just Republicans and not just Democrats are
engaged in 'fake news.' They are all engaged in disinformation wars. Consequently, we are all
liars now. There is no truth, there are no facts – just your side and my side, their side
and our side. Such a state affairs cannot end well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
www.cetisresearch.org .
Dr. Hahn is the author of the forthcoming book from McFarland Publishers Ukraine Over
the Edge: Russia, the West, and the "New Cold War" . Previously, he has authored three
well-received books: The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia's North
Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's Islamic Threat (Yale
University Press, 2007), and Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and
Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers,
2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and
commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
"... For dessert today, I offer Russia's Grand Strategy Revisited published on the 24th. The Outlaw US Empire is in the midst of a Seldon Crisis but lacks the means to even recognize the spectacular mess its made for itself, much of which is quite visibly articulated in its NDS I linked to above. ..."
"... By every metric I've observed, the USA's citizenry from all political POVs wants a return to Reality for that's the only basis from which to address and solve the many domestic problems. ..."
Too Funny!
Trump whines, threatens pullout from WTO again! After decades of bullying
nations and impoverishing their people, other nations are using the Outlaw
US Empire's WTO as a weapon against it, so Trump cries Unfair! As I wrote
above, Big Money's trapped within its own web.
The "Softies" are yet another entity in the Smoke & Mirrors Fun House
designed to fool and gain citizenry's consent to be robbed blind.
Russians already went through that and are very wary as illustrated by
the very sensitive nature of the recent
Pension System Reform Debate and legislation that Putin had to solve
using his political capital.
As with all politicians, you won't know what you elected until you learn
how your rep votes issues, although some can be anticipated by examining
their past behavior as with our pseudo Democrat-Socialist.
For dessert today, I offer Russia's
Grand Strategy Revisited published on the 24th. The Outlaw US
Empire is in the midst of a Seldon Crisis but lacks the means to even recognize
the spectacular mess its made for itself, much of which is quite visibly
articulated in its NDS I linked to above.
By every metric I've observed, the USA's citizenry from all political
POVs wants a return to Reality for that's the only basis from which to address
and solve the many domestic problems.
Big Money refuses as its addicted to Smoke & Mirrors since that's what
was used to gain its power and will now double-down.
"... Western media monopolies, appendages of the billionaire ruling class, select for narratives which glorify criminal foreign policies. Hence, these monopolies are cheerleaders for uninterrupted wars of aggression. ..."
"... Ruling class policymakers hide their criminality beneath banners of freedom, democracy, and human rights. [1] These lies provide cover for what amounts to a Western- orchestrated and sustained overseas holocaust and the thirdworldization of domestic populations. ..."
"... The lies and misplaced adulation also serve to legitimize the West's proxies, which include al Qaeda [2] in Syria, and neo-Nazis [3] in Kiev. ..."
"... The adulation, then, is part of the apparatus of deception. It brands those who should be facing trials at the Hague as heroes, as it erases the truth, which is a vital component for Peace and International Justice. ..."
Western media monopolies, appendages of the billionaire ruling class, select for
narratives which glorify criminal foreign policies. Hence, these monopolies are
cheerleaders for uninterrupted wars of aggression.
Ruling class policymakers hide their criminality beneath banners of freedom,
democracy, and human rights. [1] These lies provide cover for what amounts to a
Western- orchestrated and sustained overseas holocaust and the thirdworldization
of domestic populations.
The lies are further reinforced when those who advance these toxic policies are
celebrated as heroes. This misplaced adulation negates the struggle for Peace
and the rule of International Law. The lies and misplaced adulation also serve
to legitimize the West's proxies, which include al Qaeda [2] in Syria, and
neo-Nazis [3] in Kiev.
What's great thing about the pic accompanying this piece
in the Washington Post sanctifying McCain as a human
rights advocate is that the guy to his left is an actual
Nazi. He's Oleh Tyahnybok, a Ukrainian Nazi. Too good!
The adulation, then, is part of the apparatus of deception. It brands those who
should be facing trials at the Hague as heroes, as it erases the truth, which is
a vital component for Peace and International Justice.
Just like with politicians and political parties themselves, mass media are reverting to
being nothing but organizers of claques. Reuters has no more to do with true journalism than
the Democrat Party has to do with true politics. Both merely organize celebrity fan clubs. In
the same way that only garbage still adheres in a partisan manner to either half of the
Corporate One-Party (I'm talking about the US, though the same phenomenon is rife throughout
the Euro-world), so only garbage still craves the poison of the corporate media, newspapers
or television.
What's the alternative? I warned people for years that social media was no firm foundation
upon which to build a castle, and sure enough the censorship tide is coming in. To build real
alternative media under the control of the people is part of the general need, to build a
true cultural, spiritual movement against the whole system. But this would require cadres
willing to dedicate their lives to the work, and at least in America there seems to be no
such will.
If you look at the US media around the so-called Spanish-American War of 1898, you can see
the same bent toward war, the same proclivity for propaganda rather than actual reporting,
and the same misleading headlines and provocative language.
Perhaps there have been brief times such as moments in the 70s and 80s when some (not all,
but a significant few) reporters at major outlets could write articles based on fact but they
are the exception to the rule.
Well i read a few days ago a commentator´s view that everyone should perhaps keep in
mind.
About the media the presstitute big media that looms over our consciences every minute.
iT said that the lying press, the mendacious agenda, the overwhelming need to the daily
manipulate the most simple and factual thruths of events... became so FREQUENT, so MASSIVE
so
coordinated, op-erates under a such amorality and shameless frame... that is necessarily
bound to, in the way to destruction. To doom.
No third conclusion, no third exit.
They will either enslave us all or they will doom, destroy themselves.
In these prospects a few months back success seemed very unlikely because the US does not
want peace in Korea between the two countries or withdrawal of its troops. Trump's role
appears to be a naïve simpleton eager to be applauded as usual with a "not my fault"
fall back position. Hence the breakdown in two short months, plus the arrogant posturing that
Korea better deliver its nuclear weaponry pronto, and now resumption of drills. I suspect the
next Moon will be a Duterte type who orders the US out of the country, as north and south,
supported by China and Russia move on in the direction they obviously want to go. This may
take a couple of years or so.
Trump has succeeded in destroying deals, throwing sanctions everywhere but until now he
has not succeeded in creating one new deal with any other countries.
The North Korea embryo deal was pompously announced as the end of North Korea
nuclearization.
But ridicule is what the US administration is known for.
Let us see if the Mexico-USA that Trump is so proud about will fly and if the "wall" will
finally be built.
Frankly, North Korea should be left to complete its deal with the South. It was going well.
Idiot Trumpian US intervention serves no purpose. Leave the people concerned to reach their
agreement.
Thanks for the link! Seems that publication's being honest in its reporting unlike Nauert
and the US State Department who keep pushing the BigLie that denuclearization only applies to
DPRK. Good news that the September Summit in Pyongyang between Kim and Moon is still a go,
but will it occur before or after Vladivostok? Do wish we could get more info from Korea,
even in Korean.
As for Google's tricks, I don't use Google anymore as my primary search engine; I have
Yandex for that and my home page.
Will the South agree to resume war games with Outlaw US Empire and thus risk derailing the
progress already attained? Moon must ask himself the question I posed earlier: Embrace an
alliance for life with DPRK or chose the alliance of death with the Empire--I don't think I
can put it much starker.
Demented US and UK elites are terrified of peace and as usual sabotage negotiation. We are
being marched to war. The CIA controlled hi-tech social network companies are right now
conspiring to silence dissenting voices in phase two of Cold War v2. That they think they can
subdue or defeat the Russia/China alliance shows their dementia. It is definitely not
possible for the US to 'win' even against Iran. The US has been checkmated. Now what will it
do?
The U.S., a crazy, confused, schizo and heavily-armed country with skid rows littering the
landscape from sea to shining sea next to depraved wealth, a middle class either drunk on
shopping, hoarding possessions or high on heroine, the highest prison population in the
world, and gun totting rednecks preaching fake religion is now appropriately headed by Nurse
Ratched-Trump of the insane asylum.
Unfortunately, it is the Fort Knox of the planet, and therefore can inflict financial and
all manner of tyranny and pain at the order of Zionist kooks who call the shots.
The pompous ass Trump who claims to make the greatest deals, the best and hugest deals
thinks he invented the wheel, but instead tries to bully the rest of the world into
submission so he can later tweet about his unmatched negotiating skills and brag about his
superior intellect ad nauseum.
There's no trusting a shithole country like that run by a mad tin-pot dictator. North
Korea better keep its nukes.
Every media, be it corporate controlled CNN/NYT/WaPo & Co, be it state controlled RT,
Sputnik, Global Times, is doing its fair share of propaganda. The slight difference is that
the Western MSM is doing it mostly for the interests of MIC & banksters and its minions,
while the Russian and Chinese ones are doing it in general for the sake of their perceived
national interests.
It remains to be seen if the hacking allegations against China will be given as much
spotlight as those against Russia, however.
Rest assured, RT, just like Western MSM, will keep on peddling the same mis/disinformation
about China when it see suits Russia's interests/agenda. This is real geopolitics. (RT &
RI used to delete my posts refuting some of the nonsensical comments there.)
Trump is now super happy that he's got another excuse to accuse "bad China meddling US",
and can feel free to tie everything possible to his trade war against China as we predicated
in precious discussion:
Trump Ties North Korea Talks To Trade Deal With China
A belligerent is an individual, group, country, or other entity that acts in a hostile
manner, such as engaging in combat. Belligerent comes from Latin, literally meaning "one who
wages war". More at Wikipedia
Hmmm... who can that be?
Maybe the belligerent is the one with the $700,000,000,000 annual military budget.
Since the United States was founded in 1776, it has been at war during 214 out of its 235
calendar years of existence.
All your USA=Zionist posturings aside here, the USA under Trump has shown that it cannot be
counted on to honor agreements, be they arms talks, nuclear deals, trade deals or military
partnerships.
The world will learn to work without and work around America, I cannot see how this could
possibly strengthen America overall, at best it could be of advantage of certain groups
within the US.
"... "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." ..."
"... Frederick Remington was hired to provide illustrations for the paper during the war. After awhile, he was getting bored with his assignment as things were quite peaceful and said, "Everything is quiet. There is no trouble. There will be no war. I wish to return." Hearst's response was "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." ..."
"... I think you know where I'm going with this. What has changed is that the media today does not directly furnish the war. They rely on those who most profit from it to create the war and today's media simply serves as their propaganda arm. ..."
"You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."
How is today's journalism any different than the yellow journalism of William Randolph
Hearst? Sure, technology and reach is far more sophisticated. First the telegraph, then
international news agencies, newsreels shown before the screening of movies, and fast forward
to 1980 to CNN, the first 24 hour news network. Today with smart phones everyone is a
photojournalist. We wouldn't know about all the cop-on-black killings if it wasn't for the
average citizen with a phone, even though it's been going on for generations. The only problem
regarding catching and broadcasting a Trump lie is beating everyone else to it first.
Starting out as a circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer, Hearst and his New York Journal sent
reporters to Cuba to cover the Spanish American War, sensationalizing and lying his way to the
top. Although there was seriously good reporting, what most of us remember is the sinking of
the USS Maine and how Hearst fanned the flames of war hysteria. Frederick Remington was hired
to provide illustrations for the paper during the war. After awhile, he was getting bored with
his assignment as things were quite peaceful and said, "Everything is quiet. There is no
trouble. There will be no war. I wish to return." Hearst's response was "Please remain. You
furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."
I think you know where I'm going with this. What has changed is that the media today does
not directly furnish the war. They rely on those who most profit from it to create the war and
today's media simply serves as their propaganda arm. Whereas Frank Zappa said, "Government is
the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.", the news media is often a
branch of the entertainment division of a network.
... ... ...
...However, another characteristic of fake news is not reporting the news, mis-reporting it, and misinforming or misleading people about what's really happening.
During the first Iraqi invasion we were glued to our TV sets watching the poor, young, sweet
innocent nurse crying over how Hussein's troops took babies out of their incubators and threw
them on the floor, not being told until much later that she was a plant, the daughter of the
Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and made up the story. Did anyone in the media challenge her?
From Condi Rice to Colin Powell, we all heard the testimony and Meet the Press moments where
we were hours away from incineration or suffering horribly from biological weapons. Did anyone
in the media challenge them?
The go-to list for guest speakers during any run up to a war includes former generals whose
expertise is so sought out by the networks. Are we the viewing audience ever told that they, in
retirement, usually work for the war-profiteering industries?
Recently, for weeks on end, Israel has been killing innocent protesters in their March of
Return. Killing journalists, medics, children, amputees, people running away, people empty
handed. Not a word from CNN, especially in the initial slaughter. That is fake news.
American Indians and supporters were hosed with freezing water in freezing weather, shot at,
dogs let loose on them, as they were protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline. Barely a word. Fake
news.
Child poverty in America grew at alarming rates under Obama. No mention of it.
The alleged hacks of the DNC is a given to the main stream. But no main stream media would
dare to interview William Binney, Ray McGovern or Julian Assange, all with pertinent knowledge
that would refute the narrative. That is fake news.
"... The dominant U.S. commercial and corporate media are a means of mass consent-manufacturing indoctrination, diversion and dumbing down on behalf of the nation's intertwined corporate, financial, imperial and professional-class "elites." Merging the dystopian visions of Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, Neal Postman and Phillip K. Dick, they are a bastion of power-serving propaganda and deadening twaddle that work across hundreds of broadcast channels and through countless print and internet outlets to keep the U.S. citizenry allegiant and subordinated to big capital, the professional and managerial "elite" and the U.S. imperial state. ..."
"... They're not covering the genocide in Yemen, but they're covering Russia 24-7 they won't cover Yemen. Why? Because we're complicit. The United States military-industrial complex is helping commit genocide and war crimes inside of Yemen. We're doing that. We're doing 'siege warfare.' Siege warfare is a war crime where you cut off supplies to people trying to starve them keeping them from medical supplies. You're keeping them from clean water. We're doing that. ..."
"... "Exceptional" America's starvation, sickening, maiming and slaughter of innocents doesn't fit the narrative of American benevolence -- a doctrinally set staple in U.S. corporate news, war and entertainment media. ..."
"... We just killed 56 kids. Who's supposed to bomb us now? When do we get bombed? When does someone call us butchers? ..."
"... The Republican Robert Mueller is treated with solemn worship at CNN, MSNBC, the Times and the Post and the rest of the non-Fox media establishment. You'd never know from the "mainstream" coverage and commentary that this new liberal icon and "war hero" (since he won medals in the U.S. crucifixion of Southeast Asia during the 1960s) lied about Iraq's nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" during his years as George W. Bush's FBI director. ..."
"... There is no reason to consider the United States' corporate and commercial media as any more "mainstream" than the leading Soviet media organs were back in their day. They are just as dedicated as the onetime Soviet state media to advancing the doctrinal perspectives of their host nation's reigning elite -- and far more effective. ..."
"... So, by the way, is the CIA -- an enemy of the people ..."
The dominant U.S. commercial and corporate media are a means of mass consent-manufacturing
indoctrination, diversion and dumbing down on behalf of the nation's intertwined corporate,
financial, imperial and professional-class "elites." Merging the dystopian visions of Aldous
Huxley, George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, Neal Postman and Phillip K. Dick, they are a bastion of
power-serving propaganda and deadening twaddle that work across hundreds of broadcast channels
and through countless print and internet outlets to keep the U.S. citizenry allegiant and
subordinated to big capital, the professional and managerial "elite" and the U.S. imperial
state.
How could it be otherwise? Just six massive and global corporations -- Comcast, Viacom, Time
Warner, CBS, the News Corporation and Disney -- together control more
than 90 percent of the nation's television stations, radio stations, movies, newspapers and
magazines. Corporate ownership combines with other deeply entrenched factors to guarantee the
not-so-mainstream media's dutiful service to the nation's unelected and interrelated
dictatorships of money, class and empire: the controlling power of corporate advertisers (the
mass media's main market, not the public); the disproportionate purchasing power of the
affluent (the main target of advertisers); the elitist socialization, indoctrination and
selection of journalists, and the dependence of media on government for information, access and
monopoly power.
It's not just about the news. If you really want to see where mass propaganda on behalf of
class rule, racial and gender oppression and U.S. global force projection is most effectively
and compellingly manufactured, watch the entertainment media. When it comes to selling
Americans on the supposed virtues of the American Empire and the purported evil of America's
"enemies," for example, the news media have nothing on movies like "Top Gun," "Iron Eagle,"
"Independence Day," "Rocky IV," "Black Hawk Down," "Argo," "A Few Good Men," "From Paris With
Love," "Captain Phillips," "American Sniper," "Zero Dark Thirty," "Iron Man" and "Eye in the
Sky," and nothing on television shows like "24," "Homeland," "Law and Order," "NCIS" and "FBI."
(This is just a short list from the much larger portfolio of U.S-imperialist "entertainment"
media production, often generated with significant Pentagon involvement.)
Forget Kim Il-Trump and his right-wing assault on the "Fake News." There's a vast and
impressive left, radically democratic literature on how and why the so-called mainstream U.S.
media serve concentrated wealth and power, functioning as one of the most potent weapons -- if
not the single most potent weapon (with chilling power to shape popular perceptions of reality)
-- in the hands of the nation's ruling class. See, for starters, Herbert Schiller. "The Mind
Managers" (1973); Michael Parenti, "Inventing Reality: The Politics of the News Media" (1986);
Parenti, "Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment" (1992); Edward S. Herman and Noam
Chomsky, "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" (1988); Robert W.
McChesney, "Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy" (New York: Seven Stories, 1997);
McChesney, "Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times" (2000);
McChesney, "Blowing the Roof Off the 21st Century: Media" (2014); Neil Postman, "Amusing
Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business" (1983); Anthony DiMaggio,
"When Media Goes to War" (2009); Stephen Macek, "Urban Nightmares: The Media, the Right, and
the Moral Panic Over the City" (2006); and William J. Puette, "Through Jaundiced Eyes: How the
Media View Organized Labor" ( 1992). (That, again, is a short list.)
Before you run off to the library or go online to order the books I just listed (which
reminds me, please purchase this as well), ask yourself
why the number of Americans who could properly describe the basics of arch-narcissist reality
show personality turned White House staffer
Omarosa Manigault Newman's dispute with arch-narcissist reality-television personality
turned POTUS Donald Trump is much greater (I'm guessing by 100 times) than the number of
Americans who could tell you anything meaningful and truthful about the United States' central
and ongoing role in the savage
crucifixion of Yemen . The latter story recently included the killing of
40 Yemeni children riding in a school bus. Their vehicle was blown up by a Saudi Arabian
missile manufactured by a U.S. "defense" contractor and launched with the logistical support of
the U.S. military. Forget the academic literature for now and listen to a common-sense
explanation by the lefty, Chicago-born-and-raised comic Jimmy Dore , about MSNBC, the supposed left
wing of the allegedly liberal corporate media:
They're not covering the genocide in Yemen, but they're covering Russia 24-7 they won't
cover Yemen. Why? Because we're complicit. The United States military-industrial complex is
helping commit genocide and war crimes inside of Yemen. We're doing that. We're doing 'siege
warfare.' Siege warfare is a war crime where you cut off supplies to people trying to starve
them keeping them from medical supplies. You're keeping them from clean water. We're doing
that.
Dore was on point. The U.S. (along with its dutiful imperial pit bull the United Kingdom) is
in fact doing all that. "We" (well, "our" foreign policymakers) are equipping and otherwise
participating centrally in the unconscionable infliction of an epic humanitarian catastrophe in
Yemen. The Saudi-Emirati coalition has already killed many thousands of innocent Yemenis and
has so devastated the nation that famine and a deadly 19 th- century disease,
cholera (from unsanitary water), have gone epidemic there, causing mass child mortality. For
weeks now, the coalition has been savagely bombing the port city of Hodeidah, the main entry
point for desperately needed food and medical supplies coming into the besieged nation. And, as
the intrepid antiwar witness and activist Kathy Kelly recently reported on Counterpunch last
weekend:
U.S. companies such as Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Lockheed Martin have sold
billions of dollars' worth of weapons to [the Saudi-led] coalition, which is attacking Yemen.
The U.S. military refuels Saudi and Emirati warplanes through midair exercises [and] helps
the Saudi[s] choose their targets. The United States is 'front and center responsible' for
the Saudi coalition attacks, 'If an airstrike was a drive-by and killed someone [journalist
Samuel Oakford notes], the U.S. provided the car, the wheels, the servicing and repair, the
gun, the bullets, help with maintenance of those -- and the gas.'
The "mainstream" U.S. media's silence about this epic wrongdoing has, as usual, been
deafening but unsurprising. "Exceptional" America's starvation, sickening, maiming and
slaughter of innocents doesn't fit the narrative of American benevolence -- a doctrinally set
staple in U.S. corporate news, war and entertainment media. So, it's off the airwaves, for the
most part -- even if MSNBC's leftmost anchor Chris Hayes was permitted to briefly and mildly
break through the news blockade after the school bus outrage. (That was a crime too heinous to
avoid, especially since it took place under Trump and not under a Democratic POTUS and
MSDNC
darling like Barack Obama, who was deeply complicit in the war on Yemen). About which, listen
again to Dore:
The biggest humanitarian catastrophe in the world, we're gonna wait until 45 minutes into
[Hayes'] news broadcast. We haven't covered it for over a year, not even mentioned it. So now
everyone's going 'kudos's he's doing it now.' So now, when [Syrian President Bashar] Assad
was supposed to have had chemical weapons and killed 30 people with chemicals, we were
supposed to bomb him. We just killed 56 kids. Who's supposed to bomb us now? When do we
get bombed? When does someone call us butchers? 'Wow . look at that, [Hayes]
went almost two and half whole minutes [about Yemen and the U.S. role in the missile attack
on a school-bus there] and people are going nuts complimenting him. There you go: 'We covered
it.'
It's nothing you need a Ph.D. to understand. Dore gets it, even if his numbers may be off on
the bus attack. He's from a working-class neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago, where
people who pay attention (like the late and great journalist Mike Royko) learn early on that
hypocrisy reigns and "money talks, bullshit walks" across party lines.
It's about more than news censorship, however. The "mainstream media" work relentlessly to
reduce their consumers to view issues from the point of the merely personal and private. It
erases the social, historical and institutional. It inculcates the primitive level of
consciousness where one can grasp something as childish as "Omarosa and Stormy Daniels were
treated badly by Donald Trump" but nothing more complex beyond the individual scale than
"America Good, Its 'Enemies' Bad" -- and certainly nothing as involved and ideologically
verboten as "the American Empire and military-industrial complex is invested in the
murder of children in the Middle East."
A third recent example of U.S. corporate media's power-serving and propagandistic role
deserves exposure. Last week saw the Big Pharma cable news networks CNN and MSNBC (both outlets
host hundreds of drug commercials per day), The New York Times , The Washington Post
and most of the corporate news establishment run to defend, acclaim and even lionize
blood-soaked U.S.-imperial spy masters, surveillance chiefs, liars and assassins like former
CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
Why did CNN and MSNBC viewers hear again and again about how these totalitarian agents of
imperial superpower death, torture, surveillance and destruction were heroic champions of human
rights, liberty and freedom, fiercely dedicated to (of all things) "speaking truth to power"?
Because the Recep Tayyip Erdogan-Vladimir Putin-Xi Jinping-Kim Jong Un-wannabe Trump took away
Brennan's national security clearance and threatened those of Clapper and others as
transparently political punishment for the forthright criticism of the president as a stupid,
reckless, childish, and generally dysfunctional head of the American Empire. Or because of
their status as potential anti-Trump witnesses in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russiagate
investigation.
There's nothing noble or remotely democratic about Trump's motives. But there's nothing
noble or remotely democratic about imperial actors like Brennan and Clapper either. Brennan
ran the drone assassination program under Obama and the extraordinary rendition program under
George W. Bush. He was the "principle coordinator" of the American citizen "kill list" and
crafted the "disposition matrix" that codified the targeting and secret killing of American
citizens. And that was all before Obama tapped Brennan to head the CIA, where he wrote bloody
new chapters in the book of imperial deceit and murder and led efforts to block a Senate
investigation into CIA torture, including by spying on Senate staff members conducting the
investigation.
During her much ballyhooed and
deeply respectful interview with Brennan last Friday night, Russiagate-mad MSNBC rock star
Rachel Maddow failed to ask him about the authoritarian implications of a recent New York Times
op-ed article in which Brennan essentially suggested, in the words of the World Socialist
Website's Joseph Kishore, that "[a]ll social discontent within the United States is the work of
'Russian puppet masters' exploiting 'gullible' individuals. If 'freedoms and liberties' provide
an opening for such operations, then these freedoms must be restricted. To 'save democracy,' it
is necessary to abolish it." The pretense of Brennan and his supporters to be acting in the
name of "democracy" and "free speech," Kishore notes , "echoes the
claims of a long line of would-be dictators who have employed such arguments in the past."
That's exactly right and should be completely unsurprising to anyone familiar with the
arch-nefarious history of the CIA at home and abroad.
The Republican Robert Mueller is treated with solemn worship at CNN, MSNBC, the Times and
the Post and the rest of the non-Fox media establishment. You'd never know from the
"mainstream" coverage and commentary that this new liberal icon and "war hero" (since he won
medals in the U.S. crucifixion of Southeast Asia during the 1960s) lied about Iraq's
nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" during his years as George W. Bush's FBI
director.
I'll wait to write about Clapper, now a special friend and regular honored guest on the
liberal CNN host Don Lemon's nightly show, and other great Trump- and Fox-demonized/CNN and
MSNBC-lionized heroes of "speaking truth to power" (even Orwell would be impressed by the
application of that phrase to what our "intelligence community" does in the real world) on a
future occasion.
It is appropriate to place quotation marks around the phrase "mainstream media" when writing
about dominant U.S. corporate news and entertainment media. During the Cold War era, U.S.
officials and media never referred to the Soviet Union's state television and radio or its main
state newspapers as "mainstream Russian media." American authorities referred to these Russian
media outlets as "Soviet state media" and treated that media as the means for the dissemination
of Soviet "propaganda" and ideology.
There is no reason to consider the United States' corporate and commercial media as any
more "mainstream" than the leading Soviet media organs were back in their day. They are just as
dedicated as the onetime Soviet state media to advancing the doctrinal perspectives of their
host nation's reigning elite -- and far more effective.
The Soviets never came remotely close to the United States when it came to wrapping
propaganda and ideology in entertainment media (see the Amazon spoof comedy series "Comrade Detective" for an
often-hilarious portrayal of what a Stalinist Soviet bloc version of an American cop show might
have looked like). And Soviet news censorship was open and well known, a regular subject for
underground coffeehouse comics in 1970s and '80s Moscow. You could read the initials of the
daily paper's censors at the bottom of each issue of the onetime Soviet state papers Pravda and
Izvestia. No illusions there of a totally free and independent media. Everyone knew otherwise,
unlike in the U.S.
So, yes, U.S. corporate media are "enemies of the people," even if that other great enemy of
the people Donald Trump -- himself a product and arguably a great "frenemy"
of the corporate communications complex beneath all his anti-media bluster -- says so for
reasons that have nothing to with yours or mine.
So, by the way, is the CIA -- an enemy of the people , that is .
"... The U.S. sets the main goals in negotiating with anyone and does not retreat an inch from the self-asserted goals. ..."
"... The U.S. does not offer anything in cash or immediate in return for what it receives in cash. It simply makes strong promises and tries to enchant the other side by mere promises. ..."
"... And in the final step, when things are over and the U.S. has received the cash, the immediate benefits, it breaches the same promises. ..."
The Iranian Supreme Leader even posted a special graphic summary to summarize and explain
the Iranian position:
This is the U.S. formula for negotiation:
Because U.S. officials depend on power and money, they consider
negotiations as a business deal.
The U.S. sets the main goals in negotiating with anyone and does
not retreat an inch from the self-asserted goals.
They demand the other side to give them immediate benefits and if
the other party refrains from giving in, the U.S. officials will create
an uproar so that their partner would give up.
The U.S. does not offer anything in cash or immediate in return for
what it receives in cash. It simply makes strong promises and tries
to enchant the other side by mere promises.
And in the final step, when things are over and the U.S. has received
the cash, the immediate benefits, it breaches the same promises.
This is the U.S.'s method of negotiation. Now, should one
negotiate with such a duplicitous government?
"... In that sense, the elite media are indeed enemies of the people – our people, that is. If they didn't want to perceived as such, they should have been fairer in their coverage, they shouldn't have started censoring people and banning them off Twitter and PayPal for wrongthink, they shouldn't have promoted endless invasion, they shouldn't have coordinated outrageous attacks like that disgraceful WaPo story alleging everyone who didn't support Hillary Clinton was part of a Russian plot (lying bastards) ..."
"... It's not appropriate for a handful of American cities (LA, NY, and DC), a single political party (the democrats), and a handful of democrat-voting businessmen and leftist "journalists" to control 98% of the narrative. Something needs to be done about that. ..."
"... Otherwise, South Africa is our future. They faced the same choice as we do now, and they did it wrong. ..."
I think some clarification is needed here. What these people have actually done is the
following:
They have monopolized the information distribution system – internet and television
– and used it to silence critics, prevent competing platforms from arising, bully
society into accepting their standards of conduct and thought, blacklist conservatives in
Hollywood, promote physical violence against us (punch a Nazi where "Nazi" is basically any
non extremist), and organize countless wide-spread coordinated attacks against our government
in order to overthrow it, and replace it with their own. They've used banks to deny service
to legal gun shops (a roundabout way to ban them), they've used credit card companies to shut
down critics of Islam, they've used lawfare to attack Christian bakers, they've banned
critics from PayPal, they've censored YouTube videos, they boot critics from Facebook, they
employ an army of "state-sponsored in all but name" censors for social media – SPLC,
ADL, and they have recruited a "state-sponsored in all but name" KGB to track down and
dox/fire/witchunt dissenters on the internet.
We live in fear that at any moment out lives could be destroyed if we are filmed in public
expressing wrong think; other countries like Germany have laws against this, so why don't we?
Oh, that's right, because it is a useful tool to control dissent. The deepstate needs to keep
their little empire together. Careful not to be white and say the wrong thing or your picture
may end up being broadcast by the Young Turks to the world: "racist white lady calls the cops
on innocent non-whites who didn't pay for anything in a restaurant and loitered around,
refused to leave a private establishment after being politely asked to pay or go, and then
screamed at cops for 10 minutes before being arrested. The shame. Dirty racist."
We are subject to false allegations in a system rigged by feminists to discriminate
against men. We are guilty until proven innocent. We have to work twice as hard for half the
results due to racist affirmative action policies. We are bombarded with leftist propaganda
in the entertainment industry. No form of entertainment is free from their proselytizing.
There are endless 2 minute sessions of hate directed at us: Duke Lacrosse, Virginia rape
hoax, Ferguson, Starbucks,
The media got away with this in the past by pretending to be objective, but they don't
even bother with that aspect anymore. Unfortunately, the corrupt, spineless traitors in the
GOP let this happen. They should have been rigorously enforcing anti-monopoly laws, media
ownership laws, and supporting public broadcasting – internet and television – in
order to drive down the ratings of deepstate-run organs like CNN. Instead, they sold out.
They are traitors, too.
In that sense, the elite media are indeed enemies of the people – our people,
that is. If they didn't want to perceived as such, they should have been fairer in their
coverage, they shouldn't have started censoring people and banning them off Twitter and
PayPal for wrongthink, they shouldn't have promoted endless invasion, they shouldn't have
coordinated outrageous attacks like that disgraceful WaPo story alleging everyone who didn't
support Hillary Clinton was part of a Russian plot (lying bastards)
How many of these fake news stories have these people come up with? Stormy Daniels,
Omarosa, Russiagate, BLM . It should be clear by now that these scum are trying to rig the
upcoming election in the democrat party's favor by ginning up racial and gender animus; that
is blatantly what they tried to do in 2016. So, why are we letting them? We can't organize a
boycott of them, their advertisers, their distribution networks? If they ban us from social
media, can't we pass laws requiring their distribution network – internet service
providers and trucking companies – to ban them in retaliation? Can't we organize
state-sponsored, censorship-free competition? Our state legislatures can ban boycotts of
Israel but not protect we the people?
It's not appropriate for a handful of American cities (LA, NY, and DC), a single
political party (the democrats), and a handful of democrat-voting businessmen and leftist
"journalists" to control 98% of the narrative. Something needs to be done about
that.
Personally, I think the US is done for as a constitutional republic. Either we secede and
have a country run for the benefit of our own people (optimal), or we seize control and run
the government for the benefit of ourselves. Works for China. And that's exactly what the
left is plotting with their immigration invasion. So why not strike first? Do we want to end
up like South Africa? Do we want to end up with a one-party democrat state? Imagine racist
SJW scum stomping on your face forever. That's the choice we face, and it is coming up
soon.
As far as I'm concerned, Trump won 60% of the American vote. A near majority of the people
who voted democrat are not American. They are foreign invaders invited after the 1965
immigration act to steal away our democracy and give it to the racist democrat party. If the
Chinese army invaded California, we wouldn't give them the vote. So, why do racist invaders
get to vote? Strip them of their citizenship and let only republicans vote. Then, expel these
traitors to other countries where they belong.
Our country was originally founded as an exclusive society that reserved the vote for
white landowners, and the American Revolution was only supported by a third of the public.
Patriots rose up and kicked out the king against the wishes of the stupid masses, and they
were right to do so. Thank God that wasn't left up to an equal vote because not all men are
equal in their abilities.
I don't see how it would be wrong to reserve the vote exclusively for our people again, or
at least Republicans in general, people who have the nation's best interest at heart, people
wise enough and capable enough to understand right from wrong and wisdom from stupidity.
Think this is too extreme? It isn't because that's exactly what they have publicly
advocated doing to us – deport us, enslave us, censor our speech, jail us, attack us in
the streets, ban Fox News. One of their democrat senators publicly supported censoring more
people after Alex Jones was deplatformed via RICOesque collusion. They announce it publicly!
When are we going to take their threats seriously and strike first?
Otherwise, South Africa is our future. They faced the same choice as we do now, and
they did it wrong. They gave their country away to racist vermin who now threaten to
steal their land without compensation. It was obvious at the time that it would end badly for
the whites there one day, but they stupidly ignored the warnings, Now, their racist president
chants "death to the Boar, death to the white man." Don't think that can happen here? It can.
The racist democrat running for Georgia governor wants to destroy Stone Mountain and give
reparations to blacks (steal our money like SA steals white lands).
When the rats retake the White House in 2020, they are going to unleash a wave of racist
hate against us that will never abate. That's what Obama did with BLM, so there is no reason
to believe they won't do so again but much worse after all their rhetoric. And there will be
so many democrat-voting immigrant invaders here that we can never win power again. They
thirst to make our country a dictatorship like China, but with themselves at the top. That's
a scary thought. Are we going to let them do it?
"... The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by protest movements. ..."
"... Newscasters who want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients. Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away ..."
"... In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information on current events. ..."
"... U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they hate us? What have we done?" ..."
"... If transmitting Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters. ..."
"... The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings. Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector, which is loaded with political and ideological content ..."
"... Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark, power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7] – into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense. ..."
"... To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it, the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such. It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state" – the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority. ..."
"... The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. ..."
"... There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and "independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and imperial elite ..."
"... A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. ..."
"... A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a "free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous "competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media firms. ..."
"... In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative, high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. ..."
"... The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S. policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class citizens. ..."
"... The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional certification. ..."
"... To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts and minds of the U.S. populace. ..."
"... The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C ..."
Consistent with its possession as a leading and money-making asset of the nation's wealthy
elite, the United States corporate and commercial mass media is a bastion of power-serving
propaganda and deadening twaddle designed to keep the U.S. citizenry subordinated to capital
and the imperial U.S. state. It regularly portrays the United States as a great model of
democracy and equality. It sells a false image of the U.S. as a society where the rich enjoy
opulence because of hard and honest work and where the poor are poor because of their laziness
and irresponsibility. The nightly television news broadcasts and television police and law and
order dramas are obsessed with violent crime in the nation's Black ghettoes and Latino barrios,
but they never talk about the extreme poverty, the absence of opportunity imposed on those
neighborhoods by the interrelated forces of institutional racism, capital flight, mass
structural unemployment, under-funded schools, and mass incarceration. The nightly television
weather reports tells U.S. citizens of ever new record high temperatures and related forms of
extreme weather but never relate these remarkable meteorological developments to anthropogenic
climate change.
The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice
between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the
Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far
more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of
business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry
confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it
downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and
policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by
protest movements.
As the prolific U.S. Marxist commentator Michael Parenti once remarked, US "Newscasters who
want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt
around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very
little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients.
Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every
appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away." [1]
Selling Empire
U.S. newscasters and their print media counterparts routinely parrot and disseminate the
false foreign policy claims of the nation's imperial elite. Earlier this year, U.S. news
broadcasters dutiful relayed to U.S. citizens the Obama administration's preposterous assertion
that social-democratic Venezuela is a repressive, corrupt, and authoritarian danger to its own
people and the U.S. No leading national U.S. news outlet dared to note the special absurdity of
this charge in the wake of Obama and other top U.S. officials' visit to Riyadh to guarantee
U.S. support for the new king of Saudi Arabia, the absolute ruler of a leading U.S. client
state that happens to be the most brutally oppressive and reactionary government on Earth.
In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its
clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible
and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the
global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as
far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American
Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no
selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy
reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the
State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information
on current events.
As the leading Left U.S. intellectuals Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman showed in their
classic text Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Orwellian
double standards are rife in the dominant U.S. media's coverage and interpretation of global
affairs. Elections won in other countries by politicians that Washington approves because those
politicians can be counted on to serve the interests of U.S. corporations and the military are
portrayed in U.S. media as good and clean contests. But when elections put in power people who
can't be counted on to serve "U.S. interests," (Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro for example),
then U.S. corporate media portrays the contests as "rigged" and "corrupt." When Americans or
people allied with Washington are killed or injured abroad, they are "worthy victims" and
receive great attention and sympathy in that media. People killed, maimed, displaced and
otherwise harmed by the U.S. and U.S. clients and allies are anonymous and "unworthy victims"
whose experience elicits little mention or concern.[2]
U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The
dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that
create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they
hate us? What have we done?"
In February of 2015, an extraordinary event occurred in U.S. news media – the firing
of a leading national news broadcaster, Brian Williams of NBC News. Williams lost his position
because of some lies he told in connection with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A naïve
outsider might think that Williams was fired because he repeated the George W. Bush
administration's transparent fabrications about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction
and Saddam's supposed connection to 9/11. Sadly but predictably enough, that wasn't his
problem. Williams lost his job because he falsely boasted that he had ridden on a helicopter
that was forced down by grenade fire during the initial U.S. invasion. If transmitting
Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media
authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters.
More than Entertainment
The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated
structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings.
Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector,
which is loaded with political and ideological content but was completely ignored in Herman and
Chomsky's groundbreaking Manufacturing Consent. [3] One example is the Hollywood movie "Zero
Dark Thirty," a 2012 "action thriller" that dramatized the United States' search for Osama
bin-Laden after the September 11, 2001 jetliner attacks. The film received critical acclaim and
was a box office-smash. It was also a masterpiece of pro-military, pro-CIA propaganda,
skillfully portraying U.S. torture practices "as a dirty, ugly business that is necessary to
protect America" (Glenn Greenwald[4]) and deleting the moral debate that erupted over the CIA's
"enhanced interrogation techniques." Under the guise of a neutral, documentary-like
façade, Zero Dark Thirty normalized and endorsed torture in ways that were all the more
effective because of its understated, detached, and "objective" veneer. The film also marked a
distressing new frontier in U.S. military-"embedded" filmmaking whereby the movie-makers
receive technical and logistical support from the Pentagon in return for producing elaborate
public relations on the military's behalf.
The 2014-15 Hollywood blockbuster American Sniper is another example. The film's audiences
is supposed to marvel at the supposedly noble feats, sacrifice, and heroism of Chris Kyle, a
rugged, militantly patriotic, and Christian-fundamentalist Navy SEALS sniper who participated
in the U.S. invasion of Iraq to fight "evil" and to avenge the al Qaeda jetliner attacks of
September 11, 2001. Kyle killed 160 Iraqis over four tours of "duty" in "Operational Iraqi
Freedom." Viewers are never told that the Iraqi government had nothing to do with the 9/11
attacks or al Qaeda or that the U.S. invasion was one of the most egregiously criminal and
brazenly imperial and mass-murderous acts in the history of international violence. Like Zero
Dark Thirty's apologists, American Sniper's defenders claim that the film takes a neutral
perspective of "pure storytelling," with no ideological bias. In reality, the movie is filled
with racist and imperial distortions, functioning as flat-out war propaganda.[5]
These are just two among many examples that could be cited of U.S. "entertainment" media's
regular service to the American Empire. Hollywood and other parts of the nation's vast
corporate entertainment complex plays the same power-serving role in relation to domestic
("homeland") American inequality and oppression structures of class and race. [6]
Manufacturing Idiocy
Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark,
power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is
the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian
sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs
and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and
concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin
Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by
Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active
participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7]
– into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense.
In the U.S., where violence is not as readily available to elites as in 1970s Latin America,
corporate America seeks the same terrible outcome through its ideological institutions,
including above all its mass media. In U.S. movies, television sit-coms, television dramas,
television reality-shows, commercials, state Lottery advertisements, and video games, the
ideal-type U.S. citizen is an idiot in this classic sense: a person who cares about little more
than his or her own well-being, consumption, and status. This noble American idiot is
blissfully indifferent to the terrible prices paid by others for the maintenance of reigning
and interrelated oppressions structures at home and abroad.
A pervasive theme in this media culture is the notion that people at the bottom of the
nation's steep and interrelated socioeconomic and racial pyramids are the "personally
irresponsible" and culturally flawed makers of their own fate. The mass U.S. media's version of
Athenian idiocy "can imagine," in the words of the prolific Left U.S. cultural theorist Henry
Giroux "public issues only as private concerns." It works to "erase the social from the
language of public life so as to reduce" questions of racial and socioeconomic disparity to
"private issues of individual character and cultural depravity. Consistent with "the central
neoliberal tenet that all problems are private rather than social in nature," it portrays the
only barriers to equality and meaningful democratic participation as "a lack of principled
self-help and moral responsibility" and bad personal choices by the oppressed. Government
efforts to meaningfully address and ameliorate (not to mention abolish) societal disparities of
race, class, gender, ethnicity, nationality and the like are portrayed as futile,
counterproductive, naïve, and dangerous.[8]
To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and
take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often
even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to
obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it,
the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such.
It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state"
– the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the
non-affluent majority. It celebrates and otherwise advances the "right hand of the state"[9]:
the portions of government that serve the opulent minority, dole out punishment for the poor,
and attacks those perceived as nefariously resisting the corporate and imperial order at home
and abroad. Police officers, prosecutors, military personnel, and other government authorities
who represent the "right hand of the state" are heroes and role models in this media. Public
defenders, other defense attorneys, civil libertarians, racial justice activists, union
leaders, antiwar protesters and the like are presented at best as naïve and irritating
"do-gooders" and at worst as coddlers and even agents of evil.
The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is
also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident
than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. As
the American cultural critic Neil Postman noted thirty years ago, the modern U.S. television
commercial is the antithesis of the rational economic consideration that early Western
champions of the profits system claimed to be the enlightened essence of capitalism. "Its
principal theorists, even its most prominent practitioners," Postman noted, "believed
capitalism to be based on the idea that both buyer and seller are sufficiently mature,
well-informed, and reasonable to engage in transactions of mutual self-interest." Commercials
make "hash" out of this idea. They are dedicated to persuading consumers with wholly irrational
claims. They rely not on the reasoned presentation of evidence and logical argument but on
suggestive emotionalism, infantilizing manipulation, and evocative, rapid-fire imagery.[10]
The same techniques poison U.S. electoral politics. Investment in deceptive and manipulative
campaign commercials commonly determines success or failure in mass-marketed election contests
between business-beholden candidates that are sold to the audience/electorate like brands of
toothpaste and deodorant. Fittingly enough, the stupendous cost of these political
advertisements is a major factor driving U.S. campaign expenses so high (the 2016 U.S.
presidential election will cost at least $5 billion) as to make candidates ever more dependent
on big money corporate and Wall Street donors.
Along the way, mass cognitive competence is assaulted by the numbing, high-speed ubiquity of
U.S. television and radio advertisements. These commercials assault citizens' capacity for
sustained mental focus and rational deliberation nearly sixteen minutes of every hour on cable
television, with 44 percent of the individual ads now running for just 15 seconds. This is a
factor in the United States' long-bemoaned epidemic of "Attention Deficit Disorder."
Seventy years ago, the brilliant Dutch left Marxist Anton Pannekoek offered some chilling
reflections on the corporate print and broadcast media's destructive impact on mass cognitive
and related social resistance capacities in the United States after World War II:
"The press is of course entirely in hands of big capital [and it] dominates the spiritual
life of the American people. The most important thing is not even the hiding of all truth about
the reign of big finance. Its aim still more is the education to thoughtlessness. All attention
is directed to coarse sensations, everything is avoided that could arouse thinking. Papers are
not meant to be read – the small print is already a hindrance – but in a rapid
survey of the fat headlines to inform the public on unimportant news items, on family triflings
of the rich, on sexual scandals, on crimes of the underworld, on boxing matches. The aim of the
capitalist press all over the world, the diverting of the attention of the masses from the
reality of social development, nowhere succeed with such thoroughness as in America."
"Still more than by the papers the masses are influenced by broadcasting and film. These
products of most perfect science, destined at one time to the finest educational instruments of
mankind, now in the hands of capitalism have been turned into the strongest means to uphold its
rule by stupefying the mind. Because after nerve-straining fatigue the movie offers relaxation
and distraction by means of simple visual impressions that make no demand on the intellect, the
masses get used to accepting thoughtlessly all its cunning and shrewd propaganda. It reflects
the ugliest sides of middle-class society. It turns all attention either to sexual life, in
this society – by the absence of community feelings and fight for freedom – the
only source of strong passions, or to brute violence; masses educated to rough violence instead
of to social knowledge are not dangerous to capitalism "[11]
Pannekoek clearly saw an ideological dimension (beyond just diversion and stupefaction) in
U.S. mass media's "education to thoughtlessness" through movies as well as print
sensationalism. He would certainly be impressed and perhaps depressed by the remarkably
numerous, potent, and many-sided means of mass distraction and indoctrination that are
available to the U.S. and global capitalist media in the present digital and Internet era.
The "entertainment" wing of its vast corporate media complex is critical to the considerable
"soft" ideological "power" the U.S. exercises around the world even as its economic hegemony
wanes in an ever more multipolar global system (and as its "hard" military reveals significant
limits within and beyond the Middle East). Relatively few people beneath the global capitalist
elite consume U.S. news and public affairs media beyond the U.S., but "American" (U.S.) movies,
television shows, video games, communication devices, and advertising culture are ubiquitous
across the planet.
Explaining "Mainstream" Media Corporate Ownership
There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and
"independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and
imperial elite. The first and most important explanation for this harsh reality is concentrated
private ownership – the fundamental fact that that media is owned primarily by giant
corporations representing wealthy interests who are deeply invested in U.S. capitalism and
Empire. Visitors to the U.S. should not be fooled by the large number and types of channels and
stations on a typical U.S. car radio or television set or by the large number and types of
magazines and books on display at a typical Barnes & Noble bookstore. Currently in the
U.S., just six massive and global corporations – Comcast, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, The
News Corporation and Disney – together control more than 90 percent of the nation's print
and electronic media, including cable television, airwaves television, radio, newspapers,
movies, video games, book publishing, comic books, and more. Three decades ago, 50 corporations
controlled the same amount of U.S. media.
Each of the reigning six companies is a giant and diversified multi-media conglomerate with
investments beyond media, including "defense" (the military). Asking reporters and commentators
at one of those giant corporations to tell the unvarnished truth about what's happening in the
U.S. and the world is like asking the company magazine published by the United Fruit Company to
the tell the truth about working conditions in its Caribbean and Central American plantations
in the 1950s. It's like asking the General Motors company newspaper to tell the truth about
wages and working conditions in GM's auto assembly plants around the world.
As the nation's media becomes concentrated into fewer corporate hands, media personnel
become ever more insecure in their jobs because they have fewer firms to whom to sell their
skills. That makes them even less willing than they might have been before to go outside
official sources, to question the official line, and to tell the truth about current events and
the context in which they occur.
Advertisers
A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally
reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay
for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. As Chomsky has noted in a recent interview,
large corporations are not only the major producers of the United States' mass and commercial
media. They are also that media's top market, something that deepens the captivity of nation's
supposedly democratic and independent media to big capital:
"The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines
what is presented to the public the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the
concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they
are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case,
almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses –
advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these
are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that
significantly shapes the nature of the institution."[12]
At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue
for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate the affluent people who
count for an ever rising share of consumer purchases in the U.S. It is naturally those with the
most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers.
Government Policy
A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of
oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a
"free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous
"competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media
firms. Under the terms of the 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act,
commercial, for-profit broadcasters have almost completely free rein over the nation's airwaves
and cable lines. There is no substantive segment of the broadcast spectrum set aside for truly
public interest and genuinely democratic, popular not-for profit media and the official
"public" broadcasting networks are thoroughly captive to corporate interests and to right-wing
politicians who take giant campaign contributions from corporate interests. Much of the 1996
bill was written by lobbyists working for the nations' leading media firms. [13]
A different form of state policy deserves mention. Under the Obama administration, we have
seen the most aggressive pursuit and prosecution in recent memory of U.S. journalists who step
outside the narrow parameters of pro-U.S. coverage and commentary – and of the
whistleblowers who provide them with leaked information. That is why Edward Snowden lives in
Russia, Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil, Chelsea Manning is serving life in a U.S. military
prison, and Julian Assange is trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. A leading New York
Times reporter and author, James Risen, has been threatened with imprisonment by the White
House for years because of his refusal to divulge sources.
Treetops v. Grassroots Audiences
In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a
tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from
defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative,
high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists
commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. Left U.S. media critics
like Chomsky and Herman are said to be hypocrites because they obviously find much that is of
use as Left thinkers in the very media that they criticize for distorting reality in accord
with capitalist and imperial dictates.
The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media
they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the
critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S.
policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following
the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first
audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class
citizens. As far as the business elites who own and manage the U.S. mass media and the
corporations that pay for that media with advertising purchases are concerned, this "rabble"
cannot be trusted with serious, candid, and forthright information. Its essential role in
society is to keep quiet, work hard, be entertained (in richly propagandistic and ideological
ways, we should remember), buy things, and generally do what they're told. They are to leave
key societal decisions to those that the leading 20th century U.S. public intellectual and
media-as-propaganda enthusiast Walter Lippman called "the responsible men." That "intelligent,"
benevolent, "expert," and "responsible" elite (responsible, indeed, for such glorious
accomplishments as the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, the Great
Recession, global warming, and the rise of the Islamic State) needed, in Lippman's view, to be
protected from what he called "the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd."[15] The deluded
mob, the sub-citizenry, the dangerous working class majority is not the audience for elite
organs like the Times, the Post, and the Journal.
The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most
the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most
part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and
who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because
their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant
on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional
certification. This elite includes such heavily indoctrinated persons as corporate managers,
lawyers, public administrators, and (most) tenured university professors. Since these elites
carry out key top-down societal tasks of supervision, discipline, training, demoralization,
co-optation, and indoctrination – all essential to the rule of the real economic elite
and the imperial system – they cannot be too thoroughly misled about current events and
policy without deleterious consequences for the smooth functioning of the dominant social and
political order. They require adequate information and must not be overly influenced by the
brutal and foolish propaganda generated for the "bewildered herd." At the same time,
information and commentary for the relevant and respectable business and political classes and
their "coordinator class" servants and allies often contains a measure of reasoned and sincere
intra-elite political and policy debate – debate that is always careful not to stray
beyond narrow U.S. ideological parameters. That is why a radical Left U.S. thinker and activist
can find much that is of use in U.S. "treetops" media. Such a thinker or activist would,
indeed, be foolish not to consult these sources.
"P"BS and N"P"R
A second objection to the Left critique of U.S. "mainstream" media claims that the U.S.
public enjoys a meaningful alternative to the corporate media in the form of the nation's
Public Broadcasting Service (television) and National Public Radio (NPR). This claim should not
be taken seriously. Thanks to U.S. "public" media's pathetically weak governmental funding, its
heavy reliance on corporate sponsors, and its constant harassment by right wing critics inside
and beyond the U.S. Congress, N"P"R and "P"BS are extremely reluctant to question dominant U.S.
ideologies and power structures.
The tepid, power-serving conservatism of U.S. "public" broadcasting is by longstanding
political and policy design. The federal government allowed the formation of the "public"
networks only on the condition that they pose no competitive market or ideological challenge to
private commercial media, the profits system, and U.S. global foreign policy. "P"BS and N"P"R
are "public" in a very limited sense. They not function for the public over and against
corporate, financial, and imperial power to any significant degree.
"The Internet Will Save Us"
A third objection claims that the rise of the Internet creates a "Wild West" environment in
which the power of corporate media is eviscerated and citizens can find and even produce all
the "alternative media" they require. This claim is misleading but it should not be reflexively
or completely dismissed. In the U.S. as elsewhere, those with access to the Internet and the
time and energy to use it meaningfully can find a remarkable breadth and depth of information
and trenchant Left analysis at various online sites. The Internet also broadens U.S. citizens
and activists' access to media networks beyond the U.S. – to elite sources that are much
less beholden of course to U.S. propaganda and ideology. At the same time, the Internet and
digital telephony networks have at times shown themselves to be effective grassroots organizing
tools for progressive U.S. activists.
Still, the democratic and progressive impact of the Internet in the U.S. is easily
exaggerated. Left and other progressive online outlets lack anything close to the financial,
technical, and organizational and human resources of the corporate news media, which has its
own sophisticated Internet. There is nothing in Left other citizen online outlets that can
begin to remotely challenge the "soft" ideological and propagandistic power of corporate
"entertainment" media. The Internet's technical infrastructure is increasingly dominated by an
"ISP cartel" led by a small number of giant corporations. As the leading left U.S. media
analyst Robert McChesney notes:
"By 2014, there are only a half-dozen or so major players that dominate provision of
broadband Internet access and wireless Internet access. Three of them – Verizon,
AT&T, and Comcast – dominate the field of telephony and Internet access, and have
set up what is in effect a cartel. They no longer compete with each other in any meaningful
sense. As a result, Americans pay far more for cellphone and broadband Internet access than
most other advanced nations and get much lousier service These are not 'free market'
companies in any sense of the term. Their business model, going back to pre-Internet days,
has always been capturing government monopoly licenses for telephone and cable TV services.
Their 'comparative advantage' has never been customer service; it has been world-class
lobbying.' [16]
Along the way, the notion of a great "democratizing," Wild West" and "free market" Internet
has proved politically useful for the corporate media giants. The regularly trumpet the great
Internet myth to claim that the U.S. public and regulators don't need to worry about corporate
media power and to justify their demands for more government subsidy and protection. At the
same time, finally, we know from the revelations of Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and others
that the nation's leading digital and Internet-based e-mail (Google and Yahoo), telephony (e.g.
Verizon), and "social network" (Facebook above all) corporations have collaborated with the
National Security Agency and with the nation's local, state, and federal police in the
surveillance of U.S. citizens' and activists' private communications.[17]
Solutions
The fourth objection accuses Left media critics of being overly negative, "carping" critics
who offer no serious alternatives to the nation's current corporate-owned corporate-managed
commercial and for-profit media system. This is a transparently false and mean-spirited charge.
Left U.S. media criticism is strongly linked to a smart and impressive U.S. media reform
movement that advances numerous and interrelated proposals for the creation of a genuinely
public and democratically run non-commercial and nonprofit U.S. media system. Some of the
demand and proposals of this movement include public ownership and operation of the Internet as
a public utility; the break-up of the leading media oligopolies; full public funding of public
broadcasting; limits on advertising in commercial media; the abolition of political
advertisements; the expansion of airwave and broadband access for alternative media outlets;
publicly-funded nonprofit and non-commercial print journalism; the abolition of government and
corporate surveillance, monitoring, and commercial data-mining of private communication and
"social networks."[18] With regard to the media as with numerous other areas, we should recall
Chomsky's sardonic response to the standard conservative claim that the Left offers criticisms
but no solutions: "There is an accurate translation for that charge: 'they present solutions
and I don't like them.'"[19]
A False Paradox
The propagandistic and power-serving mission and nature of dominant U.S, corporate mass
media might seem ironic and even paradoxical in light of the United States' strong free speech
and democratic traditions. In fact, as Carey and Chomsky have noted, the former makes perfect
sense in light of the latter. In nations where popular expression and dissent is routinely
crushed with violent repression, elites have little incentive to shape popular perceptions in
accord with elite interests. The population is controlled primarily through physical coercion.
In societies where it is not generally considered legitimate to put down popular expression
with the iron heel of armed force and where dissenting opinion is granted a significant measure
of freedom of expression, elites are heavily and dangerously incentivized to seek to
manufacture mass popular consent and idiocy. The danger is deepened by the United States'
status as the pioneer in the development of mass consumer capitalism, advertising, film, and
television. Thanks to that history, corporate America has long stood in the global vanguard
when it comes to developing the technologies, methods, art, and science of mass persuasion and
thought control.[20]
It is appropriate to place quotation marks around the phrase "mainstream media" when writing
about dominant U.S. corporate media. During the Cold War era, U.S. officials and media never
referred to the Soviet Union's state television and radio or its main state newspapers as
"mainstream Russian media." American authorities referred to these Russian media outlets as
"Soviet state media" and treated that media as means for the dissemination of Soviet
"propaganda" and ideology. There is no reason to consider the United States' corporate and
commercial media as any more "mainstream" than the leading Soviet media organs were back in
their day. It is just as dedicated as the onetime Soviet state media to advancing the doctrinal
perspectives of its host nation's reigning elite -- and far more effective.
Its success is easily exaggerated, however. To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media
has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts
and minds of the U.S. populace. A recent Pew Research poll showed that U.S. "millennials"
(young adults 18-29 years old) have a more favorable response to the word "socialism" than to
"capitalism" – a remarkable finding on the limits of corporate media and other forms of
elite ideological power in the U.S. The immigrant worker uprising of May 2006, the Chicago
Republic Door and Window plant occupation of 2008, the University of California student
uprisings of 2009 and 2010, the Wisconsin public worker rebellion in early 2011, the Occupy
Movement of late 2011, and Fight for Fifteen (for a $15 an hour minimum wage) and Black Lives
Matter movements of 2014 and 2015 show that U.S. corporate and imperial establishment has not
manufactured anything like comprehensive and across the board mass consent and idiocy in the
U,S. today. The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control
every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events
across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. The struggle for
popular self-determination, democracy, justice, and equality lives on despite the influence of
corporate media.
"... Shortly before Hersh started covering the Pentagon for the Associated Press in 1965, Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, berated a group of war correspondents in Saigon: "Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you're stupid. Did you hear that? Stupid." ..."
Shortly before Hersh started covering the Pentagon for the Associated Press in 1965,
Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, berated a group of
war correspondents in Saigon: "Look, if you think any American official is going to tell
you the truth, then you're stupid. Did you hear that? Stupid."
Nothing changes. Something for the #resistance to think about. BTW, how do we
know that Arthur Sylvester was telling the truth? Or was he lying?
> Do you also dismiss the global pattern of Russian interference on democratic
elections by the same means and methods?
Yup! Since nobody has presented the slightest evidence of such a pattern (and even the
German intelligence agencies have said it didn't happen )
> Didn't Putin say publicly that his country acted to assist Donald Trump?
Nope!
> Are the CEO's of FACEBOOK and Google and Twitter also spouting lie about Russian
media interference in our elections's
As far as I know, they have been avoiding doing so (presumably because they know such lies
would be exposed immediately).
> When the details come out about how Russia has funneled money throu the NRA, will
you dismiss that as well?
The NRA is funded by Moscow gold! I like it that makes all its right-wing supporters in
Congress agents of Moscow, right? Please launch a campaign to have them all impeached. (I
won't hold my breath waiting, though.)
> Is Florida election systems not really under Russian military attack as I write
this?
Well, no, it is not. And why should the Russians want to, in the first place? The existing
office-holders do more harm than anything they could possibly arrange
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:56 am
his name is seth rich. the dnc gave him a memorial bike rack.
Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 3:27 pm
Do you dismiss the global pattern of CIA interference in elections all around the world
for decades, including Russia in 1996? Look at the amount and quality of this so-called
interference by Russian citizens. It is miniscule. Facebook , google, and twitter know they
have to play ball with our so-called "Intelligence Community" and Congress or else. Please
provide a source for Putin saying publicly he helped Trump. I found nothing on a browser
search.
You are drinking MSM Kool-aid by the bucketload. Try reading through the archives here for
an education.
Rob , August 14, 2018 at 4:19 pm
I believe that Putin said that he hoped for Trump to win, not that he ordered Russian
operatives to interfere in the U.S. election process. There is a big difference. If I am
wrong about this, I would love to see the evidence.
Curious , August 15, 2018 at 1:40 am
Rob, there's is a lot of confusion about what Putin really said, and most of it is wrong.
Again, the 'lost in translation' issues. Here is what was said by Putin, quoted in CGI and
elsewhere:
CGI quote: What Putin actually called Trump in Russian is "ochen' yarkiy chelovek," which
literally translates to "a very bright person." Unlike the English word "bright," the Russian
yarkiy does not connote intelligence; rather, it means someone who is colorful, flashy,
showy, an individual who makes himself stand out from the crowd.
The more colloquial translation is "a colorful character," a phrase that in the Russian
carries a note of bemusement. Putin added that Trump is also "talented (talantlivyi), without
a doubt." He then went on to say that "regarding [U.S.] internal politics and the turns of
phrase [Trump] employs to boost his popularity, I repeat that it is not our business to
assess that aspect of his performance." Taken as a whole, the statement suggests that Putin
recognizes the theatrical component of Trump's campaign, and chose not to comment on the
contentious impact that Trump and his statements have had on American politics.
Putin himself later explained this to the journalists at one of his end of the year
Q&As he has.
Trump, naturally, heard a bad translation and this appealed to his self-aggrandizement. He
gave the thumbs up thinking Putin was congratulating, and backing him. Unsurprisingly, people
still misunderstand Putins' statement.
Translation issues often occur and I remember when Jimmy Carter went to Poland for his
first trip abroad to Poland, and the translator said President Carter had a great "lust" for
the people of Poland, whereas the word "lust", as in German, means "desire, fondness and
affection" and not some sexual connotation at all in a formal context.. The funny thing is
people still believe Putin wanted Trump, believing a poor translation. Foreign languages
really should be taught in schools again.
rosemerry , August 14, 2018 at 4:21 pm
Didn't Putin say publicly that his country acted to assist Donald Trump? NO, he did not.
The questioner joined several questions together. Putin agreed that he wanted a person to win
who would try to mend relations with Russia. He said he did nothing to help the process.
You really believe the billionaire CEOs of those controlling businesses???
As for Florida- remember the 2000 election.
Paul P , August 14, 2018 at 4:35 pm
These are all quite easily addressed point by point. As the saying goes, that which can be
asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Where is this established pattern of interfering with the "same means and methods"? If the
claim is essentially, "Russia obtained evidence of corruption in an unfavorable party and
disseminated this evidence to swing a democratic foreign election against said party" please
cite an example of another election where this can be proven as something that happened. It
hasn't.
Did Putin publicly admit that Russia acted to help Donald Trump? The answer to that is no.
You are likely misinterpreting or misrepresenting an interview in which Putin stated Trump's
more conciliatory campaign rhetoric (vs Clinton's open hostility) seemed preferable. This is
as far as the "admission" went and is miles from your assertion/interpretation.
FB and Twitter's definition of Russia-linked activity is purposefully misleading. For
activity to be considered Russia-linked, only ONE (not all) of the following conditions must
apply. 1. The account is set up from Russian IP. 2. The account is confirmed using number
with a Russian phone carrier. 3. Any services purchased are paid for in Russian currency. 4.
The user has ever logged in via a Russian network, even once. 5. The user posts primarily in
Russian. 6. User has a screen name spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet.
None of these things can even guarantee that a user is even Russian national, much less
acting at the behest of the Russian government. If you used the wifi at Sheremtyevo during a
layover between Amsterdam and Beijing and used Twitter, they'd call that Russia-linked
activity.
According to Bloomberg, "Russia funneling money through the NRA" amounts to a meager $2512
donated by 23 people with Russian addresses in 2015-2018 (laughably paltry for an
organization with over $433,000,000 in annual revenue), the majority is in the form of
membership dues and less than half in the form of individual donations. This is hardly
indicative of some giant secret funding operation, especially as there is no proof the
Russian government has anything to do with this. There are an estimated 300,000 American
citizens at least temporarily residing in Russia, but it's inconceivable that among them
might be 23 NRA members/donors?
As for Florida, to date there's been no evidence presented. If there's no evidence, then
anyone believing this only does so because they want to.
keir , August 14, 2018 at 4:39 pm
I can only assume that:
"Are the CEO's of FACEBOOK Google and Twitter also spouting lie about Russian media
intereference in our elections's"
-was meant to be ironic?
If not, then what do you think these unregulated public forums and their selective censoring
are really for?
An exercise in freedom of speech?
(clearly not all speech)
They are literally designed to sway public opinion (at best) and circulate the lies that
corporate media is spouting.
Russian Meddling?
Why this so funny to the majority of the rest of the world is because historically America
not only meddles in elections, but illegally invades and overthrows democratically elected
governments and installs dictatorships (think Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Ukraine and the
Honduras)
The real irony is that in the 1996 Russian election under Clinton the US made sure it was
their man Yeltsin that got elected.
It is psychologically easy to attach to the hysteria of Russian fear mongering, because of
the history of propaganda.
"Fear Communism!"
"They are infiltrating America through worker's unions!!"
Only now they are crony capitalists just like us.
Karelian , August 14, 2018 at 5:02 pm
Bream Lynch,
No, he didn't say that. And if some media claims so, then please avoid that media in the
future, as it lies to you. He answered the first part of a two-piece question. He said that
he hoped Trump to win, not that he ordered people to assist Trump.
And there is no "global pattern" of Russian interference. You may remember how NSA said
they watched the Russians hack Macron's email? But do you remember how soon after that France
said there were no "Russian hacking" of any sort. You might also remember how the media in
Germany (and in US) told that Russia was ready to hack the German elections? Do you remember
how after the elections German intelligence agency said that they didn't find any Russian
activities at all?
P.S. Sorry about my English. This is not my native language :)
backwardsevolution , August 15, 2018 at 5:12 am
Karelian -- excellent English. Good job.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:23 pm
"Didn't Putin say publicly that his country acted to assist Donald Trump?"
No, he did not, though media pundits pretended he did for a few days and then dropped it.
Gregory Herr , August 14, 2018 at 6:32 pm
When the details come out? That's the problem -- relentless accusations for 20 months with
no evidence and little detail except absurd notions about the (non) effect of click-bait ads
on social media that have nothing to do with Russian government activity. What is equally
absurd is the idea that the Russian Federation gives a rat's petunia about who wins a contest
between Bill Nelson or Rick Scott, two all-too-similar politicians in the American mold. And
of course the Russian government has an idea of how to purge just the right voters to achieve
a preference! What nonsense!
With all the "information" and "disinformation" coming from a myriad of quarters trying to
sell one candidate over another during our protracted election seasons, people need to get a
grip about terms such as "influence" and "interference" and perhaps arrive at the perspective
that amidst all the chatter and influence-peddling lies the responsibility for individual
voters to separate wheat from chaff and come to a personal voting decision.
CNN and MSNBC backed Clinton to the hilt so in my disagreement should I cry "untoward
influence!"? well, that's touching on another subject and I'll leave it at that.
The fact Putin would want Trump as opposed to the war criminal Hillary who threatened war
with Russia and destabilize the Middle East in a proxy war is just sanity.
Why would you believe the very same people who lied us into Iraq and worse ?
Literally
willow , August 14, 2018 at 10:54 pm
Obama traveled to the UK to urge voters to vote against Brexit. The Saudi's funded 20
percent of Hillary's campaign. yada-yada-yada
Gregory Herr , August 14, 2018 at 11:25 pm
And Obama went to France to cheerlead for Macron the week of the election. But that's
exceptional -- no indispensable -- advice.
AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 1:08 am
Obama wiretapped Merkel's phone!
People should really think hard about that when tossing around these horse chit lies about
Russia hacking the DNC.
alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 11:54 am
Looking over the comments on Lawrence's post, I wonder if we're losing sight of the bigger
picture here. Exposing the truth about a presidential candidate, whoever did it (and all the
credible evidence to date points toward Seth Rich) isn't meddling, it's a public service. The
DNC leak didn't threaten democracy, it promoted it by providing crucial information to the
U.S. electorate. Those who claim that revealing the truth about a political candidate is a
crime are the ones who constitute the real threat to democracy.
Smears, hoaxes, fabrications, and psyops are standard operating procedure for U.S.
intelligence agencies. You would have to be simple to believe that these agencies would
hesitate to use these same tactics against the American public when it furthers their
political agenda. Just like you would have to be simple to believe that the officials running
these agencies don't have a political agenda.
Russia is an obstacle to U.S. global hegemony? Blow it up, after first subverting their
economy with groundless sanctions and whipping the American public into a hysterical war
frenzy. That's the grand strategy behind the Russiagate hoax, the Skripal hoax, the Douma
hoax, and whatever hoax they dream up next.
If President Trump is foolish enough to get in the way, he's expendable, and he knows it
now if he didn't before.
Skip Scott , August 15, 2018 at 8:22 am
alley cat-
I've thought the same myself. Even if it was the evil Vlad himself who snuck into the DNC,
stole the files and personally handed them to Assange, how is bringing the truth about the
collusion between team Hillary and the DNC to sabotage the Sanders' campaign an "attack" on
our democracy? Actually it would be a service to our democracy, and an "attack" on an evil
oligarchy that was trying to subvert our democracy.
This whole "evil Ruskies" thing is just ridiculous. Our democracy has been utterly
corrupted from within, and providing the truth to the voting public can never be considered
an "attack", no matter the source.
Al Pinto , August 14, 2018 at 11:49 am
Quote from the article:
"The intrusion into the Democratic National Committee mail was a local download --
wherever 'local' is."
"wherever" is a wide definition. While I certainly agree that 22.6MB/s, or ~180Mb/s, does
seem a lot like USB 3.0 write speed, one cannot neglect the possibility of over the network
transferring the same data with the same speed.
The DNC server certainly had the bandwidth available for this transfer rate, most hosting
service providers do allow ramping up the transfer rate up to 1Gb/s. Verizon and other ISPs
in the New York Metropolitan area had been providing fiber connection for businesses and home
users for years, with transfer rates of up to 1Gb/s. For home users the most popular speed
had been 200Mb/s for years.
Please keep in mind that 8 bits = 1 Byte Notice the capitalization of the letter "B"
The 200Mb/s speed has a maximum transfer rate of 25MB/s. Knowing that the network protocol
overhead uses up about 10% of the nominal speed, then the 22.6MB/s transfer rate is easily
achievable remotely. And yes, "wherever that local is".
Theoretically The Russians could have hacked a PC/server, with high speed Internet access
within the New York Metropolitan, hacked the DNC server from the "Zombie" system, download
the archived files to the "Zombie" system and download to possibly couple of other "Zombie"
systems, prior to reaching the destination in Russia. At least that's how I would have done
it
Even doing so, there should have been traces of these connections in the NSA data
warehouse in UTAH, possibly even capturing the transfered archived file. It would not
surprise me a bit, if that's the case. The fact in itself, that there has been no such
verification/capture for this connection seems to indicate that the data transfer has taken
place directly on the server, via the USB port. Unless of course the NSA does not want to
disclose network traces of the connection, since it might implicate a friendly country, maybe
the most friendly country for the US, that would also exonerate Russia.
As for the dates of the file It seems that these files had been generated just prior to
downloading the .7z archived files. The default behavior for .7z is to preserve both the
folder and file creation dates, while recording the current time for the archive folder in
itself. Of course, this can be changed, both during and/or after archiving
JoeD , August 14, 2018 at 12:40 pm
Ok you're a troll right? Verizon has most certainly not provided fiber connections for
home users in the New York Metropolitan area. They stopped their fiber roll out A LONG TIME
AGO. So no, the infrastructure does not exist.
No you don't know much about network speeds if you believe that you can have those
sustained speeds all the way through the connections. If you have ever done internet speed
tests you will know that your speed depends a lot on the different nodes you pass
through.
"You'd need a dedicated, leased, 400 -- megabit line all the way to Russia to achieve that
result," Binney said in a recent interview. "
If you can shoe me that and you have something, otherwise, you're trolling.
Al Pinto , August 14, 2018 at 3:26 pm
If anyone, you don't know much about network speeds and Verizon
For businesses, that had been mentioned, Verizon started the fiber rollout even
earlier
Show me where my numbers are incorrect?
Johnmichael2 , August 14, 2018 at 4:23 pm
trollling ? I don't think you understand internet data rates nor the capabilities of
hackers .. he's talking about remote control of a PC local to the DNC server with good access
not a direct high speed route out of the country.
Come on folks, the great US of A has been influencing electoral politics of other nations for
years by many methods. Russians are not dumb some of the best virus detection and protection
comes out of Kaspersky Labs. Look up the work of Russian and eastern country information
science experts; the Chinese, Israelis and Indian practitioners are no dummies either.
Open your eyes Russian and other hacking is real and 'turn about is fair play' . we ain't the
rulers of the world anymore in case you didn't notice.
Rob , August 14, 2018 at 4:28 pm
This comments section is a place where people are allowed to spout their own ideas and
theories, but still, I am amused by commenters who presume to have knowledge about
communications technology that is somehow unknown to the likes of William Binney and other
genuine experts in the field. I know that this may sound like ad hominem thinking on my part,
but some of the opinions regarding technology are so simplistic that they make me laugh.
willow , August 14, 2018 at 11:04 pm
It's all good because it leads to deeper understanding of subject and makes us better able
to finesse/counter/debate disinformation on forums like the Washington Post or the NYT,
where
opposing views are scant and we need to push back.
michael , August 15, 2018 at 6:59 am
If the evidence existed, it would have been released in redacted form by the NSA over a
year ago (although by now you would think they would have fabricated something).
Diane Rejman , August 14, 2018 at 10:50 am
I believe much of this whole "Russiagate" thing started as a disgusting and pathetic
attempt to give Hillary an excuse for losing, and is now out of control, with tentacles
reaching throughout our country and the world. The DNC has admitted to being cheaters. THAT
should be the bigger investigation. Our right to vote should be sacred, but the DNC took all
legitimacy away from it. If they thought their "chosen one" couldn't win the primary without
cheating and other assistance, why would they think she could win the main election? She was
a horribly bad candidate, and they won't admit this. So instead -- they came up with this
whole, "My dog ate my homework" type theory. And yes -- it is very scary to think this whole
Russiagate conspiracy theory has gotten out of hand, and is now too big to fail. What a
ridiculous reason to create trouble with Russia!
rosemerry , August 14, 2018 at 4:25 pm
I remember Obama in his "lame-duck" period expelling Russian diplomats, stealing their US
properties, starting the whole landslide of Russia-hatred when he had spent 8 years helping
to reduce the seats of the Democratic Party at all levels of government by his actions. Check
out the figures- Democrats lost because of their own faults.
The original intent, based on the rhetoric that followed right after the Russiagate
narrative was first launched, seem to have been to have the election declared invalid so they
could either do it over or have HRC declared the real winner by fiat. Apparently, at some
point wiser heads pointed out that wasn't Constitutionally viable, so the story was toned
down to its current level then repeated over and over, per Goebbels' Law, to ensure the bulk
of the public accepted it as proven fact.
AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 1:22 am
don't kid yourself.
They still have the fantasy of installing their queen.
Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman professor of law and leadership at Harvard Law School.
Postulates the fantasy that Democrats win the house in 2018.
A NY congressman/woman takes the dive and resigns so Hillary can be appointed to the seat by
NY governor.
And, she is then elected Speaker of the house putting her in #3 for the presidency.
Then Pence resigns a- la Spirow Agnew.
And, Trump is impeached and removed by the Senate.
Voila Herself is president.
These F'n people have lost all grip on reality.
The only people buying the Russia Russia Russia hysteria is the same people pushing it.
They are delusional.
Completely unhinged and delusional.
Thank you, Stephen P!
I'll tweet it, to remind people of what Assange has done.
Peter Bowen , August 14, 2018 at 10:08 am
Your excellent discussion is only lacking the role of British intelligence. See "The fish
stinks from the head down" by Barbara Boyd at LaRouchePAC.com.
anastasia , August 14, 2018 at 9:49 am
Guccifer is a manipulator and a fabricator, and time and location cannot be determined?
Yet, Guccifer leaves fingerprints of the Russians, in Cyrillic letters. If Guccifer is a
manipulator and a fabricator, deliberately leaving fingerprints of the Russians, one need
only ask, who in the world would want to pin the blame on the Russians for election
interference in the US, and for what reason would they want to do such a thing. When that
question is answered, you narrow down who is behind it all.
xeno , August 14, 2018 at 9:47 am
The American public has been living in a cloud of mis- and dis- information for decades.
This isn't new.
Since Trump came on the political scene a couple years ago and scared the big money and
big power "elite", it has become more obvious and extreme.
Christian Chuba , August 14, 2018 at 8:10 am
If the hack narrative is ever refuted, the IC community will just fallback to 'Russians
are still attacking our democracy with facebook posts', aren't we the fragile, hot house
plants. Still I would love to see the truth come out someday, whatever that may be.
The last set of accusations centers around hacking voter registration servers which is
reported as 'Russians hacking state elections'.
I've wondered if this is just another commercial enterprise where hackers are just doing
routine identity theft, not nice, but not a state enterprise.
I remember Putin wanting to have a treaty with the U.S. to clamp down on all international
hacking but that would require reciprocity and this would prevent our infiltration of their
systems. This never gets any mention in our MSM.
Chucky LeRoi , August 14, 2018 at 4:19 pm
Just a very small point Christian. The blogger at MOA is hardly anonymous. Click the
"about this blog" link on the site. I even have his home address for donations
F. G. Sanford , August 14, 2018 at 7:58 am
Observations I have shared here in the past have had little impact on the grand scheme of
things, so it is with little hope that I comment today. Arguments become complex and
tortured, esoteric even to the point of grasping at philosophical abstractions which, in the
end, bear no resemblance to the actual events.
We are asked to believe that Russian "insiders" fed information damaging to Candidate
Trump to Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, who then concocted the "dossier". This would
serve to subvert his electability, and failing that, would provide an "insurance policy" to
insure that his Presidency would be nonviable. In the same breath, we are asked to believe
that those same Russians who sabotaged Mr. Trump's credibility -- wait for it -- manipulated
the election to insure that his opponent would lose. Either strategy would result in an
outcome unfavorable to Russia. Either Pence would assume leadership after an engineered coup,
or Clinton would have won. Neither outcome benefits the Russians. YOU SIMPLY CAN'T HAVE IT
BOTH WAYS. All of this ignores what I and others observed long before the election: Hillary
Clinton was the most repugnant candidate the DNC could possibly have chosen. Gotta give it to
COL Lawrence Wilkerson, who stated frankly: "I just don't think she's electable".
Without all the ontological baggage, "Fideism" simply refers to articles of religious
faith. Religion cares not a wit for evidence. In fact, it relies on the rejection of common
logic in favor of "faith", itself the polar opposite of empirical, evidence-based
thinking.
When news outlets of the day smeared, fabricated, edited, misrepresented and outright lied
about Jim Garrison's case regarding the JFK assassination, the affronts to his integrity
became so egregious and so obvious that, under the "Fairness Doctrine", he was granted a
thirty minute rebuttal on one of the major television networks. To paraphrase, he said, "The
American public has been sold a children's fairytale. But we are not children, and as adults,
the consequences of believing such nonsense will be devastating. We will eventually lose our
democracy".
Garrison's prediction has come to pass. We now vehemently defend fairytales as reality
collapses in front of our very eyes.
Bob Van Noy , August 14, 2018 at 8:52 am
Thanks F. G. Sanford for the very appropriate referral to Jim Garrison. It was his
dedication in the face of near impossible odds that convinced me to dedicate myself to
fighting the ongoing battle for honesty and justice with respect to JFK's Assassination. When
I remember the lifelong dedication of Jim Garrison, Fletcher Prouty, and the many totally
dedicated Journalists, Researchers, and Public Servants like William Binney, I'm encouraged
that the Truth will yet win out
Somehow I think Christopher Steele is the link to all of Russiagate. He was the head of
Mi6's Russia Desk and "held the hand" of the dying Alexander Litvinenko(the 1st alleged
poison victim of Putin), he was still around for the mysterious suicide of Dr. Kelley, he was
hired by Fusion GP3, first by the GOP, then by the Dems to dig up dirt on Trump. He was then
hired by Crowdstrike to clean up the DNC server(denied to the FBI). His association with
Portman Down might well connect him with the Skripal poisonings.
jdd , August 14, 2018 at 4:36 pm
You are on target. In fact there is speculation that Skripal may have been one of the
infamous "sources" of Steele's salacious dossier. In any case, Skripal was recruited to MI6
by one Pablo Miller, during the time Steele was undercover in Moscow, and who in addition to
living near Skripal, was employed by Orbis, Steele's Private Intelligence firm.
Interestingly,according to the Telegraph, Miller's association with Orbis has since been
removed from his linkedin profile.Steele also pops up in a key role in conjunction with
State's Victoria Nuland and Jonathan Winer in the violent 2014 coup against the elected
government of Ukraine. where he began surveillance of Paul Manafort, and was later
involved,along with his boss richarad Dearlove of MI6, in the targeting of Mike Flynn, Carter
Page and George Papadopolous, the intended entrapment of the last two occurring on British
soil, and then fed into the FBI by John Brennan.
jdd if you have a link for Steele's connection with the 2014 Ukraine coup, I would
appreciate it if you would post it here thanks
rosemerry , August 14, 2018 at 4:28 pm
No wonder Reagan got rid of the "Fairness Doctrine". The US MSM could not survive it these
days.
I wonder too how many people remember the McCarthy times, which seem to have returned with
a vengeance without the commies!!
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:32 pm
Re Wilkerson "I just don't think she's electable".
This might be a good time to remind readers that HRC has never won a contested election in
her life.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:49 am
She was twice elected to the U.S. Senate with opponents on the ballot, and had to win
contested primaries both times.
It doesn't speak very well of the people of New York that she won all those races, but in
what sense were they not "contested elections", at least in the limited sense that applies to
U.S. politics generally?
GKJames , August 14, 2018 at 7:02 am
(1) Does this set an impossibly high bar? Assuming one can navigate the technological
intricacies -- the point about transfer speeds seems reasonable enough -- can't one equally
conclude that there is compelling evidence of Russia's ongoing (over years) cyber-operations
against a number of countries? Certainly, there is the counter-argument, Well, you've not
proved anything. True enough, but in terms of crafting policies, we're never dealing with a
proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt standard. And even if we agreed that DNC emails were leaked (by
Americans) rather than hacked by Russians, that wouldn't be the end of the inquiry, would
it?
(2) Reasonable people will agree that hysteria should not drive policy. But hasn't US
policy -- especially in connection with the country's relationship with the rest of the world
-- been driven by exactly that, more often than not, for eons? The Infotainment Complex
recognized long ago that there are profits to be made by luring eyeballs. The particular
flavor may vary with time (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, etc.), but the hysteria itself is
ever-present. Today's flavor happens to be Russia, a perennial best-seller that benefits a
variety of domestic constituencies, not least the Threat Industry. Whether the public is
being manipulated or simply getting what it wants is an open question. My own view is that,
by and large, very little happens without the public's (even if only tacit) support.
(3) US foreign policy has always been an extension of domestic politics. Politicians
taking sensible positions invariably would be flogged by power-seekers for being "soft" on
some contrived evil. Reality, especially the nuanced kind, has rarely played much of a role.
Nor has self-reflection. Neither Washington nor the public it ostensibly serves show a
capacity for asking, What might explain Russia's position on, for instance, Crimea, Ukraine,
and Georgia? The cavalier decision to expand NATO eastward to Russia's border as THE source
of Moscow's resentment -- shared by a large proportion of the Russian public -- simply
doesn't compute in American minds. That non-computation is bipartisan; it's simply how an
empire does things.
(4) What remains strikingly elusive is a public exploration of how/why information on
social media was found persuasive by American voters, irrespective of who planted the
information. If it hadn't been Russians, would the November 2016 outcome have been different?
Unlikely. A cursory look at the on-line world makes it obvious that ignorance is the coin of
the realm, and that Americans do just fine in that regard all on their own.
All to say that the contentiousness among the world's powers will stay with us. As will
the national myth-making. The best that can be hoped for is that there is enough
self-restraint all around to keep in check the worst of the insanity.
mike k , August 14, 2018 at 8:02 am
GK -- Your comment can be summed up as: Nothing new here, get used to it -- there's
nothing we can do about it. Really? The establishment would dearly love for all of us to
adopt your ho hum attitude.
GKJames , August 14, 2018 at 9:08 am
Am suggesting that the problem facing what's left of the republic is far greater than a
hack/leak case, "collusion", or even the Nov '16 outcome. The American mind needs re-wiring,
something that Americans had better do themselves if they don't want a changing geopolitical
landscape to do it for them. Sure, there are (always have been) people with a clue, but they
tend to be outnumbered, now more than ever as widely cheered appeals to the visceral have
taken over the ethos of government itself. Problem is, the opposition (at least at national
leadership levels) to the current administration is mired in incoherence, obsessed to
distraction with the obviously woeful personal qualities of the president, and devoid of
imagination (the realistic kind). In other words, liberal democracy as we've known it since
1945 and imperfect as it's been, is under threat. And the threat doesn't come from Russia,
but from half of a population no longer persuaded that it's the only viable way of sustaining
the grand experiment. Concerns with anything less than that strike me as a matter of nibbling
at the edges and avoiding what we really need to do: look at ourselves and stop pointing
fingers at whatever "others" we can conjure as the source of our troubles.
We have, of course, someone who can precisely and accurately answer any question in the
matter.
Unfortunately, he is more or less imprisoned at the behest of your American
government.
And should he be turned out of his current situation, he faces certain extradition to the
US where he faces ugly treatment and a long prison term.
Such are the realities of American power in the world today.
By the way, his name is Julian Assange.
And the Democratic Party's own candidate, Ms Clinton, was quoted in her charming fashion,
"Can't we just drone him or something?"
Of course, it was in line with many ugly statements by Clinton, as the one, after
Qaddafi's assassination -- a man who did his best for his people and kept them in peace --
"We came, we saw, he died! Ha ha ha!"
It isn't just Trump who has a filthy mouth and constantly tells lies.
It is the whole American power establishment.
There is no easy solution, at least not in our time.
Powerful people who are determined to do terrible things will do them.
The total stakes for America's power establishment are too big for any argument or
evidence to turn it around.
But this is just the way American politicians have learned to deal with any adverse
finding about almost anything, especially in foreign affairs.
They just ignore it.
"How far will we allow our government to escalate against others without proof of
anything?" is a reader quote cited by the author.
But I ask, first, what the "allow" is doing in there?
Just what options, what real power, do average Americans have today? My best guess is that
it is close to zero.
Yes, you're still free, at least for a little while, to write and speak words, words, and
more words. But their net effect on the giant engine that is the American power establishment
is close to zero also.
And perhaps before long -- given events like the Alex Jones creepy stunts -- you may not
even be able to utter the words.
The stupid, endless stuff about Russia and hacks is just one small battle front of a huge
multi-front war being waged by the American power establishment for world supremacy.
If you want to understand the engines driving all this, read:
The censorship extends to the alternative commentators too. KPFA, Pacifica radio, which
hosts Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, just removed a long running program, Guns & Butter
hosted by Bonnie Falkner because she recently dared to discuss verboten subjects, i.e.,
Zionism.
Gregory Herr , August 15, 2018 at 12:10 am
I was hoping she was vacationing. I'll miss her interviews with people like William
Pepper, William Engdahl, the Saker, and many others. What a disappointment.
exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 2:53 am
They'd rather stick with establishment shills, which is what Amy Goodman has evolved into
as a serial apologist for yankee war crimes in the middle east.
exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 2:51 am
Great articles; great responses; great website. You've accurately described the true
nature of the present day yankee imperium in your responses and articles.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:22 am
Thank Dog our wonderful elites in the halls of power are spending millions; if not
hundreds of millions of dollars on Russiafarce.
Instead of frittering it away on hardening the electrical grid to an EMP.
I feel so represented and cared for by our illustrious elites
David G , August 14, 2018 at 3:12 am
Ok, here's my technical question, which is not calculated to make me very popular around
here.
Suppose the following:
Somebody (the Russians, the Samoans, elves, whoever) did in fact hack the DNC computer for
these emails, and this was done at the expected, relatively slow download rate. They then may
or may not have manipulated the data or metadata in some fashion on their own machine. The
somebody then uploaded these files onto a USB flash drive, and then re-downloaded them onto
another computer at the high transfer rate noted by the VIPS. From this second computer they
were sent on to Wikileaks (or some intermediary).
Does the VIPS analysis preclude this scenario? If not, is it possible that they are
correct about the download rate, but still have not excluded the possibility that the initial
taking of the emails from the DNC was done by hack?
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 3:54 am
The disseminator (wikileaks/Julian Assange) of those LEAKED emails has already answered
the question.
He has unequivocally stated that the emails were leaked; Not hacked.
NOTHING Wikileaks has released or claimed has ever been found to be false.
Kim Dotcom also claims to have intimate knowledge of the leak.
Both have offered to give testimony in this entire farce investigation
Yet, the grand inquisitor, Mueller the 9/11 and Anthrax, coverup artist refuses to interview
them.
That alone should tell you what is really going on.
David G , August 14, 2018 at 4:07 am
So you're saying there's nothing in the VIPS analysis that refutes the scenario I
outlined? Just those unrelated statements, upon which VIPS did not rely?
I'd be surprised if that's the case, but I'm waiting to hear from someone with useful
knowledge on the subject. That doesn't seem to be you.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 1:40 pm
That "someone" with the most knowledge on the subject has already spoken. His name is
Julian Assange and he flat out said it came from a leak not a hack.
Who else do you think is more qualified to make a statement on the hack than Julian
himself?
gratification , August 14, 2018 at 4:56 am
So what you're saying is that these cunning Russians faked the metadata on the DNC
download (or whatever it was) so as to obfuscate the fact that it was them but left other
"Russian fingerprints" -- such as cyrillic text -- that pointed to them? Baldrickian cunning!
It's beyond my simple mind.
What I'm *asking* is how the VIPS analysis can tell that the download (or upload,
whatever) speed that they are relying on was from the *beginning* of the data's journey to
Wikileaks (i.e. the initial transfer from the DNC server), which is what is required to prove
their thesis, rather than from some subsequent step along the way?
I'm not crediting myself with any genius in bringing up this point. It seems like a fairly
obvious challenge to make to the VIPS analysis, and I'm sure it's been made elsewhere.
I imagine the VIPS have dealt with this question long ago somewhere or other, but I've
never run across it and am hoping someone here has the technical chops to enlighten me.
In the mean time, how about everybody else stop trying to mischaracterize my question or
throw irrelevant (to this specific issue) facts at me?
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 7:28 am
I am also no technocrat.
My understanding is that any hack or leak leaves "fingerprints" in the files.
Both the original and the target files.
Thus, in the case of the scenario you propose -- earlier hacks that were amalgamated and
transformed into one large leak (I think this is your scenario) -- there would be
fingerprints of the earlier hacks.
AFAIK no allegations or evidence have been put forth concerning earlier suspicious hacks
that could have been transformed into one large, fast leak.
We need to look at the very strong possibility that the real purpose of Mueller's
investigation is to hide something, not reveal something. That is the strong record of his
CV.
Can someone tell me whether a person who has posted regularly in the past and who wants to
post here must enter name and email address afresh with each and every post?
Or is it just me?
David G , August 14, 2018 at 7:44 am
Well, what you say may well be true, Litchfield, but it still seems to me to be external
to the VIPS point about internet download-speed limitations, upon which -- based on Patrick
Lawrence's article -- they seem to be hanging a great deal, especially since they now
acknowledge that "[t]he conclusions initially drawn on time and location in VIPS50 are now
subject to these recent discoveries" (i.e. have been brought into question).
So I think my question stands.
I too now have to re-enter name and email with each post, and I also was wondering whether
it was just me. Guess not. Maybe an anti-spam thing?
Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 11:39 am
Litchfield-
The re-entry of your personal data started a couple weeks ago. I believe it is a safety
precaution so that your personal email address is no longer stored by CN. I could be
wrong.
Tom Welsh , August 14, 2018 at 8:41 am
As I understand your question, you are asking whether some information may not have been
tracelessly stolen from the DNC server quite separately from the transfer to an external
device described by VIPS.
My first reaction to this is that, obviously, any information could be copied from any
computer at any time by any person -- but if the operation left no traces, nobody could know
that it ever took place.
The only data that investigators have to go on are the files provided by Wikileaks and the
logs and other records of the DNC server itself. As far as I know, those point only to one
download -- that described by VIPS and this article.
Incidentally, you have reversed the usual meanings of "upload" and "download".
Conventionally, one downloads data from a repository or database, and uploads to it.
The files used were in fact not those provided by Wikileaks. The article linked to above
states that,
'The Forensicator specifically discusses the data that was eventually published by
Guccifer 2.0 under the title "NGP-VAN." This should not be confused with the separate
publication of the DNC emails by Wikileaks'.
The file copy times were derived from a compressed archive containing all the files of
interest. You can see a partial picture of the archive listing in the linked article.
David G , August 14, 2018 at 9:43 am
I appreciate your comments, Tom Welsh, but I feel I am just foundering deeper in
confusion.
To be clear, I wasn't "asking whether some information may not have been tracelessly
stolen from the DNC server quite separately from the transfer to an external device described
by VIPS." At least, I didn't mean to ask that.
I want to know specifically why the VIPS are sure that the speedy download/upload rate
they build their case on happened exactly when the data left the DNC server, and not at some
later point in their history. The VIPS argument depends on the former being the case.
The article you link to in fact *does* speak to this point, which is great, but as you say
it specificies that it is *not* about the DNC files that ended up at Wikileaks.
But this Patrick Lawrence article has William Binney "examin[ing] all the metadata
associated with the files [Guccifer] 2.0 has made public" without making any distinction
between that and the DNC/ Wikileaks files.
I guess I really don't have a handle on the essential details here.
While I like reading Patrick Lawrence's reflections on statecraft, I think he may have
been out of his depth here. There's nothing here that clarifies these questions, and that's
without even mentioning the passages that are confusing on their own, such as the paragraph
about how "G-2.0" somehow "merged" two sets of data into two sets of data.
I realized my use of "download" (vs. "upload") was off after my initial comment, and have
tried to avoid it in the later ones, but Binney himself is quoted using it in the "reversed"
sense in the article, and I took my lead from that.
Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 11:37 am
David G-
Here is a good video of Bill Binney explaining the merged data sets.
As to your other question, it is my understanding that ALL transfer of files leaves
metadata, and Bill Binney and the Forensicator have backtracked the metadata to the original
download that was of a speed only possible (at that time and place) locally via a storage
device.
David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:29 pm
Thanks, Skip Scott. That's helpful.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:23 pm
I thought that there were two incidents concerning hacks/leaks, which some people are
conflating.
1. *Leak* of files from DNC computers. This info ended up being given to Wikileaks by a
person w ho is known to both Craig Murray and Julian Assange
.
2. *Hack* of Hillary's private email server, including emails that should not have been on a
private server. And that there is some speculation that the Chinese hacked into Hillary's
private server.
Am I wrong about that?
AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 4:23 am
"*Hack* of Hillary's private email server, including emails that should not have been on a
private server. And that there is some speculation that the Chinese hacked into Hillary's
private server.
Am I wrong about that?"
Not wrong.
Any intelligence agency and every intelligence agency, including 3rd world rate, were in and
out of Hillary's paper MCSE server set up.
FFS Brian Pagliano was busted asking for help on how to delete files on Reddit.
Aaron Schwartz got the last laugh!
And, we all got a few more years of an unradiated planet.
Well, so long as you pretend like the MSM does that Fukushima is a mass fertilaztion
event.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 9:04 am
Litchfield --
It's reasonable to assume that Clinton's home server was compromised by any number of
intelligence agencies, but that's not connected to any of the emails that have been publicly
released -- because they're spies and Wikileaks is journalism, no matter how much U.S. pols
and their stooges want to pretend otherwise.
Part of the Russia-gate snow job is to confuse this matter, though -- for instance by
pretending references by Trump on the campaign trail to "Hilary's emails" were actually about
the DNC and Podesta leaks.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:12 pm
" other records of the DNC server itself"
I thought that no one had been able to get their hands on the DNC servers -- the DNC had
not turned them over to law enforcement or the FBI -- to do forensics on them.
Am I wrong about that?
backwardsevolution , August 15, 2018 at 2:22 am
Litchfield -- no, you've got it right, the DNC servers have not been forensically examined
by the FBI. They were given to Crowdstrike to examine, if you can believe it.
Desert Dave , August 14, 2018 at 11:48 am
One thing has been bugging me about Binney's argument. Yes, it is nearly impossible for
someone in Russia to transfer the files that quickly. But who's to say the "hacker" was not
much closer to the DNC server, somewhere near DC?
They then transported the files via thumb drive or (more likely) portable disk drive to
Wikileaks.
Mind you, I desperately want Binney to be right, and for the whole charade to fall apart,
but this seems to be a weakness in his forensic argument.
David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:57 pm
My understanding has been that the VIPS are saying any internet upload at the recorded
rate would have been impossible under the applicable conditions, even a local one. Despite
the Binney quote in this piece referring to a "dedicated, leased, 400 -- megabit line all the
way to Russia", I hadn't thought that's really their argument. Am I wrong?
In any case, without any expertise myself, I'm inclined to trust them on that, at least
provisionally, but it's true that at this point the VIPS seem to be resting their entire
thesis on that one point -- there's not a lot of redundancy (in the good sense) there.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:15 pm
"Despite the Binney quote in this piece referring to a "dedicated, leased, 400 -- megabit
line all the way to Russia", I hadn't thought that's really their argument. Am I wrong?"
I think you are right. That is my understanding. That any upload/download over the
Internet would be much slower than a transfer to a flash drive.
I thought the mention of the 400-megabit line to Russia was a bit of hyperbole designed to
show how ridiculous the upload over internet scenario is.
Curious , August 16, 2018 at 1:11 am
Litchfield,
Although you are not a 'techie' the bottom line is not proximity. One can be in the same room
and not duplicate the speed of transfer. The internet is set up with limitations inherent in
the technology available.
As a personal reference, doing the Olympics in Italy, we had our own 'home run fiber' with
our fiber run to NY with copper as a backup. I do not have William Binneys' skills and tech
savvy, but I do know as a different techie we could not create anywhere close to the speed
this argument entails. And when on our 'home run' fiber from the US to Italy we had speed
issues, not because of the fiber links, but the interfaces that terminate the ends of the
fiber. This is important even for a non techie. If one doesn't have the latest and greatest
fiber interface, or (god help us) copper pairs, the speed is dependent on the termination of
the lines.
This hacking thing is as bogus as the world has seen, mainly because a lot of people don'y
Know the difference between a hack and a leak, and would have to put down too many beers to
learn.
Given what I know, I would trust Mr Binney to tell us what is possible, and again, it is not
proximity, nor super copper pairs, fiber, not sat feeds. He, above others probably built what
we now use randomly and he knows what is possible. This is just a suggestion to trust a man
with his experience which is uncommon to those who have not built systems in their lives, and
can only question without tech info.
Desert Dave , August 14, 2018 at 6:13 pm
Actually I think they underestimate some because to transmit a byte serially takes 10 bits
total because there is overhead (start and stop bits). So 49.1 MBps is about 491 Mbps.
Was a 491 Mbps network connected to the DNC computer? Probably not (that's very fast) but
it could be easily verified if the FBI or anybody else cared about the truth.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 1:53 pm
What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that "manipulating" the "data" or "metadata"
would leave fingerprints of the manipulation as well.
As was demonstrated by the VIPS being able to discern that the Guccifer 2.0 data was actually
2 seperate batches of data "manipulated" into one set.
I left any snark I have for you in my head and not on the keyboard.
I ask that you do the same in the future so we can have an adult conversation on the subject
and not an emotionally filled rant.
nonsense like "I'd be surprised if that's the case, but I'm waiting to hear from someone
with useful knowledge on the subject. That doesn't seem to be you." is petty and
childish.
David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:40 pm
You should also consider leaving in your head aspersions such as telling people who are
honestly seeking information that they are not "able to grasp" things.
Compare your aggressive approach to helpful attempts at addressing my question from
Litchfield, Tom Welsh, and Skip Scott (so far).
You seem like a wants-the-last-word kind of person. Looking forward to reading it.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:21 pm
I was quite polite to you in my first response.
You drew first blood.
Your question has been answered.
Any attempt to adjust the metadata would be traceable as was demonstrated by the 2 data sets
being discovered as merged into 1 data set.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:25 pm
Why not be perfectly polite in all responses?
What is this "first blood" nonsense?
Grow up!!!
AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 1:45 am
@Litchfield
"Why not be perfectly polite in all responses?"
Perhaps you could ask your buddy that same question.
"Grow up!!!"
Introspection
Learn it!
Live it!
backwardsevolution , August 15, 2018 at 3:12 am
Litchfield -- there are many people who come on sites like this, pretending to be novices,
when their real objective is to place doubt in everybody's minds. That is their plan, to
create confusion, obfuscate. Of course these people have the right to question what VIPS has
discovered, but notice what they never ask for:
1) where are the DNC servers?
2) why haven't the DNC servers been handed over to the FBI?
3) why did the FBI accept Crowdstrike's analysis of the DNC servers?
4) why don't we allow VIPS access to these servers, along with the FBI, so that a complete
analysis can be done?
5) why don't we allow VIPS access to NSA data in order to follow the evidence from
beginning to end?
VIPS are doing the best job they can with what they have, but they are left with trying to
piece a puzzle together. Let's get our hands on the real data.
We can't know whether David G is sincere in his questions or whether he's just trying to
discredit VIPS (yes, that is the real objective of some people). I have my own opinion, but
I'll keep that to myself.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 9:18 am
backwardsevolution --
I don't think you did a particularly good job about keeping your opinion about me to
yourself here.
I didn't ask the questions you list because I was asking about something germane to this
specific article which I wanted to learn more about.
If you equate that with a "plan, to create confusion, obfuscate", then how are you
different from our members of Congress who are delegitimizing everybody who questions their
preferred narrative?
I couldn't agree more. Lockeed Martin and the numerous Political sellouts as well as the
War merchants, including corporate media, need another Russian cold war to justify getting
enormous government contracts that keep them glutinously feeding from the troth. This fake
Russian narrative seems to tie the President's hands until the mid-terms
where they hope to flip the house and stop the investigation by the House Intel committee and
politically damage him with impeachment and then to oust him in the 2020 election while
setting the narrative to justify Cold War 2.0
alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 1:27 am
U.S. neoconservatism is just the latest permutation of imperialism that has plagued us
since the dawn of human history. Thucydides documented the blind greed and pig-headedness
that destroyed Greek civilization almost two and a half millennia ago in his History of
the Peloponnesian War :
"What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this
caused in Sparta."
And from Pericles' speech to the Athenians:
"And do not imagine that what we are fighting for is simply the question of freedom
or slavery: there is also involved the loss of our empire and the dangers arising from the
hatred which we have incurred in administering it. Nor is it any longer possible for you to
give up this empire, though there may be some people who in a mood of sudden panic and in a
spirit of political apathy actually think that this would be a fine and noble thing to do.
Your empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly
dangerous to let it go."
Add half a cup of Goebbels and Bernays sauce and a heaping tablespoon of hysteria to
Pericles' recipe for Armageddon, and voila ! you have a deadly dish of yellow
journalism like the one served up by the Washington Post editorial of Feb. 6,
2003:
"Irrefutable
After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations
Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq
possesses weapons of mass destruction. . . .
. . . .Diplomats from these nations [e.g., France and Germany] do not dispute Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that "any country on the face of the Earth with an
active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
. . . .None say Iraq has complied [with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441]. Until
now, however, they have cynically argued that the inspectors must uncover evidence proving
what they already know, or that it's too early to judge Saddam Hussein's cooperation. Mr.
Powell's presentation stripped all credibility from that dodge."
All a perfect iteration of the law of the lynch mob: We don't need no stinkin' evidence,
everyone knows they're guilty!
(I keep learning a whole lot from the many knowledgeable people who comment here. Please,
nobody stop!)
Ray
alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 4:59 pm
Many thanks to you Ray for all you are doing and have done.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:26 pm
Dear Ray,
So many thanks for all you do. And for always showing a pleasant demeanor.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 9:33 am
"Bernays sauce" is good.
I watched Powell's U.N. presentation live. Even on its face -- before the specific
falsehoods had been exposed -- it was so obviously feeble, yet the media unanimously praised
it as irresistibly convincing. This left a lasting impression on me, and it came to mind a
few weeks ago during the stupefying media meltdown following the Trump-Putin Helsinki
summit.
"... The Russians were not pleased by U.S.-NATO involvements in the former Yugoslavia, a traditional Russian ally, in 1995 and 1999, and the expansion of NATO in the latter year (to include Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) in violation of the agreement between Ronald Reagan and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 that in return for Russia's acceptance of German reunification NATO would not spread "one inch" towards Russia. They protested meekly. But Russia was not an adversary then. ..."
"... Nor was it an adversary when, in 2001, under its new president Vladimir Putin, it offered NATO a route through Russia to provision forces in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. The real change only came in 2004, when NATO suddenly expanded to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This brought alliances forces right to the Russian border. ..."
"... We are your adversary. ..."
"... Russia is an adversary. ..."
"... Russia is an adversary. ..."
"... He worked with our adversary to undermine our election. ..."
The question is finally being asked, by the
president himself: what's wrong with collusion? Or at least his lawyer asks the question, while
Trumps tweets:
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn't matter because there was No Collusion.
The problem, of course, is that of collusion with an alleged adversary. Russia, we
are constantly informed, is one such adversary, indeed the main state adversary, with Putin is
its head.
Adversary is a very strong term. The Hebrew word for adversary is Satan. Satan is
the ultimate symbol of evil in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Satan tempted Eve at the Tree of
the Knowledge of Good and Evil, causing her to eat the fruit, and so evil entered the
world.
Just like some want you to think that evil entered the (good, pristine) U.S. electoral
process due to this Russian adversary in 2016.
(Sometimes listening to TV pundits vilifying Putin I find Luther's famous hymn floating
through my head:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe.
His craft and power are great, and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal.
Luther's referring to Satan, of course. But the current mythology around Putin -- as someone
who still , like Lenin and Stalin before him, and the tsars of old, wishes us
harm; is an unbridled dictator with a powerful great nuclear arsenal; is the wealthiest man on
earth; and hates democracy -- resembles the mythology around the Adversary in the Bible.)
But let us problematize this vilification. When did Russia become a U.S. adversary?
Some might say 1917 when in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution Moscow became the center of
the global communist movement. But surely that period ended in 1991 with the dissolution of the
Warsaw Pact and the USSR.
Throughout the 1990s the U.S. cultivated Boris Yeltsin's Russia as a friend and even aided
the drunken buffoon in winning the 1996 election. Bill Clinton and Yeltsin signed the Start II
treaty. Harvard professors advised Moscow on economic reform.
The Russians were not pleased by U.S.-NATO involvements in the former Yugoslavia, a
traditional Russian ally, in 1995 and 1999, and the expansion of NATO in the latter year (to
include Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) in violation of the agreement between Ronald Reagan
and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 that in return for Russia's acceptance of
German reunification NATO would not spread "one inch" towards Russia. They protested meekly.
But Russia was not an adversary then.
Nor was it an adversary when, in 2001, under its new president Vladimir Putin, it offered
NATO a route through Russia to provision forces in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. The real
change only came in 2004, when NATO suddenly expanded to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This brought alliances forces right to the Russian
border.
It was a clear statement by the U.S. to a friendly country: We are your adversary.
But, of course, the Pentagon and State Department always pooh-poohed Russian concerns, denying
that NATO targeted any particular country.
Four years later (2008) NATO announced intentions to draw Ukraine and Georgia into the
alliance. Meanwhile the U.S. recognized Kosovo as an independent state. Kosovo, the historical
heart of Serbian civilization, had been wrenched from Serbia in 1999 under the pretext of a
"humanitarian" intervention that included the first bombing (by NATO) of a European capital
city since 1945. The province had been converted into a vast NATO base.
Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili, emboldened by the prospect of NATO membership and
western backing, attacked the capital of the separatist republic of South Ossetia, provoking
(as the Russians explain it) a proper punitive response: the Russo-Georgian War of August 7-16
. After this Moscow recognized South Ossetia and a second breakaway republic, Abkhazia, in a
tit-for-tat response to Washington's recognition of Kosovo.
Now Russia was labelled an aggressive power -- by the power that had carved up Yugoslavia,
and invaded and occupied Iraq on the basis of lies and killed half a million in the process.
Plans to include Georgia in NATO had to be put on hold, in large part due to European allies'
opposition (why provoke Russia?) but the U.S. intensified efforts to draw in Ukraine. That
meant toppling the anti-NATO elected president Viktor Yanukovych.
The U.S. State Department devoted enormous resources to the Maidan coup in Kiev on February
23, 2014. Its agents helped topple the government, ostensibly for its failure to negotiate an
agreement for Ukrainian associate membership in the EU, but really to bring pro-NATO forces to
power and expel the Russian Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula where it has been based since
1783. Moscow's limited support for the Donbass ethnic-Russian separatists and re-annexation of
Crimea were, of course, depicted by the U.S. as more aggression, more mischievous opposition to
"U.S. global interests."
But from Moscow's point of view these moves have surely been defensive. The main problem is
(obviously) NATO and its dangerous, unnecessary and provocative expansion. Throughout his
presidential campaign Trump questioned the continued "relevance" of NATO. Characteristically he
focused on budget issues and allies' failure to meet the goal figure of 2% if GDP for military
expenses (misleadingly depicting investment shortfalls as a betrayal and rip-off of the
victimized U.S.). But he did -- to the alarm of many, and probably to Moscow's delight --
express little enthusiasm for the alliance's historical purpose.
The most rational proposition Trump voiced before his election that the U.S. should "get
along" with Russia. That is, get along with the so-called adversary. Trump as we all know had
been in Russia on business, hosting the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, and maintains
interest in building a Trump Tower in the city. He has met and befriended Russian oligarchs. He
quite possibly sees Russia as just another country, like Germany or France.
If "the French" had had dirt on Hillary, would it have been okay to "collude" with them to
influence the election result? France is, of course, a NATO ally. Would that make it different?
Now that the president and his layers are openly questioning whether "collusion", per
se, is even illegal, the specific nature of the colluder becomes more relevant.
Russia is an adversary.
Russia is an adversary.
Putin in Helsinki acknowledged to a reporter that he had hoped Trump could win, because he
had expressed hope for better relations. He might have added that he dreaded the prospect of a
Hillary victory because of her warmongering and characterization of him as a Hitler. Naturally
the Russian media favored Trump over Clinton at a certain point when he emerged as a credible
candidate. So when Trump on July 27, 2016 called on Russia to release Hillary's missing emails
("if you've got 'em") the Russians probably felt invited to make contact through channels. And
when informed that they had dirt, Don Jr. wrote: "If that's what you say, I love it." (Who can
blame him?)
Let's say there was some collusion after the June 6 Trump Tower meeting. Trump has suddenly
acknowledged that the meeting with the Russians was indeed to "seek political dirt." He adds
that this is "totally legal," and this may be true. Some are now saying that Don Jr. may have
violated a federal statute (52 USC 30121, 36 USC 5210) forbidding any foreign person to "make a
contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise
to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local
election.' and for anyone to knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any
contribution or donation prohibited by [this law]." But the language is vague. If a Canadian
speechwriter works gratis for a U.S. political candidate, in order to help him or her win, is
this not "a thing of value" intended to affect an election?
If Paul Manafort, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner had met with Canadian agents in Trump Tower I
doubt there would have been any controversy. The fact is, Trump won the election and many of
those stunned by that wish to undermine him using revived Cold War-type Russophobia. They
insist: He worked with our adversary to undermine our election. And now they hope
they've got him on this charge.
*****
Five years ago a young man named Edward Snowden (now living in forced exile in Russia)
revealed to the world the extent of the U.S.'s global surveillance. He showed us how the NSA
wiretaps EU meetings, popes' conversations, Angela Merkel's cell phone and maintains metadata
on virtually all U.S. residents. He showed us what the contemporary advanced state can do in
this respect. We should suppose that Moscow has, if not similar capacity, at least enough
expertise to hack into the DNC emails or John Podesta's g-mail account. Is that surprising?
What none of the TV anchors is allowed to say needs to be said again: The U.S. interferes in
foreign elections all the time, including Russian ones. It should surprise no one if Russian
intelligence responds in kind. The point is not the provenance of the leaked emails but their
content.
Those horrified by the leaked material complain that their release was designed to
"undermine faith in our democratic system." Really? Don't the workings of the system itself
undermine one's faith in it, once they are exposed? Was it adversarial of the leaker to inform
us that the DNC had no intention of allowing Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination,
and thus that the process was rigged? Was it unfriendly to reveal that Podesta was hoping the
media would hype Trump, as an easy target for his candidate?
The question that will no doubt be debated in the coming days is whether seeking dirt on a
political opponent from any foreigner is indeed illegal, or whether there are specific legal
ramifications of meeting with someone from an "adversary" country. But it seems to me that
Russia has not been defined as such officially. So we may have a discussion less about legality
than the politics of Russophobia.
I am happy to see Trump besieged, rattled, possibly facing impeachment. But to bring him
down on the basis of "Russian collusion," on the assumption that Russia is an adversary, would
only advantage the warmongers who want no-fly zones over Syria and military support for the
Kiev regime against the Donbas separatists. Vice President Pence I believe favors both.
Trump has said that he cannot host Putin in Washington this year, or until the Russian Hoax
witch hunt is over. But Putin has invited him to Moscow. One senses he wants some agreements
with Trump before he is ousted by his gathering adversaries, including the press, courts,
Democrats, select Republicans, turncoat aides and he himself sometimes in his unguarded
tweets.
Gary Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University, and author of
numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: [email protected] . Read other articles by Gary .
Lavrov suggests that Skripals were intentionally poisoned by BZ which temporary disable a person (for approx 4 days) and
Novichok was injected in samples to implicate Russia. He impliedly suggests that this was a false flag operation.
Notable quotes:
"... First, US sanctions against Russia, then the Skripals mystery, and last the Attack at Syria....What the masters of the world trying do??? ..."
"... I'm an American. I'm disgusted with the mafia cartel bankrupt corporation that masquerades as the government. I don't like or trust any government but after listening to this guy, he certainly comes across as way more trustworthy than anyone puppet we have in the Trump regime. ..."
I'm an American. I'm disgusted with the mafia cartel bankrupt corporation that masquerades
as the government. I don't like or trust any government but after listening to this guy, he
certainly comes across as way more trustworthy than anyone puppet we have in the Trump
regime.#IDONOTCONSENT
Sometimes he continues talking without look at paper..... bcs he say true.... and USA,
BRITAIN and France cant do that bcs they are lying and scared if they will say something
wrong.
"... I would say the first turning point was the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky and the restoration of Russian sovereignty in the energy sphere. Subsequent major inflection points have been: the 2008 war with Georgia, the 2014 events in Ukraine, and the post-2016- election manufactured anti-Russia hysteria/neo-McCarthyism. ..."
"... Kees van der Pijl fills in the details here (ignore the title of the piece): https://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/ ..."
"... the "Putin is a *thug*" meme has been successfully promulgated as shorthand that acts as a justification for anything done or said against both Putin and Russia. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the thugs are those in our Congress and executive branch and such as Mueller, who are pushing the country beyond its tolerance levels or, shall we say, ability to right itself after a knockdown (maritime metaphor is intended). ..."
"... I think the rollout of the new cold war actually began when Putin stopped the looting of his country that was occurring under Yeltsin. The evil empire only accepts vassals, not partners. Maximum capital must accrue to the one percent, and be free to flee the country to the tax haven of choice. Any world leader who tries to build an economy for the benefit of its nation's citizens becomes a target. ..."
"... I figure it was the Magnitsky ruse that got the ball rolling. It predates Ukraine and was grounds for the first round of sanctions. ..."
I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin and the
Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014, as was well covered here at
Consortium News. The policy – isolate Russia as a pariah nation – was set before
the Maidan events reached their resolution. Victoria Nuland's "f -- - the EU" rant was in
response to efforts to mediate the situation and possibly spoil or derail the plans. IMHO,
the Russian response to the violent coup was fully expected by the Americans to have been a
tanks-in-the streets-Czechoslovakia-1968 scenario, and yet all they got was a Crimean
referendum and a frozen stalemate in eastern Ukraine. Still, policy being policy, NATO
reacted as if there had been a full invasion regardless.
Anecdotally, conversations I've had with intelligent, progressive, good-hearted persons
suggests the election of Trump has in effect destabilized their critical thinking abilities.
This has opened up the space in which the worst aspects of Cold War 2.0 have flourished. In
their minds, the urgent need to remove Trump by any means, fair or foul, fully overwhelms any
other priorities, including objective consideration of the current moment.
Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 10:14 pm
I think you are right about Ukraine. I also recall that everything went downhill after
Putin negotiated for Assad to give up all Syria's chemical weapons. Which gave cause to
believe Putin was being punished for interfering in the Coalitions schemes. I think Robert
Parry sighted that as well.
No matter jaycee I too believe that Ukraine was where the U.S. fired the first bullet.
This New World Order the U.S. represents doesn't negotiate, no instead it's either our way or
no way, is the mantra of the tribe. Joe
Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 11:08 pm
I wrote a response jaycee that went to the wind . What I was saying was Putin got punished
with the uprising in Ukraine after he pulled Assad out of the chemical weapons debate.
Joe
Suggestion the Consortium needs to get this comment boards algorithm problem figured
out.
Sibiriak , August 14, 2018 at 2:55 am
Jaycee:
"I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin
and the Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014 " -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
I would say the first turning point was the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky and the
restoration of Russian sovereignty in the energy sphere. Subsequent major inflection points
have been: the 2008 war with Georgia, the 2014 events in Ukraine, and the post-2016- election
manufactured anti-Russia hysteria/neo-McCarthyism.
"I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin and the
Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014,"
As in statistics perceived trajectories are functions of framing including evaluation
horizons.
From inception, and through declarations such as the Monroe doctrine, some in the
misrepresentation "United States of America" have perceived others as simultaneously
existential threats and existential opportunities.
These existential threats and opportunities have been facilitated and acted upon as
functions of perceived needs and opportunities.
The targets and modes of activation of these perceived needs and opportunities have varied
according to perceived needs and opportunities, sometimes using the tactics of "hot wars" and
sometimes using the tactics of "cold wars".
Some in the misrepresentation "United States of America" have correctly perceived others
as existential threats and opportunities to/for them given their socio-economic system and
its perceived requirements – the functions of the "other" being multi-various –
the definition of the "others" include but are not necessarily restricted to those of
difference within and without the "United States of America".
Some in the Soviet Union in the early 1970's attempted to conflate "strategy" with
"tactics" and decided to forget notions of existential threat and perceive only existential
opportunity through conflation, thereby facilitating detente on the basis of spheres of
influence.
War is not restricted to things that go bang but restricted to forms of coercion.
The misrepresentation "cold war", which was never cold but sometimes engaged through
proxies, was/is a context specific tactic.
Some are of the view that the ends justify the means instead of understanding that means
condition ends, and consequently some facilitate and rely upon increasing the conflation of
strategy with tactics increasing the sum, motivations, and resolve of the "others", thereby
conditioning strategy through accelerating, continuing and expanding existential threats.
Those who engage in such self-delusion were not/are not restricted to the
misrepresentation "United States of America" but as Thucydides and others were aware, have
been/are generally restricted to those who perceive others as existential opportunities and
threats.
Some others correctly assess the misrepresentation "United States of America" to be more a
land of opportunity than an existential threat.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 7:48 am
I agree with your comment.
A good precis.
And the "Putin is a *thug*" meme has been successfully promulgated as shorthand that acts as
a justification for anything done or said against both Putin and Russia.
Meanwhile, the thugs are those in our Congress and executive branch and such as Mueller, who
are pushing the country beyond its tolerance levels or, shall we say, ability to right itself
after a knockdown (maritime metaphor is intended).
Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 11:47 am
jaycee-
I think the rollout of the new cold war actually began when Putin stopped the looting of
his country that was occurring under Yeltsin. The evil empire only accepts vassals, not
partners. Maximum capital must accrue to the one percent, and be free to flee the country to
the tax haven of choice. Any world leader who tries to build an economy for the benefit of
its nation's citizens becomes a target.
Aime Duclos , August 14, 2018 at 1:50 pm
Yes, Skip, when the West's pillaging and looting of Putin's country was stopped, the one
percent was not amused. Add to that NATO's constant march up to Russia's borders, the threat
to and actual placement of "defensive" missles on Russia's border.
The last straw was the US orchestrated coup in it's next NATO prize for acquisition Ukraine.
Putin reacted as any leader would, and with restraint I might add.
Yet somehow all this proves Putin is a thug?
It's been a calculated drive to this new Cold War. The MIC is having it's way.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 6:12 pm
I figure it was the Magnitsky ruse that got the ball rolling. It predates Ukraine and was
grounds for the first round of sanctions.
"... They're kind of like a five year old child who desperately wants to keep believing in Santa Claus, even though he just found dad's Santa costume in the closet and he's holding it in his own hands. ..."
"... Sorry, but two years into this we should be way beyond this kind of – "I can't believe Santa's not real"- denying, dissembling, rationalizing nonsense. Then again, this is America. ..."
"... America is after all a country in which half the population believe in the creation myth. ..."
"... "Two years after the Iraq War began, 70 per cent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, according to a Washington Post survey." The Big Lie works, and since Obama gutted Smith-Mundt, the CIA/ State Department can legally keep Americans tracking on their propaganda narratives. ..."
"... I agree with Lawrences point that this is an issue of social psychology. Rational argument over the facts is simply over taken by some kind of mass hysteria. There certainly precedent for this kind of behavior. Indeed this was described in 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' 180 years ago. In my lifetime I have witnessed two episodes of this kind of mass hysteria. The first was the red scare of the early 1950's (I not so much witnessed that as experienced it) and the second was the day care hysteria of satanic cults abusing our children that flared between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Now this is a third manifestation of mass hysteria. ..."
It is quite interesting how many uninformed posters and/or trolls would love to find a way to show the "Russiagate" nonsense
is somehow plausible in spite of the evidence. They're kind of like a five year old child who desperately wants to keep believing
in Santa Claus, even though he just found dad's Santa costume in the closet and he's holding it in his own hands.
I will say that the amount of mental gymnastics required to continue not believing evidence that is right in front of one's
eyes is quite impressive – but I'd never underestimate the American people's creativity when they want to maintain their illusions/delusions.
And I'd certainly never underestimate the Russiagate troll army's persistence.
At this rate I expect to soon encounter some version of the following "observation" in the comments section for this article:
– "maybe space aliens hired by the Russians downloaded the files to a to a new fangled thig-a-ma-jig and then shape-shifted so
Craig Murray would be fooled into thinking a real-like-human insider provided him the files on a flash drive." – "oh, oh, wait,
maybe the aliens abducted Murray too, and then just made him "think" a fellow human gave him the drive in person." "yeah, yeah,
and maybe Assange just says he didn't get the files from the Russians because "he's a space alien too." "Yeah, prove to me that
it didn't happen this way – you can't – ha! there! I win!"
Sorry, but two years into this we should be way beyond this kind of – "I can't believe Santa's not real"- denying, dissembling,
rationalizing nonsense. Then again, this is America.
"Two years after the Iraq War began, 70 per cent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in
the 9/11 attacks, according to a Washington Post survey." The Big Lie works, and since Obama gutted Smith-Mundt, the CIA/ State
Department can legally keep Americans tracking on their propaganda narratives.
ToivoS , August 14, 2018 at 4:26 pm
I agree with Lawrences point that this is an issue of social psychology. Rational argument over the facts is simply over
taken by some kind of mass hysteria. There certainly precedent for this kind of behavior. Indeed this was described in 'Extraordinary
Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' 180 years ago. In my lifetime I have witnessed two episodes of this kind of mass
hysteria. The first was the red scare of the early 1950's (I not so much witnessed that as experienced it) and the second was
the day care hysteria of satanic cults abusing our children that flared between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Now this is a
third manifestation of mass hysteria.
It all began with Hillary's shocking defeat. Many millions of her supporters knew that she was so good that she had to win.
But then she lost. Those millions of Democrats could not accept that in fact their assessment of her talents were totally wrong
and that she lost because she has to be one of the worst candidates in American history. That is a reality those people refused
to accept. Instead they had to concoct some crazy conspiracy to explain their break with reality. This is a classic case of cognitive
dissonance which often leads to mass hysteria.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:01 pm
People choose to believe what they feel that they most need to believe to assuage their insecurities fostered by what they
perceive to be the dangerous and scary world in which they exist. The simple fact that we know that life is finite by the time
we're three years old fosters the creation of such constructs as that of the myth of everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven
complete with a mortgage-free condo and an extra parking space for all repentant sinners are mainstream beliefs.
ToivoS, you are right about Hillary. She simply couldn't accept her defeat. She was the one who began Russiagate by the lie,
"17 intelligence agencies" said the Russians hacked the emails.
As for times of mass-swallowing of a lie in the 1930s every German thought that Poland was about to invade Germany and they were
scared so much that they believed their leaders who "false flagged" them into invading Poland "first." Of course, Poland had no
intention of invading Germany.
Notice every time the US attacks another sovereign country, there's a false flag waved for the citizens to follow?
Don't you appreciate that we have consortiumnews?
"... The people behind advancing the Russiagate fraud are not concerned about the widening chaos it has engendered. On the contrary, it is playing out exactly as they hoped. ..."
"... Fast growing censorship of dissent, isolation of a major geopolitical competitor, providing an explanation for the rise of Trump and the precipitous decline in public faith in establishment institutions. ..."
The people behind advancing the Russiagate fraud are not concerned about the widening
chaos it has engendered. On the contrary, it is playing out exactly as they hoped.
Fast growing censorship of dissent, isolation of a major geopolitical competitor,
providing an explanation for the rise of Trump and the precipitous decline in public faith in
establishment institutions.
Hell, it's even being leveraged to explain away racism. Win win win win. I'd say they are
right where they want to be at this juncture.
Dave P. , August 14, 2018 at 6:21 pm
GM – Excellent observations. Very true.
I would add that they – the Ruling Establishment – are accomplished in the art
of manipulating the public into believing whatever they want them to believe in. In fact,
they have world wide reach.
Out of all those that can be easily identified in the photograph above, I think it's safe to
say only two of them even knew about Putin. The rest died when Putin was a nobody, save for
Pralnikov, but he had been hospitalized on and off for a decade before he finally passed away
in 1997.
When you dig deeper into it, the trail of dead journalists, business competitors and local
officials in the wake of Boris Berezovsky's and Mikhail Khodorkovsky's 1990's escapades is
the most striking one by far. That was under Yeltsin's watch, needless to say, and we all
know what became of those two gentlemen when they finally ditched Russia for Switzerland and
the United Kingdom.
Among the journalists that have died since 2000, nearly all of which are attributed to
Putin in one way or another these days by lazy pundits (and politicians, and human rights
organizations etc), several curiously also probed Berezovsky. Then, you have a big bunch of
deaths that are routinely and grossly misrepresented e.g: https://fkriuk.blogspot.com/2008/02/audit-of-committee-to-protect.html
All in all, summing it up it's all a steaming pile of fake news.
One rather material element in delusions about Russia, alike in my country as in yours, is that people still appear to have difficulty
realising that Putin is not a communist, and, where they can get this far, find it utterly impossible to make sense of what he actually
is.
Among the more extreme instances was provided by our Ambassador to the UN, Karen Pierce, in the exchanges in April as the Western
powers were trying to cover up yet another 'false flag' chemical weapons attack. She explained: "In respect of Karl Marx, I think
he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting
Syria by condoning the use of chemical weapons on Syrian territory."
This problem might have been avoided had our then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, summoned his Eton and Oxford contemporary
Paul Robinson back from Ottawa, where he now teaches. Ironically, it was when Johnson was editing the 'Spectator' that, in January
2004, he published an article by Robinson, headlined 'Putin's might is White', which had a shaping influence on my view of contemporary
Russian realities.
Only later did I learn that, after leaving university, its author had served for five years in Army Intelligence, and, when he
chose to do a doctorate, opted to excavate some forgotten figures from Trotsky's 'dustbin of history', writing on the White Russian
Army in exile.
As a result, at a time when so many who had opted for 'relevant' subjects quite patently had no idea what was happening, Robinson
could see, clearly, that what goes into the 'dustbin' does not necessarily stay there: that Putin was, in essence, a grandchild of
the Rev olution who had come to believe that some of those who had opposed it had been completely justified. (As it were, Trotsky
should have been in the 'dustbin', not Denikin.)
Moreover, having described the new Russian President as a 'typical Soviet radish – red on the outside but white at the core',
Robinson went on to put into context the complexities of his relationship towards 'liberal' ideas:
'Probably the most fundamental tension in Russian politics is that between the concepts of gosudarstvennost' and its rival obshchestvennost'.
The nuances of the latter are difficult to translate, but the term refers to civil society and, roughly speaking, means "public opinion".
Liberal commentators regard the state in Russia with suspicion. At the start of the 20th century, they longed for the state to surrender
its power to "public opinion". They still do. But supporters of gosudatstvennosr view supporters of obshchestvennost' with equal
suspicion. They see them as the self-interested representatives of the chattering classes, who, if put into positions of power, will
immediately plunge Russia into a state of anarchy in which their beloved liberties will be of no use to them or anybody else. This,
the Whites argued, was what the liberals of the provisional government had done in 1917, and this, many now claim, is what free-market
democrats such as Yegor Gaidar did to Russia in the early 1990s.
What about the historical, by the ammount of millions, military budget Trump signed yesterday at that military base, destined
mainly to counter Russia and China?
Is he suffering of RDS too already?
How do you see it?
It includes an increase in military personel wages of 2.5%...this would translate into pensions as well, I guess, thus, added
to the tax cut, it would seem that for some people Trump is the hen of the golden eggs...
The Reagan/Thatcher revolution was a restoration of a new Victorian Gilded Age. The USA is a plutocracy with two ideologies
(globalism and nationalism) at war. Donald Trump represents the old national myths. Peter Strzok is a courtier of the Clinton
globalists. The little people, under stress from austerity, are reverting to their old myths and religions. American globalists
cannot face the reality of the defeat of Hillary Clinton. Instead they project themselves on to others. It is the evil Vladimir
Putin who is doing the dirty deeds. As with all scapegoats, the truth about Russia does not matter.
This is very scary. The weaponizing of sanctions and tariffs plus the possibility of the 17 year old Middle East Holy War spreading
into Turkey and involving NATO troops in Turkey, Syria and Iraq; make the ignition of Russia's 1,960 strategic nuclear weapons
a real possibility.
It is only under the shelter of a state strong enough to protect its subjects from crime or external assault, to create
and enforce laws to regulate commerce and industry, and to encourage the arts, education and other social benefits, that a
society can prosper, and that the conditions for individual liberty can ever hope to exist.'
This is the quintessential state delusion. History proves the exact opposite, nowhere better than the United States whose founding
was based on minimizing state power as much as possible consistent with there being a state. Clearly it was not enough... "Give
them an inch and they'll take a mile."
'In that story, America is placed at the vanguard of the great human march of progress. America is the grateful inheritor
of other people's gifts. It has a spiritual connection to all people in all places, but also an exceptional role. America culminates
history. It advances a way of life and a democratic model that will provide people everywhere with dignity. The things Americans
do are not for themselves only, but for all mankind.
'This historical story was America's true myth '
How people can write this sort of nonsense is beyond me. Truly delusional and divorced from any notion of reality. Nothing
but a propaganda piece by Brooks. A pure example of "America Delusion Syndrome."
re: "How people can write this sort of nonsense is beyond me."
Perhaps the current propaganda is analogous to that described by Auden in
"The Shield of Achilles" (
https://www.poets.org/poets... )
"... She looked over his shoulder
For vines and olive trees,
Marble well-governed cities
And ships upon untamed seas,
But there on the shining metal
His hands had put instead
An artificial wilderness
And a sky like lead.
A plain without a feature, bare and brown,
No blade of grass, no sign of neighborhood,
Nothing to eat and nowhere to sit down,
Yet, congregated on its blankness, stood
An unintelligible multitude,
A million eyes, a million boots in line,
Without expression, waiting for a sign.
Out of the air a voice without a face
Proved by statistics that some cause was just
In tones as dry and level as the place:
No one was cheered and nothing was discussed;
Column by column in a cloud of dust
They marched away enduring a belief
Whose logic brought them, somewhere else, to grief..."
At this rate many may come to grief due to the corruption of bloviating megaphones.
'Tis a pity.
Ishmael Zechariah
An excellent blogger about Russia distills Putin's Sochi speech into 10 simple points A longer version of this article originally
appeared at the ClubOrlov
blog .
Most people in the English-speaking parts of the world missed Putin's speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi a few days ago,
and, chances are, those who have heard of the speech didn't get a chance to read it, and missed its importance.
Western media did their best to ignore it or to twist its meaning. Regardless of what you think or don't think of Putin (like
the sun and the moon, he does not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most important political speech since
Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech of March 5, 1946.
In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game. Previously, the game of international politics was played as follows:
politicians made public pronouncements, for the sake of maintaining a pleasant fiction of national sovereignty, but they were strictly
for show and had nothing to do with the substance of international politics; in the meantime, they engaged in secret back-room negotiations,
in which the actual deals were hammered out.
Previously, Putin tried to play this game, expecting only that Russia be treated as an equal. But these hopes have been dashed,
and at this conference he declared the game to be over, explicitly violating Western taboo by speaking directly to the people over
the heads of elite clans and political leaders.
Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles . But Russia is prepared for serious
conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests
of each side.
All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins . There are no longer any international security guarantees
at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.
The builders of the New World Order have failed , having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any
sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.
Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating
and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.
Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding "empire of chaos ," and
has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already
vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.
Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image , but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their
image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure
to reap a whirlwind.
Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today
Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable , is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia
does not war -- nor does she fear it.
Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World
Order -- until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give
themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard
for her interests , will be taught the true meaning of pain .
In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing,
but on the will of the people.
To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:
10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war . This new world order must of necessity
include the United States -- but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international
agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.
To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is
ready for this; is the world?
Slowly, America is moving toward a system where only favored groups will be allowed to
express their opinion. Arguably, America is already at the point where groups such as Antifa
simply do not have to obey the law at all, while ruinous lawsuits and "lawfare" are unleashed
against conservative groups.
... ... ...
The end result: a country that increasingly seems on the brink of madness as it is
gaslighted by a media
growing ever more shrill. America is being put on a permanent war footing -- and the enemy its
people are being mobilized against is the historic American nation, those European-Americans
who live this country and its heritage.
"... please recall Bill Clinton's rules of engagement as applied to the Serbs in 1999, wherein he decided that the political leaders, bureaucratic support structure, media infrastructure and intellectual underpinnings of his enemies' war effort were legitimate targets of war. ..."
After observing Skynet's coordinated attack on Alex Jone's Infowars yesterday, we can hardly
wait to implement Bill Clinton's Rules of Engagement on the already identified Enemies
of the People, and eagerly await the God-Emperor's word.
Second, please recall Bill Clinton's rules of engagement as applied to the Serbs in
1999, wherein he decided that the political leaders, bureaucratic support structure, media
infrastructure and intellectual underpinnings of his enemies' war effort were legitimate
targets of war.
No one else may have been paying attention to the unintended consequences of that, but
many folks on our side of the present divide were. Food for thought. A reminder about the shape of the battlefield (legal and otherwise) and Bill Clinton's
Rules of Engagement.
Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy
Hersh's new book, Reporter , as well as
interviews he's given since publication...
1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle
East
(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007
speech , the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this
highly classified memo has been quoted . Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired
Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime
change in "7 countries in
5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)
From Reporter: A Memoir
pg. 306 -- A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general
who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican
neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but
one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to
me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be
rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the
assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S.
the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones,
as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead
to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine
Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that
"they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their
annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to
civilization.
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 306-307 -- Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to
permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the
division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq
until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld
had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for
monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an
invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning
applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I
knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to
9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the
Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld
eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...
3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 305-306 -- I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political
outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States
-- with ease . It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual
leaders of that group -- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle -- had not hidden their
ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with
a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism . I had spent many hours
after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was
coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off
relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of
Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a
multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia . Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue
me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.
Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he
could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his
primacy in the White House , but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of
betraying my sources...
I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and
intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible.
I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of
power and authority as vice president , but it was impossible to even begin to verify the
information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good
idea from whom I was getting the information.
4) On Russian meddling in the US election
From the recent
Independent interview based on his autobiography -- Hersh has vociferously strong opinions
on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is "a great deal of animosity towards
Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous." He has
been researching the subject but is not ready to go public yet.
Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence,
it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian
hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence
estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. "When the intel
community wants to say something they say it High confidence effectively means that they don't
know."
5) On the Novichok poisoning
From the recent
Independent interview -- Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version
of the
Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: "The story of novichok
poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British
intelligence services about Russian organised crime." The unfortunate turn of events with the
contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements
rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's
position.
Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing
on Obama –
"a trimmer articulate [but] far from a radical a middleman". During his Goldsmiths talk, he
remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.
He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the
wake of 9/11 . He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his
CIA sources fires back: "Sy you still don't get it after all these years – the FBI
catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks." It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.
* * *
6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which
in a 2007 New Yorker article
Hersh accurately predicted
would set off war in Syria
From the
Independent interview : [Hersh] tells me it is "amazing how many times that story has been
reprinted" . I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere
extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot
boundaries for the 21st century.
He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney "had it in for Iran", although he denies the idea
that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: "They were providing intel, collecting intel The US did
many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran"...
He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I'm sure though
that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...
I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul
Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq . Hersh
ruefully states that: "The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing
that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far."
* * *
7) On the official 9/11 narrative
From the
Independent interview : We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another
narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of
the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by
the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year
undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the
attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis
potentially involved.
Hersh tells me: "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
We really don't have an ending to the story. I've known people in the [intelligence] community.
We don't know anything empirical about who did what" . He continues: "The guy was living in a
cave. He really didn't know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for
the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later How's it going guys?"
8) On the media and the morality of the powerful
From a recent
The Intercept interview and book review -- If
Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages
after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive
slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the
Persian Gulf War. America's indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, "a reminder of the
Vietnam War's MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it's a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime." It
was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: "I had learned a domestic version of that rule
decades earlier" in Chicago. "Reporter" demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:
The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.
Bloomberg article cited in
Russia To Propose Rolling Back 1.8 Million Bpd Of Oil Cuts OilPrice.com is a rumor. Russians
clearly understand that it was the USA who orchestrated 2014-2018 oil price slump which hurt
Russia pretty severely with standard of living still not recovered to 2014 levels. There no trump toward the USA left. for russia
the USA with its neocon foreign policy is now in a way "Great Satan" as it is for Iran.
put
forward a proposal to OPEC to increase production by 1.8million barrels per day (bpd)
– and, unusually, proposed that these increases were to start kicking in within weeks. In
the end,
a pact to increase production by 1 million barrels per day – spearheaded by Russia
and Saudi Arabia – was agreed by OPEC and non-OPEC countries in late June. The rise was
opposed by Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Algeria, with Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh
commenting ahead of the meeting that "OPEC is not the organization to receive instruction from
President Trump OPEC is not part of the Department of Energy of the United States".
Within days of the adoption of the Russian-led production increase, the Trump administration
announced its plans to "reduce Iranian oil
exports to zero" by November 4th. Questioned on whether such a policy might cause disruption as
countries scrambled to replace supplies, State Department policy director Brian Hooks remarked
that "we are confident there is sufficient global spare oil capacity." Russia's push for
increased production had, in effect, smoothed the path for the next round of Trump's
strangulation of Iran. It was precisely this deal which lay behind Trump's brazen claim that
world oil supplies would plug the gap created by the loss of Iranian crude; without the end to
Russian-Saudi production limits, this would have been unthinkable. As things stand, however,
all the pieces are in place for Trump to apply serious pressure on all importers of Iranian
oil. Whilst the Russian-Saudi deal offers alternative sources of supply, the trade war now
underway demonstrates Trump's willingness to use tariffs against those who do not bend to his
geopolitical will. Whilst Trump has openly threatened sanctions against those who do not heed
his call to end their dealings with Iran, it is quite possible that those who do heed it will
be rewarded with tariff exemptions. China, in particular – Iran's biggest trading
partner, and now threatened with tariffs on all $500bilion of their exports to the US –
will be particularly under pressure.
On the surface, then, Russia's actions appear self-defeating. The end to the, hugely
successful, production quotas of the previous 18 months immediately triggered a drop in oil
prices – Russia's main export commodity – whilst facilitating the escalation of US
economic warfare against key Russian ally Iran. Yet there are several reasons Russia may be
supporting Trump's moves.
Most obviously, Iran is a major competitor with Russia for oil export markets –
especially in Europe. European hopes to reduce dependence on Russian energy supplies are likely
to be seriously dashed if they can no longer turn to Iran as an alternative supplier. Quite
simply, Russia will sell more oil without Iranian competition.
More than this, however, even Trump's use of tariffs as leverage to push countries away from
Iran could be to Russia's benefit. If Trump does indeed make tariff-free access to the US
market conditional on cutting investment and trade with Iran, China would face a major
dilemma.
China has for some years been not only Iran's major trading partner, but investment
financier as well. In 2011, China signed a $20 billion
agreement to boost bilateral cooperation in Iran's industrial and mining sectors. Today,
China is poised to take over development of the massive South Pars oil and gas field should the
French company TOTAL pull out, as they are widely expected to do, whilst a $3billion deal was
recently signed giving SINOPEC the right to expand the Abadan oil refinery in Khuzestan
Province. Meanwhile,
reports Fox News , "With the U.S. Treasury putting pressure on Western banks to not make
any deals with Iran, the Chinese state-owned CITIC bank is extending lines of
credit worth $10 billion for Iranian banks. This funding will finance water, energy and
transport projects. To bypass U.S. sanctions, the lines of credit will use euros and yuan
currencies".
But most significant for Russia is the 2017 $1.5 billion deal made by the Chinese
Export-Import Bank to finance a high-speed railway between Tehran and Mashhad. The railway is
envisioned to become part of China's 'Belt and Road Initiative' , creating a high-speed transit
route between central Asia and Europe that will shave weeks off current travel times.
This May – in a clear act of defiance to the US – China opened a
new train line between China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and Tehran, shortening
travel time by 20 days compared to cargo ship. Once the full vision of a Chinese built
high-tech, high-speed rail network across central Asia is realised, however, the current
'Northern route' through Russia is likely to be rendered all but redundant.
Could it be, then, that Russia sees it as in its own interests to facilitate Trump's quest
to chase Chinese investment out of Iran in order to preserve its trade routes and access to
European oil markets?
If so, it is likely to be disappointed. For Iran is central not only to the Belt and Road
Initiative – China's multi-trillion, multi-decade long 'geoeconomic' programme –
but also to its defence strategy. As correctly observed in a
recent piece published by The Diplomat, "Iran constitutes [China's] true priority. China
has nurtured bilateral relations with Tehran for decades, leveraging a common resentment toward
Western
dominance . This partnership has great geostrategic importance to both nations. Thanks to
its oil and gas reserves, Iran could help Beijing withstand a U.S. attack on its SLOCs (Sea
Lines of Communication)."
For China, much as it naturally seeks to avoid further punishment from the US, Iran is
simply too important to be bargained away. Unfortunately not so, it seems, for Moscow.
Join
the debate on Facebook More articles by: Dan Glazebrook
Those cartoons are a nice illustration of the level of polarization of the US society. And
the level of distrust toward the neoliberal elite.
Polarization has grown so extreme that the two camps have a hard time even agreeing on the
same facts.
Polarization has grown so extreme that Pro-globalism and Pro-isolationism camps have a
hard time even agreeing on the same facts.
This looks more and more like kind of virtual Civil War fought in Internet space. With
Pro-globalism camp being much stronger and controlling the narrative and Pro-isolationalism
camp having an uphill battle.
Some of the cartoons listed are probably the products of the "Ministry of Truth" (a la
1984), although the Thought Police was a part of Ministry of Love.
And the history of the "Ministry of Truth" is going back at least to 2008, if not to 2001.
Once it was clear that Obama administration was going to protect the banks, the new paradigm
of dishonesty in high places was invented and trickled down to major MSM.
"Living in the Age of the Big Lie" [Stephen Gold, Industry Week ]. Gold is
President and Chief Executive Officer, Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and
Innovation (MAPI):
All this has created the potential for an American cultural crisis of distrust,
authoritatively captured in two recently published analyses.
In "Truth Decay," [cute! –lambert] the RAND Corporation lays the blame for the
deteriorating role of facts and data in public life on four primary causes:
1. The rise of social media
2. An overtaxed educational system that cannot keep up with changes in the "information
ecosystem"
3. Political and social polarization
4. And -- perhaps due to all of these factors -- the increasing tendency of individuals to
create their own subjective social reality, otherwise known as "cognitive bias."
"The Death of Truth" by Pulitzer-Prize winning book critic Michiko Kakutani explores the
waning of integrity in American society, particularly since the 2016 elections. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan's observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his
own facts," is more timely than ever, Kakutani says: "polarization has grown so extreme that
voters have a hard time even agreeing on the same facts." And no wonder: Two-thirds of
Americans get at least some of their news through social media -- a platform that has been
overwhelmed by trolls and bots, and which uses algorithms to decide what each of us gets to
see.
Executives ignore the cultural shift away from honesty at their peril.
Social media has its own problems, gawd knows -- break them up and outlaw the algos, and
they'd be a lot more like the public utilities they should really be -- but it's amazing how
vague hand-wringing pieces like this ignore at least four seismic events since 2000, all of
which involve perceived legitimacy and the nature of truth: (1) Bush v. Gore, (2) Iraq WMDs,
(3) Obama's "hope and change" campaign, followed by (4) the crash, the bailouts, the free
passes for bankers, and a brutal recession. The official narrative and its maintainers didn't
lose credibility because of trolls and bots, who might be regarded as opportunistic infections
overwhelming an already weakened immnune system.
Grassroots and/or AstroTurf?
Our Famously Free Press
"The Press Doesn't Cause Wars -- Presidents Do" [
The Atlantic ] • One of a ginormous steaming load of revisionist and defensive
articles prompted by Trump's tweet that the press can "causes War." Anyone who was present for
the build up to the Iraq War knows that Trump's claim is true; in fact, the "media critique"
that began then was prompted by the Iraq WMDs scam, in which the press -- *** cough *** Judy
Miller ***cough*** -- was not merely compliant or complicitous, but active and vociferous,
especially in shunning and shaming skeptics. Of course, everybody who was wrong about Iraq was
wrong in the right way, so they all still have jobs (David Frum, Bush speechwriter and Hero of
the Resistance, at the Atlantic, among hundreds of others). So revisionist history is very easy
for them to write.
Class Warfare
"The New Class-Blindness" [ Law and Political Economy ]. "It
is true that class-based discrimination does not trigger heightened scrutiny under equal
protection in the way that race-based and sex-based discrimination do . Some judges -- even
some Supreme Court Justices -- have begun to argue that it is constitutionally impermissible
for courts to take class into account under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit reached
this conclusion a few years ago in the Whole Woman's Health case, in which it asserted that
judges could consider only obstacles created by "the law itself" when determining whether a law
unduly burdens the right to abortion -- a category that excluded obstacles such as lack of
transportation, childcare, days off from work, and money for overnight stays. When Whole
Woman's Health reached the Supreme Court, some of the Justices (in dissent) expressed support
for this approach."
"Vermont's Striking Nurses Want A Raise for Nonunion Workers Too" [ Labor
Notes ]. "Yet when 1,800 nurses and technical staff struck for better wages July 12-13 at
the state's second-largest employer, the University of Vermont Medical Center, the people of
Burlington came out in force to back them up. 'We had policemen and firefighters and UPS
drivers pulling over and shaking our hands' on the picket line, said neurology nurse Maggie
Belensz. 'We had pizza places dropping off dozens of pizzas, giving out free ice cream.' And
when a thousand people marched from the hospital through Burlington's downtown, 'we had
standing ovations from people eating their dinners,' she said. 'It was a moving experience.'
One reason for such wide support: these hospital workers aren't just demanding a raise
themselves. They're also calling for a $15 minimum wage for their nonunion co-workers, such as
those who answer the phones, mop the floors, cook the food, and help patients to the
bathroom."
"What Are Capitalists Thinking?" [Michael Tomaskey, New York
Times ]. "I write today with some friendly advice for the capitalist class about said
socialists. You want fewer socialists? Easy. Stop creating them . I understand completely why
it's happening. Given what's been going on in this country, it couldn't not have happened. And
if you're a capitalist, you'd better try to understand it, too -- and do something to address
the very legitimate grievances that propelled it." • Finally, reality begins to penetrate
the thickened craniums of the better sort of liberal
"In 2008, America Stopped Believing in the American Dream" [Frank Rich,
New York Magazine ]. (The "American Dream" being one of the official narratives.) "It's not
hard to pinpoint the dawn of this deep gloom: It arrived in September 2008, when the collapse
of Lehman Brothers kicked off the Great Recession that proved to be a more lasting existential
threat to America than the terrorist attack of seven Septembers earlier. The shadow it would
cast is so dark that a decade later, even our current run of ostensible prosperity and peace
does not mitigate the one conviction that still unites all Americans: Everything in the country
is broken. Not just Washington, which failed to prevent the financial catastrophe and has done
little to protect us from the next, but also race relations, health care, education,
institutional religion, law enforcement, the physical infrastructure, the news media, the
bedrock virtues of civility and community. Nearly everything has turned to crap, it seems ."
• Ditto
I think I would put it much earlier than that. Anyone who watched Newt Gingrich during his
Contract on America days, who watched Max Cleland be attacked by Saxby Chambliss,
who watched as Clinton deregulated the media in favor of Rupert Murdoch even as they slagged
him, knew something was afoot.
"I have mixed feelings about this socialism boomlet. It has yet to prove itself
politically viable in general elections outside a handful of areas, and by 2021 we could wake
up and see that it's been a disaster for Democrats."
What is a Democrat? Are they inherently good? Is failing the Democrats OK, if doing so
improves the lives of the 90%?
Mr. Tomasky seems to have missed that Democrats throwing out the concerns of the working
class to court wealthy donors for its Clintonian politics boomlet has been distinctly, well
not all that long term politically viable. It has been a disaster for the Democrats. There
were signs prior to 2000, but it took starting an unpopular and largely unsuccessful war and
attempting to undermine Social Security for the Democrats to make a come back. That their
success was pretty much over by 2010, with the exception of the Presidency is very clear in
the massive loss of Governorships, State Houses and yes Congress leading up to the 2016
debacle when they foolishly nominated the Grand Dame of that 'can't give me lots of money
– suck on it' political position to be their Presidential nominee.
But why let facts get in the way of a good narrative meant to convince the rubes to
continue voting for polticians who have no interest in their concerns because of the right
pronouns and Russia!
The biggest cause is spin , that has become an art form, a business and career
path.
Telling the truth in public is an invitation to cut short your career. The only time when
officials tell the truth is when they are comfortably retired.
Especially with economists and journalists (the conscience keepers), it is not so
important what they are saying, but why they are saying it (basically lack
of trust in the narrator).
I personally blame Bill Clinton. The turning point was the report that he told Lewinsky
"deny deny deny there's nothing they can do."
Which is true but that was the point in the timeline when a critical mass of people began
to live like that. Or when it became obvious to me. Perhaps it was exactly like that for a
long time before and it is not BC's fault.
It's cheering that coal shipment and use in the US has declined. The good news for our
coal industry is that coal exports January to June 2018 have risen, in particular to Africa,
Asia (largely to India which is voracious) and South America.
The current Administration can thank the previous one for increasing our capacity to
export coal, I believe.
Sarah Jeong is a piece of work, is her desk next to Judy Miller's?
Good grief, the cultural differences between different parts of SE Asian Countries can be
profound let alone the cultural differences between countries.
I'm reminded of a boss who told me that monopolies increase competition, with a straight
face.
My impression is that Ms. Jeong's job is and will be to start plenty of cultural "fires",
so
that while the citizenry is distracted with them, the looting and pillaging of the many by
the few can continue.
But to answer the question you actually asked the Federated timeline includes your local
timeline, which itself includes your home timeline. So if you want to see it all, just use
the federated timeline. If you only want to see people you follow, use the home timeline,
etc.
What's an Asian woman doing criticizing a white guy for commenting on a predominantly, but
not exclusively, black art form? I mean, why is she even speaking English and how about that
name Sarah for an egregious example of cultural appropriation? And, as I have previously
queried on this site: how is it even permissible for Yo-Yo Ma to play Bach on the cello? And
in case you ask: yes, identity politics has finally driven me insane. Or is it they who are
mad?
She (Sarah Jeong) wrote: "After a bad day, some people come home and kick the furniture. I
get on the Internet and make fun of The New York Times." "I don't feel safe in a country that
is led by someone who takes Thomas Friedman seriously." "Hannah Rosin shatters ceiling by
proving women writers can be as hackish as Tom Friedman, too." "[David] Brooks is an absolute
nitwit tho." "Notajoke: I'm being forced to read Nicholas Kristof. This is the worst." "if I
had a bajillion dollars, I'd buy the New York Times, just for the pleasure of firing Tom
Friedman ."
combining the articles, it sounds like she's got a lot of opinions. Good for an aspiring
pundit but also opening herself up for a greater possibility of errors.
it's amazing how vague hand-wringing pieces like this ignore at least four seismic
events since 2000, all of which involve perceived legitimacy and the nature of truth: (1)
Bush v. Gore, (2) Iraq WMDs, (3) Obama's "hope and change" campaign, followed by (4) the
crash, the bailouts, the free passes for bankers, and a brutal recession.
Good list to which I would add the Katrina debacle.
The New Class-Blindness" [Law and Political Economy]. "It is true that class-based
discrimination does not trigger heightened scrutiny under equal protection in the way that
race-based and sex-based discrimination do . Some judges -- even some Supreme Court Justices
-- have begun to argue that it is constitutionally impermissible for courts to take class
into account under the Fourteenth Amendment.
================
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in
the streets and steal loaves of bread. Anatole France
Not much concern over the disconnect between voter preference and policy outcome which was
documented in the 2014 Gilens/Benjamin study or Jimmy Carter statement that the U.S. is a
defacto oligarchy, or the massive voter fraud that is part and parcel of our voting system
(see https://www.gregpalast.com/ ),
or the disclosure of HRC/DNC collusion documented in wiki leaks and Donna Brasil's "tell all
book", not much concern their at all.
Do you find it curious this obsession of the MSM with Russia meddling in our
elections?
"Do you find it curious this obsession [ ] w/ Russia meddling [ ]?" The Russian meddling
isn't the curious part; Russia tries it in every election west of the river Pina. The
abnormal part is a sitting US President, on Twitter, accused his son of a felony aka
violating 52 U.S. Code § 30121 (a)(2), soliciting contributions [things of value] from a
foreign national. Talk about "Blue on Blue" fire. Nothing "friendly" about that. Especially
given the prima facie evidence of violating 18 U.S. Code § 3, accessory after the fact,
by dictating Don the Younger's response to the story.
I read the book Q a couple of years ago. It's real good. Especially if you're into the
gory details of European religious history. There's a lot of things they didn't mention in my
confirmation classes
Social media has its own problems, gawd knows The official narrative and its maintainers
didn't lose credibility because of trolls and bots, who might be regarded as opportunistic
infections overwhelming an already weakened immnune system
Well said. The official narrative, the swamp, is very good at blaming effects and ignoring
causes.
Qanon seems like a honeypot site(s) for retribution futures. Read anything, go into a
database for future reference. Unz and others have likely multiple uses and followers,
NOC/NotForAttribution and other.
On decline in coal shipments: look what is happening elsewhere! "Germany had so much
renewable energy on Sunday that it had to pay people to use electricity!",
https://qz.com/680661/germany-had-so-much-renewable-energy-on-sunday-that-it-had-to-pay-people-to-use-electricity/
"Power too cheap to meter," just like nuclear was promised to be! And that is an old 2016
article. I saw another piece, I believe in Business Insider or Bloomberg, complaining that
the big energy companies are facing "profit stress" because of grid-ties from solar and wind
requiring them to pay people for energy in excess of the load. And having, gasp! to shut down
coal fired plants, each closure being a pretty expensive anti-profit center! I would tend to
think of it being a re-internalization of costs that the power companies have dumped on us
(health effects from heavy metal and carcinogen emissions, smog, CO2/climate interruption.
Too bad the paybacks won't come from clawbacks of CEO paydays or any of the lobbying money
spent to bribe legislatures, deceive the public/consumers, spent on getting legislative
approval for nuclear power plants that WILL NEVER BE BUILT like Duke Energy has done (and
besides, they get to cllect a billion or more from customers to "pay for" those plants that
will never be built. Kind of like an ISDS "judgment" in favor of a megacorporation because
'regulation and market conditions' impaired said corporations' "expectations of profit "
Well, that green-energy surfeit may have something to do with the combination of a
record-smashing heat wave in a country where A/C systems have not been needed at scale,
historically speaking. But good on them if they are in fact doing it sustainably.
Of course, a good bit of that "trade" includes genetically modified soybeans. Monsanto is
happy to sell their "intellectual property," immune from consequence of course, pure profit
all the way down.
And of course there are NO POSSIBLE RISKS OR CONCERNS about the propagation of
gene-fiddled stuff like soybeans and canola, " Genetically Modified Canola 'Escapes' Farm
Fields,
August 6, 2010 , https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129010499
, just for example, I mean it's not like the World Health Organization has not kind of
flagged some things that "policymakers" might want to keep in mind when confronted by the
Cropporate Corrupters wanting to peddle their 'risk free innovations:'
"Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods
May 2014
Posting this because sometimes it's more about WHO is saying it, rather than what is being
said. It's not often I look at a Rick Newman column and say, 'wow, he's really making a
strong case'.
The chickens are raised covered in their own filth and along with the filth comes
salmonella. They attempt to contain the infection with antibiotics.
And if the conditions in the "chicken factory" aren't filthy enough the slaughterhouse
ensures that the end product comes with salmonella by running the line speed so fast that
punctured intestines insure that the end product comes out covered in salmonella-containing
fecal matter. Which they try to contain with a chlorine bath.
If you like eating chicken shite eat store chicken. If you don't, and if you can, raise
your own. Raising chickens for meat is a lot of work but they taste better and you won't be
eating chicken shite.
Jeez, Frank Rich needs to get out of New York City more. Everything has been completely
broke around Memphis since 2006. It just mostly broke before that.
Was it Trump's election, the rise of Bernie/AOC, Obama's $32 million worth of
post-presidency houses, 60,000 people dying from opiods, or the broken subways in NYC that
caused Frank Rich's awakening?
"Obama didn't cause that broken spirit any more than Trump did."
Obama made it perfectly clear that the Democratic party was going to do nothing to correct
2008. Instead he put the very same people that wrecked the world economy back in charge. I
will no longer vote for the "have no alternative" Democrat. I will vote for those that are
going to enact the polices that will fix this mess. If that means we get twenty Trumps a row
– so be it.
Re: On average for the year-ended this May, 58.5 percent of the job gains were in
counties that backed Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 , and this excerpt from that
Associated Press link:
The jobs data shows an economy that is as fractured as the political landscape ahead of
the 2018 midterm elections. As more money pools in corporate hubs such as Houston,
San Francisco or Seattle , prosperity spills over less and less to smaller towns and
cities in America's interior. That would seem to undercut what Trump sees as a central
accomplishment of his administration – job creation for middle class and blue-collar
workers in towns far removed from glitzy urban centers.
Looking at those cities noted, especially Seattle and San Francisco – both of which
now have an inhuman level of inequality and homelessness -- a further dive into the details
is necessary.
Specifically, are those job gains ™ out of state imported employees from: Ivy
League Schools (predominately under 26, mostly white males from elite families); along with
H-1B, and Opt Program ™ imported employees (predominately under 26, mostly
males from mostly upper middle class Asian families, paid far, far less than those Ivy
Leaguers) [1]; while the displaced unemployed -- yet, highly qualified for employment --
residents in those cities are continually being forced out (if they can afford the move
and have somewhere they are able to move to), or made homeless.
[1] Admittedly, I'm not sure whether they are included in those job gains, but if
the job gains are based on ADP reports, it might well be likely that they are; of course a
search on two search sites brought up no answer to my query.
I find Mastodon's user interface to be fairly unintuitive myself. Presumably it would be
possible to make your own "mixed" view as it's open source and based on open protocols, but
not sure if Mastodon supports it out of the box.
AOC is one of their candidates, as are Cynthia Nixon, Ayana Pressley etc. There is a
prevalence of Democrat buzzwords, but I think they are aiming to be agnostic regarding left
factions:
We're excited to make gains in 2018, but Indivisible 435 isn't just about notching wins.
Our organization is not a wing of the Democratic party. While we care deeply about electing
officials to oppose the Trump agenda, we care just as much building a strong progressive
community nationwide and pushing the conversation back to the interests of the people.
This would be well off message for establishment Democrats.
I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, but still
watch what they do.
I would posit that most of the job gains in the last decade maybe even two were probably
in areas that voted for Clinton. That the Texas boom and the oil boom in the Dakota's were
exceptions not the rule. I would also posit that the few Trump areas that did see job growth
in that decade saw that growth in minimum wage low to no benefit jobs. (That last one wasn't
much of a stretch since that has been the majority of jobs created during both the Bush 2 and
Obama administration.)
Things like this have led me to comment in the past and every comment on this particular
subject has failed to print. I figure I am tripping some kind of auto-filter.
So I will try again with indirect spelling.
We need a new word for this sort of thing. It would emerge from the new acronym we
need.
The letters would be . . . arrr peee ohhh ceee
that stands for . . . rayciss purrsuns ovv cuhluhr.
"Dockless bike, scooter firms clash with U.S. cities over regulations"
I have a solution to these tech-companies which strew towns and cities with their bikes
without coordinating or even asking to enter such a town and let the town try to adapt to
their needs. It is called an impound lot. You have city workers pick them up and cart them
there. If that company wants their bikes back again, they will have to pay to spring them
from the lot. Rinse and repeat until that tech company gets the message. If that tech company
doubles down, announce a $5 bounty for any bike driven to the impound lot till the company is
ready to negotiate.
"How a Pair of Kentucky Pols Are About to Legalize Hemp"
Please help me here. Hemp can be sold in all 50 states. The 2014 Farm bill allowed each state
to decide whether hemp oil could be sold for medicinal purposes w/i that year. My first
package sent to me was from a reputable company and was mailed through Amazon from Kentucky.
I was experiencing severe pain and now have a better alternative.
"How to keep young people from fleeing small towns for big cities"
Not so hard. See that there are jobs for them. You cannot do much in modern society
without money and a job provides this. A job provides dignity, discipline and the money it
provides lets a young person to satisfy not only their needs but many of their wants as well.
It is hard for a young guy to take a girl out but having no money to do so and a job's money
will help a couple set up a household and marry and have children. The drop in marriage rates
as well as the birthrate speaks volumes of the lack of decent paying jobs for young people,
even those that have achieved credentials. Supply good paying jobs and most kids will stay
put. Not so hard to work out.
Re. "Trump v. Fed" [Money and Banking], bolds mine: "Last month, interrupting decades of
presidential self-restraint, President Trump openly criticized the Federal Reserve. Given the
President's penchant for dismissing valuable institutions, it is hard to be surprised
investors are reasonably focused on the selection of qualified academics and individuals with
valuable policy and business experience the President's comments are seriously
disturbing and -- were they to become routine -- risk undermining the significant
benefits that Federal Reserve independence brings."
As Lambert would say, for some definition of 'valuable', 'benefits' and
'independence'.
The Ministry of Truth ( Newspeak : Minitrue ) is the ministry of propaganda
. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer
because in reality it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of
historical events.
As well as administering truth, the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace
called Newspeak , in
which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping
with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it
creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the
doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of
events.
Winston Smith ,
the main character of Nineteen Eighty-Four , works at
the Ministry of Truth. [5] It
is an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete rising 300 metres (980 ft) into
the air, containing over 3000 rooms above ground. On the outside wall are the three slogans of
the Party: "WAR IS PEACE," "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY," "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." There is also a large
part underground, probably containing huge incinerators where documents are destroyed after
they are put down memory
holes . For his description, Orwell was inspired by the Senate House at the University of London .
[6]
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and
educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine
for propaganda effect.
For example, if Big
Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of
Truth correct the record to make it accurate. This is the "how" of the Ministry of Truth's
existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence, the
"why", is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change
its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during
war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction),
for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and
strong.
Minitrue plays a role as the news media by changing history, and changing the words in
articles about events current and past, so that Big Brother and his government are always seen
in a good light and can never do any wrong. The content is more propaganda than actual
news.
Those cartoon are a nice illustration of the level of polarization of the US society. And
the level of distrust toward the neoliberal elite.
Polarization has grown so extreme that two camps have a hard time even agreeing on the
same facts.
Polarization has grown so extreme that Pro-globalism and Pro-isolationism camps have a
hard time even agreeing on the same facts.
This looks more and more like kind of virtual Civil War fought in Internet space. With
Pro-globalism camp being much stronger and controlling the narrative and Pro-isolationalism
camp having an uphill battle.
Some of the cartoons listed are probably the products of the "Ministry of Truth" (a la
1984), although the Thought Police was a part of Ministry of Love.
And the history of the "Ministry of Truth" is going back at least to 2008, if not to 2001.
Once it was clear that Obama administration was going to protect the banks, the new paradigm
of dishonesty in high places was invented and trickled down to major MSM.
"... The author is a prominent American Christian conservative who was a presidential candidate for the paleoconservative Constitution Party in 2008, when he was endorsed by Ron Paul. ..."
"... He is the pastor of Liberty Fellowship, a non-denominational church in Montana, and he is a popular radio host and columnist . His weekly sermons are available on his YouTube channel. ..."
"... He is a relentless foe of neoconservatism and frequently criticizes the neocon hostility towards Russia. His views are representative of an influential and substantial part of Trump's popular support. ..."
"... Here is an archive of his excellent articles which we have published on Russia Insider , when they were relevant to the debate over Russia. ..."
"... The War on Terror ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map
of the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims ..." Chuck Baldwin Wed, Aug 1, 2018 | 14,261
389 MORE: HistoryRevisionist HistoryThe author is a
prominent American Christian conservative who was a presidential candidate for the
paleoconservative Constitution Party in 2008, when he was endorsed by Ron Paul.
He is a relentless foe of neoconservatism and frequently criticizes the neocon hostility
towards Russia. His views are representative of an influential and substantial part of Trump's
popular support.
What if everything we've been told about 9/11 is a lie? What if it wasn't 19 Muslim
terrorist hijackers that flew those planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon? What if the
Muslims had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on 9/11? What if everything we've been
told about the reasons we invaded two sovereign nations (Afghanistan and Iraq) is a lie?
What if the 17-year-old, never-ending "War on Terror" in the Middle East is a lie? What if
our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have given their lives in America's "War on
Terror" died for a lie? What if G.W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have been nothing but
controlled toadies for an international global conspiracy that hatched the attacks of 9/11 as
nothing more than a means to institute a perpetual "War on Terror" for purposes that have
nothing to do with America's national security? Would the American people want to know? Would
the truth even matter to them?
The sad reality is that the vast majority of Americans who would read the above paragraph
would totally dismiss every question I raised as being unrealistic and impossible -- or even
nutty. Why is that? Have they studied and researched the questions? No. Have they given any
serious thought to the questions? No. They have simply swallowed the government/mainstream
media version of these events hook, line and sinker.
It is totally amazing to me that the same people who say they don't believe the mainstream
media (MSM) and government (Deep State) versions of current events -- which is why they voted
for and love Donald Trump -- have absolutely no reservations about accepting the official story
that the 9/11 attacks were the work of jihadist Muslims and that America's "War on Terror" is
completely legitimate.
These "always Trumpers" are dead set in their minds that America is at war with Islam; that
Trump's bombings of Syria were because President Assad is an evil, maniacal monster who gassed
his own people; and that Trump's expansion of the war in Afghanistan is totally in the
interests of America's national security.
BUT WHAT IF ALL OF IT IS A BIG, FAT LIE?
What if the Muslims had NOTHING to do with 9/11?
What if Bashar al-Assad did NOT gas his own people?
What if America's "War on Terror" is a completely false, manufactured, made-up
deception?
What if America's military forces are mostly fighting for foreign agendas and NOT for
America's national security or even our national interests?
What if America's war in Afghanistan is a fraud?
What if the entire "War on Terror" is a fraud?
The Trump robots have bought into America's "War on Terror" as much as Obama's robots and
Bush's robots did. Bush was elected twice, largely on the basis of America's "War on Terror."
Obama campaigned against the "War on Terror" and then expanded it during his two terms in
office. Trump campaigned against the "War on Terror" and then immediately expanded it beyond
what Obama had done. In fact, Trump is on a pace to expand the "War on Terror" beyond the
combined military aggressions of both Bush and Obama.
But who cares? Who even notices?
America is engaged in a global "War on Terror." Just ask G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald
Trump, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, The Washington Post, the New York Times and the vast
majority of America's pastors and preachers. They all tell us the same thing seven days a week,
twenty-four hours a day. Liberals scream against Trump, and conservatives scream against Maxine
Waters; but both sides come together to support America's never-ending "War on Terror."
But what if it's ALL a lie? What if Obama and Trump, the right and the left, the MSM and the
conservative media are all reading from the same script? What if they are all (wittingly or
unwittingly) in cahoots in perpetuating the biggest scam in world history? And why is almost
everyone afraid to even broach the question?
Left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, secular or Christian, no one
dares to question the official story about the 9/11 attacks or the "War on Terror."
And those who do question it are themselves attacked unmercifully by the right and the left,
conservatives and liberals, Christians and secularists, Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews. Why is
that? Why is it that FOX News and CNN, Donald Trump and Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and Ted
Cruz equally promote the same cockamamie story about 9/11 and the "War on Terror?"
Why? Why? Why?
Tell me again how Donald Trump is so different from Barack Obama. Tell me again how Ted Cruz
is so different from Chuck Schumer. They all continue to perpetuate the lies about 9/11. They
all continue to escalate America's never-ending "War on Terror." They are all puppets of a
global conspiracy to advance the agenda of war profiteers and nation builders.
The left-right, conservative-liberal, Trump-Obama paradigm is one big giant SCAM. At the end
of the day, the "War on Terror" goes on, bombs keep falling on people in the Middle East who
had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the money keeps flowing into the coffers of the
international bankers and war merchants.
All of the above is why I am enthusiastically promoting Christopher Bollyn's new blockbuster
book
The War on Terror .
Of course, Bollyn is one of the world's foremost researchers and investigators into the
attacks on 9/11. He has written extensively on the subject. But unlike most other 9/11
investigators, Bollyn continued to trace the tracks of the attacks on 9/11. And those tracks
led him to discover that the 9/11 attacks were NOT "the event" but that they were merely the
trigger for "the event." "What was the event?" you ask. America's perpetual "War on
Terror."
As a result, Mr. Bollyn published his findings that the attacks on 9/11 were NOT perpetrated
by Muslim extremists but by a very elaborate and well financed international conspiracy that
had been in the planning for several decades. Bollyn's research names names, places and dates
and exposes the truth behind not just 9/11 (many have done that) but behind America's "War on
Terror" that resulted from the attacks on 9/11.
IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH TO COME OUT!
And Christopher Bollyn's investigative research brings out the truth like nothing I've read
to date. His research connects the dots and destroys the myths.
Mr. Bollyn's research is published in a book entitled (full title):
The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East . I mean it when I say that if
enough people read this book, it could change the course of history and save our republic.
This is written on the book's back cover:
The government and media have misled us about 9/11 in order to compel public opinion to
support the War on Terror.
Why have we gone along with it? Do we accept endless war as normal? Are we numb to the
suffering caused by our military interventions?
No. We have simply been propagandized into submission. We have been deceived into thinking
that the War on Terror is a good thing, a valiant struggle against terrorists who intend to
attack us as we were on 9/11.
Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map
of the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims in order to start the
military operations for that strategic plan. Recognizing the origin of the plan is crucial to
understanding the deception that has changed our world.
Folks, 9/11 was a deception. The "War on Terror" is a deception. The phony left-right
paradigm is a deception. FOX News is as much a deception as CNN. The "always Trump" group is as
much a deception as the "never Trump" group. America has been in the throes of a great
deception since September 11, 2001. And this deception is being perpetrated by Republicans and
Democrats and conservatives and liberals alike.
I do not know Christopher Bollyn. I've never met him. But I thank God he had the
intellectual honesty and moral courage to write this book. I urge readers to get this explosive
new book. If you don't read any other book this year, read Mr. Bollyn's investigative
masterpiece:
The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East .
Again, I am enthusiastically recommending this book to my readers, and I make no apologies
for doing so. The truth contained in this research MUST get out, and I am determined to do all
I can to help make that possible.
Order Christopher Bollyn's blockbuster book The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The
Middle East here:
I am confident that after you read this book, you will want to buy copies for your friends
and relatives. The book is under 200 pages long and is not difficult reading. However, the
facts and details Bollyn covers are profound and powerful. I have read the book three times so
far and I'm not finished.
Frankly, Bollyn's book made so many things make sense for me. His book dovetails and tracks
with much of my research on other topics. Truly, his book helped me get a much fuller
understanding of the "big picture."
What if everything we've been told about 9/11 and the "War on Terror" is a lie? Well,
Bollyn's book proves that indeed it is.
Again, here is where to find Christopher Bollyn's phenomenal new book The War On Terror:
The Plot To Rule The Middle East :
Worked that out, when following events in Ukraine. All main events, since my birth and
long before then, were no more than Operation Gladio false flags. It takes a lot to get
your head around that, without feeling blind fury to your Governments, of each and every
day. Plus media manipulation.
So the US neoliberal establishment tried to sabotage Trump-Putin summit in doer to pursue "business as usual". In other words military-industrial
complex is in control of the USA government...
Notable quotes:
"... It's no coincidence that, at the very moment when the President of the United States was about to meet with the President of Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller III charged twelve Russians with having manipulated the US presidential elections by hacking into the data networks of the Democratic party in order to hinder candidate Hillary Clinton. The twelve Russians, accused of being agents of the military secret services (GRU), were officially defined as " conspirators ", and found guilty of " conspiracy to the detriment of the United States ". Simultaneously, Daniel Coats, National Director of Intelligence and principal advisor to the President in these matters, accused Russia of working to " undermine our basic values and our democracy ". He then sounded the alarm about the " threat of cyber-attacks which have arrived at a critical point " similar to that which preceded 9/11, on behalf not only of Russia, " the most aggressive foreign agent ", but also China and Iran. ..."
"... At the same time, in London, British " investigators " declared that the Russian military secret service GRU, which had sabotaged the Presidential elections in the USA, is the same service which poisoned ex-Russian agent, Sergueï Skripal and his daughter, who, inexplicably, survived contact with an extremely lethal gas. ..."
"... The political objective of these " enquiries " is clear – to maintain that at the head of all these " conspirators " is Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom President Donald Trump sat down at the negotiating table, despite vast bi-partisan opposition in the USA. After the " conspirators " had been charged, the Democrats asked Trump to cancel the meeting with Putin. Even though they failed, their pressure on the negotiations remains powerful. ..."
"... In opposition to the easing of tension with Russia are not only the Democrats (who, with a reversal of formal roles, are playing the " hawks "), but also many Republicans, among whom are several highly-important representatives of the Trump administration itself. It is the establishment, not only of the US, but also of Europe, whose powers and profits are directly linked to tension and war. ..."
"... Even if an agreement on these questions were reached between Putin and Trump, would the latter be able to implement it? Or will the real deciders be the powerful circles of the military-industrial complex? ..."
While the International Press distorted the content of the NATO Summit, the US establishment perfectly understood the unique
issue – the end of enmity with Russia. Thus disturbing the bilateral summit in Helsinki between the USA and Russia became its priority.
By all means possible, it had to prevent any rapprochement with Moscow.
We need to talk about everything, from commerce to the military, missiles, nuclear, and China " - this was how President Trump
began at the Helsinki Summit. " The time has come to talk in detail about our bilateral relationship and the international flashpoints
", emphasised Putin.
But it will not only be the two Presidents who will decide the future relationships between the United States and Russia.
It's no coincidence that, at the very moment when the President of the United States was about to meet with the President
of Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller III charged twelve Russians with having manipulated the US presidential elections by
hacking into the data networks of the Democratic party in order to hinder candidate Hillary Clinton. The twelve Russians, accused
of being agents of the military secret services (GRU), were officially defined as " conspirators ", and found guilty of " conspiracy
to the detriment of the United States ". Simultaneously, Daniel Coats, National Director of Intelligence and principal advisor to
the President in these matters, accused Russia of working to " undermine our basic values and our democracy ". He then sounded the
alarm about the " threat of cyber-attacks which have arrived at a critical point " similar to that which preceded 9/11, on behalf
not only of Russia, " the most aggressive foreign agent ", but also China and Iran.
At the same time, in London, British " investigators " declared that the Russian military secret service GRU, which had sabotaged
the Presidential elections in the USA, is the same service which poisoned ex-Russian agent, Sergueï Skripal and his daughter, who,
inexplicably, survived contact with an extremely lethal gas.
The political objective of these " enquiries " is clear – to maintain that at the head of all these " conspirators " is Russian
President Vladimir Putin, with whom President Donald Trump sat down at the negotiating table, despite vast bi-partisan opposition
in the USA. After the " conspirators " had been charged, the Democrats asked Trump to cancel the meeting with Putin. Even though
they failed, their pressure on the negotiations remains powerful.
What Putin tried to obtain from Trump is both simple and complex – to ease the tension between the two countries. To that purpose,
he proposed to Trump, who accepted, to implement a joint enquiry into the " conspiracy ". We do not know how the discussions on the
key questions will go – the status of Crimea, the condition of Syria, nuclear weapons and others. And we do not know what Trump will
ask in return. However, it is certain that any concession will be used to accuse him of connivance with the enemy. In opposition
to the easing of tension with Russia are not only the Democrats (who, with a reversal of formal roles, are playing the " hawks "),
but also many Republicans, among whom are several highly-important representatives of the Trump administration itself. It is the
establishment, not only of the US, but also of Europe, whose powers and profits are directly linked to tension and war.
It will not be the words, but the facts, which will reveal whether the climate of détente of the Helsinki Summit will become reality
- first of all with a de-escalation of NATO in Europe, in other words with the withdrawal of forces (including nuclear forces) of
the USA and NATO presently deployed against Russia, and the blockage of NATO's expansion to the East.
Even if an agreement on these questions were reached between Putin and Trump, would the latter be able to implement it? Or
will the real deciders be the powerful circles of the military-industrial complex?
One thing is certain – we in Italy and Europe can not remain the simple spectators of dealings which will define our future.
Manlio Dinucci
I think he behaved very well towards this lady. He was polite and respectful and open. I
believe everything he said. We need more like him. I do not believe for a moment all the
rubbish in the news. Its quite clearly from lack of evidence (re the UK incident) or proper
dialogue that the reason for those accusing Russia is purely political and Anti-Russia as per
usual.
"... It is time to realize, however, that the real dangers to America today come not from the newly rich people of East Asia but from our own ideological rigidity, our deep-seated belief in our own propaganda. ..."
"... Blowback , Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire ..."
"... The Common Good ..."
"... Reimagining Sanity: Voices Beyond the Echo Chamber ..."
In a sense, blowback is simply another way of saying that a nation reaps what it sows.
Although people usually know what they have sown, our national experience of blowback is seldom
imagined in such terms because so much of what the managers of the American empire have sown
has been kept secret.
It is time to realize, however, that the real dangers to America today come not from the
newly rich people of East Asia but from our own ideological rigidity, our deep-seated belief in
our own propaganda.
― Chalmers Johnson,
Blowback , Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
There are no more leaps of faith, or get out of jail cards left anymore. The first casualty of
war is truth.
Lofty heights of defining the first amendment are just overlooks onto the crumbling mythology
of a democracy, where the people – citizens -- vote for laws directly. We have a republic,
a faulty one, the source of which is the power derived from billionaires, financiers, arms
merchants, K-Streeters and the attendant moles allowing the government to break every charter of
human concern. So, in that regard, we in this corptocracy have the right to be fooled every
minute, suckered to not know a goddamned thing about democracy in big quotes.
The very concept of manufactured consent and a controlled opposition destroys much of the
power of agency and so-called freedom of assembly, association and travel.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.
But, alas, we have blokes who see the world not as a black and white dichotomous illusion of
the for v. against bifurcation, but a world of flowing back to what words should mean, a world
that allows the filters to be smashed like high polished glass and instead deploying a magnifying
glass to point toward the very source of the blasphemies and strong arm robberies that have been
occurring in the Republic the very first moment the beaver hat was put on and the first treaty
scripted by the powdered wigs of Washingtonian Fathers and broken, ripped to shreds, seeded with
the dark force that is the white race.
Here comes Tools for
Transparency into the mix of triage to uphold the declaration of independence, and the few
tenets of the constitution that are supremely directed to we-by-for-because of the people, AND
not the corporation, monopoly,
Military-Retail-Finance-Ag-Energy-Pharma-Prison-Medical-Toxins-IT-Surveillance-Legal Complex.
This project is the brainchild of a former Marine who "came to life late in the world" of pure
skepticism about the powers that be and his own questioning of the motivations and machinations
of his government and political representatives.
... ... ...
...we talked about Mad
Men , the Edward
Bernays and Milton Friedman
schools of propaganda, framing stories (lies) and setting out to paint good people as bad, heroic
politicians like Salvador Allende of Chile as Commie Baby Killers. Even now, Bush, the instigator
of chaos in the Middle East, with all the cooked up lies and distractions of his own stupidity
(like Trump), and, bam, W is reclaimed (in the mainstream mush media) as something of a good
president, and especially by the likes of the Democratic Party misleadership
.
... ... ...
His Tools for Transparency
cuts through the opinion, and as he proposes, makes the world news and the even more Byzantine
and elaborate proposed legislation and lobbying groups behind "the news" approachable, again,
consumable.
He taps into his college days taking courses in industrial organizational psychology,
seemingly benign when the American Psychological Association gets to mash the term into a
three-fold brochure by defining it for prospective students as business as usual for
corporations, and humanity is better because of this sort of manipulative psychology, but . .
.
In reality, it's the science of behavior in the workplace, organizational development,
attitudes, career development, decision theory, human performance, human factors, consumer
behavior, small group theory and process, criterion theory and development and job and task
analysis and individual assessment. It's a set of tools to keep workers down spiritually and
organizationally, disconnected, fearful, confused and ineffectual as thinkers and resisters, and
inept at countering the abuse of power companies or bureaucracies wield over a misinformed
workforce.
The shape of corporations' unethical behavior, their sociopathic and the draconian workplace
conditions today are largely sculpted and defined by these behavior shapers to include the
marketers and the Edward Bernays-inspired manipulators of facts and brain functioning. This begs
the question for Hanson, just what are today's hierarchy of needs for the average American?
Physiological; Safety; Love/Belonging; Esteem; Self-Actualization.
... ... ...
Brian believes there is an awakening today in this country, and that the examples of movements
such as those in Portland where youth are out yelling against the police state, and then how we
are seeing individual officers returning firing with violence against those youth:
We talk a lot about the devaluing of language and intentional discourse which includes the
abilities of a society to engage in lively and cogent debate. For me, I know the forces of
propaganda are multi-headed, multi-variant, with so much of American life seeded with lies,
half-truths, duplicitous and twisted concepts, as well as inaccurate and spin-doctored history,
which has contaminated a large portion of our society, up and down the economic ladder, with mind
control.
Unfortunately, our language now is inextricably tied to emotions, as we see leftists (what's
that?) and so-called progressives screaming at the top of their lungs how Trump is the worst
president ever. Black
so-called activists , journalists, stating how the
empire (sky) is falling because Trump talked with Putin . Imagine, imagine, all those
millions upon millions of people killed because of all the other presidents' and their thugs'
policies eviscerating societies, all those elections smeared, all those democracies mauled, all
those citizens in the other part of the world hobbled by America's policies, read "wars,
occupations, embargoes, structural violence." It is a daily reminder for us all that today, as
was true yesterday, that we are ruled by masters of self-deception and our collective society
having a feel good party every day while we plunder the world. Doublethink. Here:
To tell deliberate lives while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion
for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while
to take account of the reality one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in
using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one
admits one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge;
and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Herein lies the problem – vaunting past presidents on pedestals while attacking this
current deplorable, Donald Trump. The reality is the US has been run by an elite group of
militarists, and by no means is Trump the worst of the worst, which is both illogical and
unsupported by facts:
Yet, we have to mark the words and wisdom of those of us who have been marking this empire's
crimes, both internal and external, for years. Here, Paul Edwards over
at Counterpunch hits a bulls-eye on the heart of the matter:
After decades of proven bald-faced crime, deceit and the dirtiest pool at home and abroad,
the CIA, FBI, NSA, the Justice Department and the whole fetid nomenklatura of sociopathic rats,
are portrayed as white knights of virtue dispensing verity as holy writ. And "progressives" buy
it.
These are the vermin that gave us Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, Chile, the Contras, Iraq's WMD,
and along the way managed to miss the falls of the Shah and Communism.
Truly an Orwellian clusterfuck, this. War Party Dems misleading naive liberal souls sickened
by Trump into embracing the dirty, vicious lunacy Hillary peddled to her fans, the bankers,
brokers, and CEOs of the War Machine.
Trump is a fool who may yet blunder us into war; the Dems and the Deep State cabal would
give us war by design.
... ... ...
Paul Kirk Haeder has been a journalist since 1977. He's covered police,
environment, planning and zoning, county and city politics, as well as working in true small
town/community journalism situations in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Mexico and beyond. He's been
a part-time faculty since 1983, and as such has worked in prisons, gang-influenced programs,
universities, colleges, alternative high schools, language schools, as a private
contractor-writing instructor for US military in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington. A
forthcoming book (Dec. 15, 2016),Reimagining Sanity: Voices Beyond the Echo
Chamber, looks at 10 years of his writing atDissident Voice, and
before, to bring defiance to the world that is now lobotomizing at a rate never before seen in
history. Read his autobiography, weekly chapter installments, atLA Progressive.
Read other articles by
Paul , or visit Paul's
website .
"... Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term. ..."
"... I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyite lenghts since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainees of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign. ..."
"... We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years. ..."
"... Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference. Indictments are accusations, not evidence. ..."
"... I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him. ..."
"... CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). ..."
"... As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface. ..."
"... No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev. ..."
Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible
to pursue that goal in the near term. The U.S. and Russia could and should have a more constructive relationship, but it can't
be based on the denial of reality and ignoring the genuine disagreements that exist between our governments.
If there is to be genuine improvement in U.S.-Russian relations, it will come from facing up to these disagreements and finding
a way to work through or around them.
"Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term."
I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals
like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyite lenghts since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any*
change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The
US establishment and the retainees of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before
Trump even announced his campaign.
We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years.
I agree with b. While Trump may not be savvy enough to calibrate his engagement with Putin in a way that would allow a proper
dialogue with Russia in spite of the political backdrop in the US, the primary blame for any failure to allow such dialogue rests
for those responsible for creating that political backdrop that makes it so difficult in the first place (hint: it's not Trump,
unless you blame him for winning the election – rather it is the unholy alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing
the election and Cold War hawk neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)).
That Putin talked up the Iran deal in the press conference makes me wonder what was said in the one-on-one. Couldn't have pleased
the Adelson/Bolton wing.
Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference.
Indictments are accusations, not evidence.
I saw nothing particularly wrong with the press conference. I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin
rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him.
The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run media.
They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme to reinforce that we are the forces
goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us is evil.
CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize
Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was
about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). These are just
two random examples in a very long day. It was
a show worthy of the priests of Baal who confronted Elijah.
As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate
it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface.
No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing
terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev.
The summit was announced by the White House and the Kremlin on June 28. The Finnish hosts probably knew about it a few days earlier.
That leaves only three weeks for preparation.
The summit itself lasted one day. Putin arrived late and after lunch and diplomatic niceties there was only 2-3 hours for actual
talks.
That's not a problem if everything is already carefully negotiated and the presidents just sign documents and smile for the
cameras. But it seems very little was agreed on beforehand.
I'm all for world leaders meeting and talking. The more the better. But I really don't see the point of hastily calling a summit
where nothing is agreed upon. At least not that we know of.
"... This is the proverbial case where the real " action is in the reaction " and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject hysterics. ..."
"... What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for what it is. ..."
"... Even such supposed supporters of President Trump like Trey Gowdy who has fully thrown his weight behind the "Russia tried to attack us" nonsense . With friends like these... ..."
"... What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian "two minutes of hatred" but now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are only increasing . ..."
"... By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again, then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many times as needed. This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. ..."
"... The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the US into two main categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and, second, everybody else. That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other groups. ..."
"... I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters. Basically, those who felt "I want my country back" and who hoped that Trump would make that happen are now horrified by what is taking place. ..."
"... I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress, especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-facto coup against the Executive on so many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. ..."
"... By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from the very first day of Trump's presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now apparently also want it de-jure too. ..."
"... From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the AngloZionist Empire. ..."
"... the infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will further weaken the US, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction. ..."
"... The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level. ..."
"... the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at risk. ..."
"... Saker, something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria? If, on the other hand, he is a rather successful wrecking ball, already having put in jeopardy half the key resources of the empire, that's another story. ..."
"... He's laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large part by so embarrassing the Empire's elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push as it heads for the edifice. ..."
"... I don't think that Trump is the fool on the hill. I think that mostly all those around him are. The latest hysteria over Russia is not about any "meddling" in any "democracy". It's about throwing tantrums that Russia won't submit to US hegemony. In my opinion, they don't deserve to be in charge of their own country, let alone to be asking to be in charge of Russia. ..."
"... It is not just "unanimity of hatred and chaos", "abject hysterics", "hate-filled hysteria", "two minutes of hatred stretched well into a two weeks of hatred" etc. It's something else and, I feel, simply much worse and dangerous. ..."
Oh sure, there were a number of general statements made about "positive discussions" and the
like, and some vague references to various conflicts, but the truth is that nothing real and
tangible was agreed upon. Furthermore, and this is, I believe, absolutely crucial, there never
was any chance of this summit achieving anything. Why? Because the Russians have concluded a
long time ago that the US officials are "
non-agreement capable "
(недоговороспособны).
They are correct – the US has been non-agreement capable at least since Obama and Trump
has only made things even worse: not only has the US now reneged on Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (illegally – since this plan was endorsed by the
UNSC ), but Trump has even pathetically backtracked on the most important statement he made
during the summit when he retroactively changed his "
President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be " into "
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia " (so much for 5D chess!).
If Trump can't even stick to his own words, how could anybody expect the Russians to take
anything he says seriously?! Besides, ever since the many western verbal promises of not moving
NATO east "
by one inch eastward " the Russians know that western promises, assurances, and other
guarantees are worthless, whether promised in a conversation or inked on paper. In truth, the
Russians have been very blunt about their disgust with not only the western dishonesty but even
about the basic lack of professionalism of their western counterparts, hence the
comment by Putin about " it is difficult to have a dialogue with people who confuse
Austria and Australia ".
It is quite obvious that the Russians agreed to the summit while knowing full well that
nothing would, or even could, come out of it. This is why they were already dumping US
Treasuries even
before meeting with Trump (a clear sign of how the Kremlin really feels about Trump
and the US).
So why did they agree to the meeting? Because they correctly evaluated the
consequences of this meeting. This is the proverbial case where the real "
action is in
the reaction " and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its
propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject
hysterics. I could list an immense number of quotes, statements and declarations accusing
Trump of being a wimp, a traitor, a sellout, a Putin agent and all the rest. But I found the
most powerful illustration of that hate-filled hysteria in a collection of cartoons from the
western corporate media posted by Colonel Cassad on this page:
What we see today is a hate campaign against both Trump and Russia the likes of which
I think the world has never seen before: even in the early 20th century, including the pre-WWII
years when there was plenty of hate thrown around, there never was such a unanimity of
hatred as what we see today. Furthermore, what is attacked is not just "Trump the man" or
"Trump the politician" but very much so "Trump the President". Please compare the following two
examples:
The US wars after 9/11: many people had major reservations about the wars against
Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire GWOT thing. But most Americans seemed to agree with the "we
support our troops" slogan. The logic was something along the lines of "we don't like these
wars, but we do support our fighting men and women and the military institution as such". Thus,
while a specific policy was criticized, this criticism was never applied to the institution
which implement it: the US armed forces. Trump after Helsinki: keep in mind that Trump made no
agreement of any kind with Putin, none. And yet that policy of not making any
agreements with Putin was hysterically lambasted as a sellout. This begs the question: what
kind of policy would meet with the approval of the US deep state? Trump punching Putin in the
nose maybe? This is utterly ridiculous, yet unlike in the case of the GWOT wars, there is no
differentiation made whatsoever between Trump's policy towards Putin and Trump as the President
of the United States. There is even talk of impeachment, treason and "high crimes &
misdemeanors" or of the "KGB" (dissolved 27 years ago but nevermind that) having a hand in the
election of the US President.
What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what
is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for
what it is. There are a few exceptions, of course, even in the media (I think of Tucker
Carlson), but these voices are completely drowned out by the hate-filled shrieks of the vast
majority of US politicians and journalists. Even such supposed supporters of President Trump
like Trey Gowdy who has
fully thrown his weight behind the "Russia tried to attack us" nonsense . With friends like
these...
What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian "two minutes of hatred" but
now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is
calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are
only increasing .
By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again,
then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many
times as needed. This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works
miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. This is particularly true of US politicians
and journalists who have long become the accomplices of the deep state (especially after the
9/11 false flag and its cover-up) and who now cannot back down under any circumstances or treat
President Trump as a normal, regular, President. The anti-Trump rhetoric has gone way too far
and the US has now reached what I believe is a point of no return.
The brewing constitutional crisis: the Neocons vs the "deplorables"
I believe that the US is facing what could be the worst crisis in its history: the lawfully
elected President is being openly delegitimized and that, in turn, delegitimizes the electoral
process which brought him to power and, of course, it also excoriates the "deplorables" who
dared vote for him: the majority of the American people.
The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the US into two main
categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and,
second, everybody else. That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only
bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but
also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other
groups.
I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their
armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters.
Basically, those who felt "I want my country back" and who hoped that Trump would make that
happen are now horrified by what is taking place.
I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and
their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress,
especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-facto coup against the Executive on so
many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public
eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers
such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. A perfect example of this can be found
in Nancy Pelosi's official statement about a possible invitation from Trump to Putin:
"The notion that President Trump would invite a tyrant to Washington is beyond belief.
Putin's ongoing attacks on our elections and on Western democracies and his illegal actions
in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine deserve the fierce, unanimous condemnation of the
international community, not a VIP ticket to our nation's capital. President Trump's
frightened fawning over Putin is an embarrassment and a grave threat to our democracy. An
invitation to address a Joint Meeting of Congress should be bipartisan and Speaker Ryan must
immediately make clear that there is not – and never will be – an invitation for
a thug like Putin to address the United States Congress."
Another example of the same can be found in the unanimous 98-0 resolution by the
US Senate expressing Congress's opposition to the US government allowing Russia to question
US officials. Trump, of course, immediately caved in, even though he had originally declared
"fantastic" the idea of actually abiding by the terms of an existing 1999 agreement on mutual
assistance on criminal cases between the United States of America and Russia. The White House
"spokesperson", Sarah Sanders, did even better and stated : (emphasis
added)
"It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump
disagrees with it. Hopefully, President Putin will have the 12 identified Russians come to
the United States to prove their innocence or guilt "
Talk about imperial megalomania! The US will not allow the Russians to interrogate anybody,
but it wants Putin to extradite Russian citizens. Amazing
Every single day, I find myself asking: what do the Russians have on @realDonaldTrump
personally, financially, & politically? The answer to that question is that only thing
that explains his behavior & his refusal to stand up to Putin. #ABetterDeal.
Pretty clear, no? "Trump is a traitor and we have to stop him".
By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from
the very first day of Trump's presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with
having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now
apparently also want it de-jure too. The real question is this: are there any forces
inside the US capable of stopping the Neocons from completely taking all the reins of power
and, if yes, how could a patriotic reaction to this Neocon coup manifest itself? I honestly
don't know, but my feeling is that we might soon have a "President Pence" in the Oval Office.
One way or another, a constitutional crisis is brewing.
What about the Russian interests in all this?
I have said it many times, Russia and the AngloZionist Empire (as opposed to the United
States as a country) are at war, a war which is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and
only 5% "kinetic". This is a very real war nonetheless and it is a war for survival simply
because the Empire cannot allow any major country on the planet to be truly sovereign.
Therefore, not only does the AngloZionist Empire represent an existential threat to Russia,
Russia also represents an existential threat to the Empire. In this kind of conflict for
survival there is no room for anything but a zero-sum game and whatever is good for Russia is
bad for the US and vice-versa.
The Russians, including Putin, never wanted this zero-sum game,
it was imposed upon them by the AngloZionists, but now that they have been forced into it, they
will play it as hard as they can. It is therefore only logical to conclude that the massive
systemic crises in which the Neocons and their crazy policies have plunged the US are to the
advantage of Russia.
To be sure, the ideal scenario would be for Russia and the US (as opposed
to the AngloZionst Empire) to work together on the very long list of issues where they share
common interests. But since the Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the
sake of their imperial designs, that is simply not going to happen, and the Russians understand
that. Furthermore, since the US constitutes the largest power component of the AngloZionist
Empire, anything weakening the US also thereby weakens the Empire and anything which weakens
the Empire is beneficial for Russia (by the way, the logical corollary of this state of affairs
is that the people of the US and the people of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons
– and that makes them de-facto allies).
It is not my purpose here to discuss when and how the Neocons came to power in the US, so I
will just say that the delusional policies followed by the various US administrations since at
least 1993 (and, even more so, since 2001) have been disastrous for the United States and could
be characterized as one long never-ending case of imperial hubris (to use the title of
here
). The long string of lost wars and foreign policy disasters are a direct result of this lack
of even basic expertise. What passes for "expertise" today is basically hate-filled hyperbole
and warmongering hysterics, hence the inflation in the paranoid anti-Russian rhetoric.
The
US armed forces are only good at three things: wasting immense sums of money, destroying
countries and alienating the rest of the planet. They are still the most expensive and bloated
armed forces on the planet, but nobody fears them anymore (not even relatively small states,
nevermind Russia or China). In technological terms, the Russians (and to a somewhat lesser
degree the Chinese) have found asymmetrical answers to all the key force planning programs of
the Pentagon and the former US superiority in the air, on land and on the seas is now a thing
of the past. As for the US nuclear triad, it is still capable of accomplishing its mission, but
it is useless as an instrument of foreign policy or to fight Russia or China (unless suicide is
contemplated).
[Sidebar: this inability of the US military to achieve desired political goals might explain
why, at least so far, the US has apparently given up on the notion of a Reconquista of
Syria or why the Ukronazis have not dared to attack the Donbass. Of course, this is too early
to call and these zigs might be followed by many zags, especially in the context of the
political crisis in the US, but it appears that in the cases of the DPRK, Iran, Syria and the
Ukraine there is much barking, but not much biting coming from the supposed sole "hyperpower"
on the planet] The US is now engaged in simultaneous conflicts not only with Iran or Russia but
also with the EU and China. In fact, even relationships with vassal states such as Canada or
France are now worse than ever before. Only the prostituted leaders of "new Europe", to use
Rumsfeld's
term , are still paying lip service to the notion of "American leadership", and only if
they get paid for it.
The US "elites" and the various interest groups they represent have now
clearly turned on each other which is a clear sign that the entire system is in a state of deep
crisis: when things were going well, everybody could get what they wanted and no visible
infighting was taking place. The Israel Lobby has now fully subordinated Congress, the White
House, and the media to its narrow Likudnik agenda and, as a direct result of this,
the US has lost all their positions in the Middle-East and the chorus of those with enough
courage to denounce this Zionist Occupation Government is slowly but steadily growing (at least
on the Internet). Even US Jews are getting fed up with the now openly
Israeli apartheid state (see
here or
here ). By withdrawing from a long list of important international treaties and bodies
(TPP, Kyoto Protocol, START, ABM, JCPOA. UNESCO, UN Human Rights Council, etc.) the United
States has completely isolated themselves from the rest of the planet. The ironic truth is that
Russia has not been isolated in the least, but that the US has isolated itself from the rest of
the planet.
In contrast, the Russians are capitalizing on every single US mistake – be it the
carrier-centric navy, the unconditional support for Israel or the simultaneous trade wars with
China and the EU. Much has been made of the recent revelation of new and revolutionary Russian
weapon systems (see here
and here
) but there is much more to this than just the deployment of new military systems and
technologies: Russia is benefiting from the lack of any real US foreign policies to advance her
own interests in the Middle-East, of course, but also elsewhere. Let's just take the very
latest example of a US self-inflicted PR disaster – the following "tweet" by
Trump: (CAPS in the original)
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL
SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE
ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE
CAUTIOUS!
This kind of infantile (does he not sound like a 6 year old?) and, frankly, rather demented
attempts at scaring Iranians (of all people!) is guaranteed to have the exact opposite effect
from the one presumably sought: the Iranian leaders might snicker in disgust, or have a good
belly-laugh, but they are not going to be
impressed .
The so-called "allies" of the US will be embarrassed in the extreme to be "led"
by such a primitive individual, even if they don't say so in public. As for the Russians, they
will happily explore all the possibilities offered to them by such illiterate and
self-defeating behavior.
Conclusion one: a useful summit for Russia
As a direct consequence of the Helsinki summit, the infighting of the US ruling classes has
dramatically intensified. Furthermore, faced with a barrage of hateful attacks Trump did what
he always does: he tried to simultaneously appease his critics by caving in to their rhetoric
while at the same time trying to appear "tough" – hence his latest "I am a tough guy with
a big red button" antics against Iran (he did exactly the same thing towards the DPRK). We will
probably never find out what exactly Trump and Putin discussed during their private meeting,
but one thing is sure: the fact that Trump sat one-on-one with Putin without any "supervision"
from his deep-state mentors was good enough to create a total panic in the US ruling class
resulting in even more wailing about collusion, impeachment, high crimes & misdemeanors and
even treason. Again, the goal is clear: Trump must be removed.
From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office
or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the
AngloZionist Empire. The Russians simply don't have the means to bring down the Empire, but the
infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will
further weaken the US, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by
itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction.
Conclusion two: the Clinton gang's actions can result in a real catastrophe for the
US
Trump's main goal in meeting with Putin was probably to find out whether there was a way to
split up the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership and to back the Israeli demands for Syria.
On the issue of China, Trump never had a chance since the US has really nothing to offer to
Russia (whereas China and Russia are now locked into a
vital symbiotic relationship ). On Syria, the Russians and the Israelis are now negotiating
the details of a deal which would give the Syrian government the control of the demarcation
line with Israel (it is not a border in the legal sense) and Trump's backing for Israel will
make no difference. As for Iran, the Russians will not back the US agenda either for many
reasons ranging from basic self-interest to respect for international law. So while Trump did
the right thing in meeting with Putin, it was predictable at least under the current set of
circumstances, that he would not walk away with tangible results.
For all his very real failings, Trump cannot be blamed for the current situation. The real
culprits are the Clinton gang and the Democratic Party which, by their completely irresponsible
behavior, are creating a very dangerous crisis for the United States: the Neocons and the
Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if
the US political system by itself is also put at risk. Furthermore, the Neocons have now
completely flipped around the presumption of innocence – both externally (Russian
"attack" on the US elections) and internally (Trump's "collusion" with Putin). As for Trump,
whatever his good intentions might have been, he is weak and cannot fight the entire US deep
state by himself. The Neocons and the US deep state are now on a collision course with Russia
and the people of the United States and while Russia does have the means to protect herself
from the Empire, it is unclear to me who, or what could stop the Neocons from further damaging
the US. Deep and systemic crises often result in new personalities entering the stage, but in
the case of the US, it is now undeniable that the system cannot reform
All of this seems profoundly depressing, but it appears to be how things are. I was
disappointed by Trump's efforts to cave into the deep state on his statements. The fact he
can't even control his justice ministry reveals his weakness. I'm of the view history shows
that once spy agencies reach a critical mass in power they become the absolute rulers of a
structure and the rule of law becomes a facade, then is sidelined completely.
Trump was a complete outsider to politics when he decided to run for the presidency in
2015. He had no team or political allies. He really didn't have much of a philosophy of
governance, a solid foundation of history and facts, a first rate vocabulary or the debating
skills of an 8th grader. He has consistently failed to win over any Democratic and probably
not even a majority of Republican politicians.
The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the
Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has
been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level.
His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business
but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a
vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to
bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job
of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international
tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with
virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain
his credibility before the public.
Actually, a smidgen south of half the public are the only base of his support. And a very
eclectic base they are, including numerous liberals, progressives, intellectuals and
peaceniks, in addition to conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians, who prefer to deal
with the real world rather than Hillary's deliberate misrepresentation of it.
Will that be enough for him to survive? The way the maniacs are raving in the media,
expect the country to throw a big celebration if he gets "taken out" one way or another
tomorrow. The situation is really dangerous and utterly shameful. Most of the blame goes to
Hillary Clinton and her insurrectionists for not accepting the outcome of our system of
ersatz "democracy." Her husband won with something like 43% of the popular vote in 1992. I'm
pretty sure Trump had a higher number. Cry me a river, Hillary, but stop trying to destroy
what you can't have like a petulant child.
the logical corollary of this state of affairs is that the people of the US and the people
of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons – and that makes them de-facto
allies
I think it would be more accurate to say that the people of Russia had the same
enemy.
By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again,
then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as
many times as needed.
It's like trial lawyers say: if the facts are on your side and the law is not, then argue
the facts; if the law is on your side and the facts are not, then argue the law; and if
neither the facts nor the law are on your side, then bang your fists on the table and shout
as loud as you can! That's exactly what the neo-clowns are doing here.
the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how
destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at
risk.
All of which just helps to further discredit the empire. Even with all the insanity in the
media, I still thank God every day that Hellary did not become president.
The above h0moerotic caricature of Putin and Trump is quite revealing in what it tells us
about what drives the emotional life of White Liberals and White Leftist. They are driven by
powerful urges to impose homosexuality-pedophilia-pederasty on both Christian Russia and the
Working Class Native Born White American Christians.
Saker, something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and
spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria? If, on the other hand, he is a rather successful wrecking ball, already having put in
jeopardy half the key resources of the empire, that's another story.
I think because Trump postulated himself as a candidate, then got nominated the Republican
candidate and worst of all, despite the huge campaign against him, won the elections, without
the blessing of the Deep State and the neocons. So now they want to teach him (and anyone
else who might think about doing the same) a lesson: "Anyone who tries to become president
without our approval will be crushed", so it never happens again.
something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and
spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria?
And nobody seems to like him
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings
But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around
That Trump is a wrecking ball is a hypothesis I've held since the first GOP debate, when I
also realized he would (probably) win not only the election, but may even succeed at the far
more difficult challenge of bringing the Empire to a sufficiently soft landing that the
nation survives. I'm less convinced of the latter now, largely because I underestimated the
centrifugal forces driving the fault lines in the American body politic. The nation,
tragically may not survive the Empire's twilight, but I've seen nothing that makes me want to
change my hypothesis.
He's laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large
part by so embarrassing the Empire's elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first
their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign
and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push
as it heads for the edifice.
As for the summit, I frankly wouldn't be surprised to learn that much of it was staged for
maximum hysteria-inducing effect. Their 2hrs spent alone probably was little more than
comparing notes. After all, what can Trump promise that he can also deliver under the
circumstances? He can only promise to keep doing what he's doing.
In any case, they both know the Empire has to go, and they both want the American nation
to be a player after it goes. A vibrant America is as critical to the multipolar world as it
is to Americans. Maybe more so.
Collusion? Maybe, but the Trump phenomena, IMHO, has all the earmarks of regime change
done right. With or without collusion, the hystericals can't quite put their finger on
what happened, which drives further hysteria, which pushes the wrecking ball even faster,
which drives....
now undeniable that the system cannot reform itself
Yes, Saker and that puts US politics behind European fascism of 70+ years ago. Mussolini was booted out by a fascist committee, Franco paved the way for a constitutional
monarchy, but all Americans get is Bozo the Clown/President.
The destruction of the US working class amazes me in its absence from all serious debate.
First subverted by the CIA then rendered null by outsourcing (which is still undercounted)
the "deplorables" have no mechanism for resistence except the unthinkable one: Hope for total
breakup of the United States. Or hope for a foreign invasion.
Makes one wonder. When Egyptians greeted Alexander the Great as a liberator as he
conquered them, it was a fairly pungent comment on the ruling Persians. Will blue-collar
former-Yanks be cheering for liberating Chinese or Russian troops anytime soon? Henry
Kissinger once predicted something of the sort.
Well on the way, head in a cloud
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice
He never listens to them
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him
I don't think that Trump is the fool on the hill. I think that mostly all those around him
are. The latest hysteria over Russia is not about any "meddling" in any "democracy". It's about throwing tantrums that Russia won't submit to US hegemony. In my opinion, they
don't deserve to be in charge of their own country, let alone to be asking to be in charge of
Russia.
All they come up with is terrible ideas which they in their generosity are way too eager
to share with the world – against the wishes or the best interests of the world. Like
the multiculturalism. It's bad enough that they came up with that awful idea, but then they
had to force it down the throats of the stupid Europeans.
Then when Merkel showed enough brains to challenge their idea, they forced her to make 180
turn and to welcome over a 1 million refugees from the imperial misadventures.
Well, Saker did put, this time, some good points here.
Of course, they were well mixed with the usual Kremlin propaganda, but that's now like "good
morning" with his writing. Probably all public members of "Team Russia" have that clause in
their contract.
The usual spin "Russia is great, winning, and all is not only good but simply getting better
for Kremlin and the Great Leader".
He does point to this "thing" with MSM and public figures in West re the summit.
I agree, it's surreal. If I were watching this in a serious movie I'd change the channel/walk
out. If I were reading a serious book with the "thing" as a part of the plot I'd stop
reading. I think there IS something there.
It is not just "unanimity of hatred and chaos", "abject hysterics", "hate-filled
hysteria", "two minutes of hatred stretched well into a two weeks of hatred" etc. It's
something else and, I feel, simply much worse and dangerous.
I guess we have entered a zone beyond geopolitics into mass psychology. Not my area of
expertise at all, but simply feel there is something there. It feels as watching, hard to express it, hysterical people? Now, on my level, whenever I dealt with such people I simply walked away, most of the
time. A couple of times, when I couldn't walk away I simply floored them (or so I say). Both
men and women (talking about being a gentleman , a). With women, it's even easier, just one
strike, weak hand even. With men a full combination, even with a takedown and
..anyway. Joking. Sort of. Besides, I was younger then. But how can you take out people who control, in essence, US power, nuclear weapons in
particular? You simply can't . That is what makes, IMHO, this so dangerous. I simply can't recollect anything similar in relationship between superpowers. I am not so optimistic re the collapse of The Empire, multipolar world etc.
This "thing" can, I concede, deliver a couple of goods:
People, at last, realizing who, or better what, are our "betters".
The real power of The Empire diminishing because of the mess and chaos those species
..created.
Those two things creating an opportunity to, somehow, do something about this
abomination.
But, and a big but, there is the flip there.
People simply not paying attention. And, those hysterics really getting the levers of power
in their hands. While they are in that state, that is.
As I've said several times here so far (doesn't matter a bit, of course) Trump supporters
fucked up.
Not him; he didn't expect to win and when he did he found himself in a really bad
position.
His supporters. As soon as he won they walked home. A mistake.
A terrible mistake. I feel we'll all pay, dearly, for it.
"... I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyism lengths since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainers of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign. ..."
"... it is the unholy alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing the election and Cold War hawk neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)). ..."
"... The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run media. They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme to reinforce that we are the forces goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us is evil. ..."
"Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term."
I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies,
the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyism lengths since
before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status
quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will
never know. The US establishment and the retainers of the war profiteering classes have made
any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign.
We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia"
playbook during the Obama years.
I agree with b. While Trump may not be savvy enough to calibrate his engagement with Putin in
a way that would allow a proper dialogue with Russia in spite of the political backdrop in
the US, the primary blame for any failure to allow such dialogue rests for those responsible
for creating that political backdrop that makes it so difficult in the first place (hint:
it's not Trump, unless you blame him for winning the election – rather it is the unholy
alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing the election and Cold War hawk
neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)).
That Putin talked up the Iran deal in the press conference makes me wonder what was said in
the one-on-one. Couldn't have pleased the Adelson/Bolton wing.
Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election
interference. Indictments are accusations, not evidence.
I saw nothing particularly wrong with the press conference. I'm no Trump fan, but he was just
saying he believed Putin rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his
administration down. Can't really blame him.
The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run
media.
They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme
to reinforce that we are the forces goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us
is evil.
CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating
that Putin use her to terrorize Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000
children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was about to be
liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to
kill). These are just two random examples in a very long day. It was
a show worthy of the priests of Baal who confronted Elijah.
As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we
elected a conventional candidate it would just be business as usual with these seething
hatreds buried just below the surface.
No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian
leader unless we are discussing terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev.
Conventional wisdom would have us believe that Russia became America's sworn enemy in the aftermath
of the 2016 presidential election. As is often the case, however, conventional wisdom can be
illusory.
In the momentous 2016 showdown between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump,
a faraway dark
kingdom known as Russia, the fantastic fable goes, hijacked that part of the American brain
responsible for critical thinking and lever pulling with a few thousand dollars' worth of Facebook
and Twitter adverts, bots and whatnot.
The result of that gross intrusion into the squeaky
clean machinery of the God-blessed US election system is now more or less well-documented history
brought to you by the US mainstream media: Donald Trump, with some assistance from the Russians
that has never been adequately explained, pulled the presidential contest out from under the wobbly
feet of Hillary Clinton.
For those who unwittingly bought that work of fiction, I can only offer my sincere
condolences.
In fact, Russiagate is just the latest installment of an anti-Russia story
that has been ongoing since the presidency of George W. Bush.
Act 1: Smokescreen
Rewind to September 24th, 2001.
Having gone on record as the first global
leader to telephone George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Putin showed his
support went beyond mere words. He announced a five-point plan to support America in the 'war
against terror' that included the sharing of intelligence, as well as the opening of Russian
airspace for US humanitarian flights to Central Asia.
In the
words
of
perennial Kremlin critic, Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia,
Putin's
"acquiescence to NATO troops in Central Asia signaled a reversal of two hundred years of Russian
foreign policy. Under Yeltsin, the communists, and the tsars, Russia had always considered Central
Asia as its 'sphere of influence.' Putin broke with that tradition."
In other words, the new Russian leader was demonstrating his desire for Russia to have, as Henry
Kissinger
explained
it
some seven years later, "a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice."
This leads us to the question for the ages: If it was obvious that Russia was now
fully prepared to enter into a serious partnership with the United States in the 'war on terror,'
then how do we explain George W. Bush announcing the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty just three months later?
There are some things we may take away from that move, which Putin tersely and rightly
described
as
a "mistake."
First
, Washington must not have considered a security partnership with
Moscow very important, since they certainly understood that Russia would respond negatively to the
decision to scrap the 30-year-old ABM Treaty.
Second
, the US must not considered the 'war on terror' very serious
either; otherwise it would not have risked losing Russian assistance in hunting down the baddies in
Central Asia and the Middle East, geographical areas where Russia has gained valuable experience
over the years. This was a remarkably odd choice considering that the US military apparatus had
failed spectacularly to defend the nation against a terrorist attack, coordinated by 19 amateurs,
armed with box cutters, no less.
Third
, as was the case with the
decision
to
invade Iraq, a country with nodiscernible connection to the events of 9/11, as well as the
imposition of the
pre-drafted
Patriot
Act on a shell-shocked nation, the decision to break with Russia seems to have been a premeditated
move on the global chessboard. Although it would be hard to prove such a claim, we can take some
guidance from Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff, who notoriously advised, "You never want a
serious crisis to go to waste."
So why did Bush abrogate the ABM Treaty with Russia?
The argument was that some
"rogue state," rumored to be Iran, might be tempted to launch a missile attack against "US
interests abroad." Yet there was absolutely no logic to the claim since Tehran was inextricably
bound by the same principle of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) as were any other states that
tempted fate with a surprise attack on US-Israeli interests. Further, it made no sense to focus
attention on Shia-dominant Iran when the majority of the terrorists, allegedly acolytes of Osama
bin Laden, reportedly hailed from Sunni-dominant Saudi Arabia. In other words, the Bush
administration happily sacrificed an invincible relationship with Russia in the war on terror in
order to guard against some external threat that only nominally existed, with a missile defense
system that was largely unproven in the field. Again, zero logic.
However, when it is considered that the missile defense system was tailor-made by
America specifically with Russia in mind, the whole scheme begins to make more sense, at least from
a strategic perspective.
Thus, the Bush administration used the attacks of 9/11 to not
only dramatically curtail the civil rights of American citizens with the passage of the Patriot
Act, it also took the first steps towards encircling Russia with a so-called 'defense system' that
has the capacity to grow in effectiveness and range.
For those who thought Russia would just sit back and let itself be encircled by foreign
missiles, they were in for quite a surprise.
In March 2018, Putin stunned the world, and
certainly Washington's hawks, by
announcing
in
the annual Address to the Federal Assembly the introduction of advanced weapons systems – including
those with hypersonic capabilities - designed to overcome any missile defense system in the world.
These major developments by Russia, which Putin emphasized was accomplished "without the
benefit" of Soviet-era expertise, has fueled the narrative that "Putin's Russia" is an aggressive
nation with "imperial ambitions," when in reality its goal was to form a bilateral pact with the
United States and other Western states almost two decades ago post 9/11.
Now, US officials can only wring their hands in angst while speaking about an "aggressive
Russia."
"Russia is the most significant threat just because they pose the only
existential threat to the country right now. So we have to look at that from that perspective,"
declared
Air
Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, or STRATCOM.
Putin reiterated in his Address, however, that there would have been no need for Russia to have
developed such advanced weapon systems if its legitimate concerns had not been dismissed by the
US.
"Nobody wanted to talk with us on the core of the problem," he said. "Nobody
listened to us. Now you listen!"
Everybody needs to get up to speed on international Jew criminal Bill
Browder. He's at the center of the Deep State, and royally fucked up when
he tried to rip off Putin for $400 million.
I should also mention Putin's treatment of certain Jewish
oligarchs who have attempted to influence Western policies toward
Russia (e.g., Mikhail Khodorkovsky). A truly stunning moment in the
Trump-Putin presser (all but ignored in the MSM) was Putin saying
that Bill Browder and his associates had illegally earned $1.5
billion in Russia ("the way the money was earned was illegal")
without paying taxes either to Russia or the United States where the
money was transferred. And that he and his associates had contributed
$400 million to Hillary Clinton's campaign. While the charges back
and forth are impossible for me to evaluate, Browder's firm,
Hermitage Capital Management, has been involved in other accusations
of fraud. Browder was the main force promoting the Magnitsky Act,
signed by President Obama in 2012, that barred Russian officials said
to be involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Browder associate,
from entering the U.S. or using the U.S. banking system.
Here the point is that American neocons have been in the forefront
of hostility over Putin's treatment of Jewish oligarchs, taking the
view that Browder et al. are completely innocent victims of Russian
evil. Along with Russian foreign policy, Putin's actions toward the
oligarchs is one factor in neocon and hence some factions of the GOP
toward Russia. It's no surprise that they are now eagerly joining the
hate-Trump chorus throughout the American establishment.
Inc.'s Fawning Response to James Gunn Scandal Reveals Where Its True
Loyalties Lie •
It's the classic man-bites-dog story; a Leftist artist suffered a career setback because of
his statements on social media. The person in question is Guardians of the
Galaxy director James Gunn, who lost his gig directing Disney's next installment in
the film series after independent reporters such as Mike Cernovich highlighted his "jokes"
about the sexual exploitation of children. Senator Ted Cruz, among others, was outraged and
suggested Gunn's comments even bordered on illegality.
Hollywood celebrities are defending Gunn and even demanding that he be rehired [
Chris Pratt
and more break silence after James Gunn fired from 'Guardians of the Galaxy 3 ,' by
Lisa Respers France, CNN, July 23 2018). However, one can't help but notice the same
celebrities defending or telling graphic "jokes" about sexually exploiting children are also
the people who want careers ended for Politically Incorrect comments directed at privileged
classes such as women, homosexuals, or nonwhites [
Note: Hollywood Finds Child Rape Hilarious , by John Nolte, Breitbart, July
22, 2018].
It's not clear why Disney, a company dependent on its appeal to children, would ever employ
someone who thinks horrific crimes are comedic fodder. After all, as Gunn himself once
tweeted:
Yet it isn't just Leftist celebrities who are suddenly eager to defend the sacred right of
free speech when it comes to pedophilia. Shockingly, some Conservativism
Inc. luminaries, particularly those who love to showily brag about their
Christianity and social
conservatism , have chosen this hill to die on as well.
David French, one of the most prominent
Never Trump activists of
the 2016 election, rushed to Gunn's defense, saying:
Similarly, S.E. Cupp, who has a long career as one of CNN's token conservatives , decided this of all
things was something that she couldn't remain silent about. She endorsed French's tweet in
support of Gunn and added:
Yet only two months ago. when mob rule on Twitter decided Roseanne's fate, Cupp gleefully
piled on. Like NR 's French, she faulted ABC for hiring Roseanne in the first
place.
Remember, this is a woman who was an early supporter of birtherism, has compared Muslims
to Nazis, took to Twitter regularly to attack citizens both private and public, floated wild
conspiracy theories and bullied Trump opponents with racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic
insults.
Minicon Ben Shapiro , another
opponent of Trump during the primaries, is also among Gunn defenders. Shapiro acknowledged
Gunn's tweets were "loathsome" but said "that doesn't mean he should have lost his job at
Disney". [ Should
James Gunn have lost his job at Disney ? Daily Wire, July 20, 2018]
Roseanne, however, was different: "Roseanne played herself in the series, so when she made a
new racist reference about Valerie Jarrett, her persona was inseparable from her
character," Shapiro wrote. " Roseanne was Roseanne."
Erick Erickson is another
Never Trumper whose views about respectability have mysteriously changed within two months.
When Roseanne was driven off the air, Erickson self-righteously proclaimed: "Her joke was not
in poor taste. It was racist" [
Roseanne's behavior is not defensible , The Maven, May 30, 2018]. Yet regarding Gunn,
he said:
The last comment is revealing. It's hard to imagine in what ways conservatives are "winning"
-- Trump supporters are regularly attacked on the street and expelled from businesses. Random
white people are humiliated by the Main Stream Media and
fired
from their jobs
for calling the police. [
BBQ Becky, Permit Patty and why the Internet is shaming white people who police people 'simply
for being black' , Jessica Guynn, USA TODAY, July 18, 2018] Meanwhile, even as the
Democrats become ever more radical, they continue to enjoy all but unanimous support from the
MSM and are leading the polls. Insofar as the American Right has won any major victories in the
recent past, it was President Trump's election -- something Erickson and his Never Trump
co-conspirators fought every step of the way.
Yet the strange connection between Never Trump and defending James Gunn is easily explained.
All of the figures above rely on Leftist media, and the
powerful mafias that dominate it , to grant them fame and legitimacy as "leading" American
conservatives. For that reason, Never Trump conservatives share a common interest with System
media outlets in making sure only certain people have access to a mass audience -- certainly
not independents like Mike Cernovich [
How Pizzagate Pusher Mike Cernovich Keeps Getting People Fired , by Luke O'Brien,
Huffington Post, July 21, 2018].
For ideological and ethnic reasons, Never Trumpers are desperate to purge the American Right
of any authentic populist and nationalist tendencies that can't be controlled from the top
down. Their power relies on their audience remaining corralled within a certain ideological
space and not hearing dissident ideas such as the biological reality of race or the political
insanity of expecting nonwhites to vote for "limited government." These Beltway Right hacks
have a positive interest in making sure that websites and platform outside Conservatism Inc.,
although equally or more critical of supposed common enemies on the Left, are marginalized and
stripped of resources.
Thus, Cupp, French, Shapiro, Erickson et. al will always be far more eager to purge the
Conservative movement than to combat Leftist control of key cultural institutions. To a Never
Trump conservative dreaming of future bylines in The New York Times and television
appearances on CNN, a far-Left Hollywood degenerate poisoning the minds of America's youth
isn't even a problem, let alone an enemy. The problem for Conservatism Inc. remains Donald
Trump and what he represents -- a fighting American Right, united behind nationalism, and
willing to do what it takes to win power.
After all, the point of that fighting Right is not to get a sinecure in the enemy's System.
The point is to destroy it entirely.
Case in point:
An opinion piece on the Fox News website, by Dan Gainor makes note of the absolute media
carnage (not too strong a word in this case) concerning the reaction of the political
establishment and almost ALL media outlets (including Fox) to President Trump's conciliatory
tone struck with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Helsinki Summit, one week ago
today.
We have excerpted from his piece, adding emphasis:
A raging epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome broke out among reporters covering the
summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, as journalists
gave the American president hellish reviews for his performance in Helsinki at a joint news
conference.
No reporters knew what actually transpired in the main event of the day – the
private meeting between the two presidents. So journalists put themselves in the position of
critics, grading President Trump's news conference performance
USA Today
reported in a front-page story: " Every nation has an infamous traitor. And now, after a
news conference Monday in Finland, the term is being used in relations to the 45th president
of the United States. Donald Trump, master of the political insult, finds himself on the
receiving end. "
The New York Daily News screamed "OPEN TREASON" on its cover page with a cartoon showing
Trump holding Putin's hand and holding a gun in his other hand and shooting Uncle Sam in the
head. Really.
CNN host Fareed Zakaria wasn't satisfied with "treason" as a descriptor. "I feel like
treasonous is too weak a word, because the whole thing has taken on an air of such
unreality," he said.
Zakaria had lots of
company : CNN analyst Max Boot, MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, and, of course, former CIA
Director John Brennan, who now works for NBC
and MSNBC.
CNN presidential historian
Douglas Brinkley said "the spirit of what Trump did is clearly treasonous," and declared
that the president "came off as being a puppet of Putin."
The list of network reactions in Mr. Gainor's article is very long and deserves a careful
read. But all of those reactions and more led to this point :
The hellish outrage over the Helsinki news conference had its desired effect for now.
Newsweek posted a story on an opinion poll that
declared : "According to a new Ipsos poll, 49 percent of Americans said Trump was
"treasonous" during the summit and ensuing press conference, with only 27 percent
disagreeing."
In other words the viewing, listening and reading public did absorb this very unified
tirade. One of the most unusual aspects of this which we have reported on here, is that the
media's unity included many conservative elements. In all but a few cases, most notably that of
Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, even very respected conservative voices still bought into
"Russian meddling" as though this were some sort of issue. It really isn't, because as even
some of these hosts acknowledged, "everyone does it."
But as to why this is happening, the explanation really has to do with the establishment
reaction to a speech that President Putin himself gave several years ago about the situation in
the West. It is this speech that spurred most of the sanctions and actions taken against
Russia. It is NOT the "invasion" of Crimea or the 25 invasions of Ukraine that were reported
during the years 2014-2016. It is the alignment that the Russian President noted in the West,
and Russia's refusal to follow that same path.
Blackpilled offered this video
clip and a translation of the speech in English. We offer that clip and the relevant part of
the speech's transcript here.
It is of tantamount importance to understand that this is the main factor in all the
opposition against President Trump, because his presence threw a major monkey wrench into "the
plan."
2. The narrator of "BlackPilled is incorrect in attributing this speech as being given
"shortly after Trump was elected." The actual speech was given at the Valdai conference in
2013. If we consider this, and the timeline of events following – such as the Sochi
Olympics and the concurrent list of "scandal after scandal" concerning Russia, then the
pieces fall into place:
Another serious challenge to Russia's identity is linked to events taking place in the
world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the
Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values
that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all
traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing
policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief
in Satan.
The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously
talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in
many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations.
Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as
is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over
the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism,
resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.
What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest
testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are
no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values
embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that
have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider
it natural and right to defend these values . One must respect every minority's right to be
different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.
At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar
world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a
unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires [slaves]."
And... anyone that is against America's unipolar hegemon must be removed - as this year's
new US military strategy proved, as Defense Secretary Mattis explained that fighting terror is
now on the back burner, because " we face growing threats from revisionist powers as different
as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian
models ... great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national
security."
It started the day that Putin said "no more" to US mischief and moved into Syria.
From there the coup in Ukraine was engineered in an attempt to neutralize the Black Sea
fleet supporting Syria, which was based in Crimea.
That was never going to be allowed to happen, but the usual suspects managed to lose their
shit anyway when they failed to capture Crimea in the coup and the fleet was able to continue
to assist Syria against US/Turk/Saudi-sponsored jihadis.
the coup de'tat in Ukieville occurred in late 2013/early2014 and Putin's speech to the UN
was Sept. 2015, where he asked: 'Do you (meaning the west) realize what you have done?", and
promptly a week later he starts bombing terrorists in Syria
I really couldn't give a good god-damn about whether or not he's a billionaire, a
gazillionaire or any other number... look, if Mark Fuckerberg can steal an idea from the
twins and make a few billion, I have NO issue with Vlad having all the loot he needs... no
questions asked, ever
He is not a multi-billionaire. That is just part of the anti-Putin propaganda campaign by:
Boris Berezovsky, Bill Browder, Mikhail Khodorovsky, Masha Gessen, George Soros and assorted
other (((Usual Suspects))), to attempt to isolate Russia and Putin from the global
"community".
Anti-Putin propagandists Masha Gessen and the Washington Post's David Ignatius's led the
charge on that one. The Palace is wonderful, but no one claims it belongs to Putin.
The whislterblower claims in the Wikipedia entry are unsubstantiated and appear to be
totally motivated by other business dealings that went bad. Similar to Bill Browder and the
Magninsky Affair.
Wait until we see Bill Browders client list. What Democratic insiders made the most from
his Hermitage hedge fund prior to his stealing the money and the tax money and paying off
those deep state Dems (including Soros) who helped make it happen. Can we charge some Mi6
fucks too? Magnitsky was killed by Browder to set the stage for his stories.
From then on, the Dems needed a Russian villain to demonize so the cover would stick...
Until Putin and Donald exposed the truth in Helstinky
No, Putin's speech didn't start anything, because most Americans were totally unaware of
it, since MSM rarely ever reports much about what Putin says. Instead, America has had a
hatred for Russia going back over 100 years, starting with the first Red Scare in 1917-1924.
Second Red Scare 1947-1957. . This current nonsense about the Russians makes Red Scare
#3.
I think the shortest explanation of the "intellectual dark web" is that any community that
dedicates itself to the proposition that reasoned debate must be had, and bad ideas must be
crushed in the crucible of discourse, will, by its nature and the nature of human society,
soon have a lot of hangers on who believe in bad ideas but who are willing and eager to
discuss them.
Discussion will then happen, but, ideas tend not to be crushed entirely out of society.
Even if, for example, Harris devastates Peterson in a discussion about truth, even if his
audience recognizes this, Peterson isn't going to admit it, and Peterson's audience isn't ALL
going to admit it, and Peterson's audience isn't all even going to know about that particular
conversation. So Peterson's ideas will continue to exist on at least some level, and the
discussion will happen again, and again. And the community will become a place where the bad
idea is accepted as at least minimally reasonable- reasonable enough to discuss.
Similarly, the shortest explanation of the social justice left is that any community that
dedicates itself to the proposition that some ideas threaten people and therefore ought not
be articulated, will, by its nature and the nature of human society, soon have a lot of bad
ideas that they've enshrined and transformed into shibboleths- because these ideas looked
plausible at the time, and were made untouchable before they were really worked through.
And so bad ideas hang on forever like untouchable tumors.
When people from the social justice culture go to the discourse culture, they'll be
horrified because their shibboleths are being challenged. And they'll look at the people they
were told were on their side in this culture, and see them saying that a particular
shibboleth deserves to be challenged, and by the standards of THEIR culture that marks the
speaker as morally degraded.
When people from the discourse culture go to the social justice culture, they'll see
blatant and open contradictions, and want to challenge them. And they'll articulate ideas
that are actually lifted straight from the social justice culture's shibboleths, only to get
attacked for them by defenders of other shibboleths, while the rest of the social culture
refuses to defend them because they've been pre-judged guilty for challenging a shibboleth in
the first place.
"... There is a vast literature analyzing the political prophecy of George Orwell 's Nineteen Eighty-Four . Big Brother, double-speak, telescreens, crimestop, etc. – all applied to our current political situation. The language has become part of our popular lexicon, and as such, has become clichéd through overuse. Blithe, habitual use of language robs it of its power to crack open the safe that hides the realities of life. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Orwell wrote a brilliant political warning about the methods of totalitarian control. But hidden at the heart of the book is another lesson lost on most readers and commentators. Rats, torture, and Newspeak resonate with people fixated on political repression, which is a major concern, of course. But so too is privacy and sexual passion in a country of group-think and group-do, where "Big Brother" poisons you in the crib and the entertainment culture then takes over to desexualize intimacy by selling it as another public commodity. ..."
"... The United States is a pornographic society. By pornographic I do not just mean the omnipresent selling of exploitative sex through all media to titillate a voyeuristic public living in the unreality of screen "life" and screen sex through television, movies, and online obsessions. I mean a commodified consciousness, where everyone and everything is part of a prostitution ring in the deepest sense of pornography's meaning – for sale, bought. ..."
"... As this happens, words and language become corrupted by the same forces that Orwell called Big Brother, whose job is total propaganda and social control. Just as physical reality now mimics screen reality and thus becomes chimerical, language, through which human beings uncover and articulate the truth of being, becomes more and more abstract. People don't die; they "pass on" or "pass away." Dying, like real sex, is too physical. Wars of aggression don't exist; they are "overseas contingency operations." Killing people with drones isn't killing; it's "neutralizing them." There are a "ton" of examples, but I am sure "you guys" don't need me to list any more. ..."
"... This destruction of language has been going on for a long time, but it's worth noting that from Hemingway's WW I through Orwell's WW II up until today's endless U.S. wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc., there has been the parallel development of screen and media culture, beginning with silent movies through television and onto the total electronic media environment we now inhabit – the surround sound and image bubble of literal abstractions that inhabit us, mentally and physically. In such a society, to feel what you really feel and not what, in Hemingway's words, "you were supposed to feel, and had been taught to feel" has become extremely difficult. ..."
"... But understanding the history of public relations, advertising, propaganda, the CIA, the national security apparatus, technology, etc., makes it clear that such hope is baseless. For the propaganda in this country has penetrated far deeper than anyone can imagine, and it has primarily done this through advanced technology and the religion of technique – machines as pure abstractions – that has poisoned not just our minds, but the deepest wellsprings of the body's truths and the erotic imagination that links us in love to all life on earth. ..."
"... Orwell makes it very clear that language is the key to mind control, as he delineates how Newspeak works. I think he is right. And mind control also means the control of our bodies, Eros, our sex, our physical connections to all living beings and nature. Today the U.S. is reaching the point where "Oldspeak" – Standard English – has been replaced by Newspeak, and just "fragments of the literature of the past" survive here and there. ..."
"Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of it, certainly, but
degenerated to Vice." – Frederick Nietzsche , Beyond Good and Evil
"Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has
happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little
hopes. It is rather hard work: there is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or
scramble over the obstacles. We've got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen." –
D. H. Lawrence , Lady Chatterley's Lover
"The so-called consumer society and the politics of corporate capitalism have created a
second nature of man which ties him libidinally and aggressively to the commodity form. The
need for possessing, consuming, handling and constantly renewing gadgets, devices, instruments,
engines, offered to and imposed upon the people, for using these wares even at the danger of
one's own destruction, has become a 'biological' need." – Herbert Marcuse , One
Dimensional Man
There is a vast literature analyzing the political prophecy of George Orwell 's Nineteen
Eighty-Four . Big Brother, double-speak, telescreens, crimestop, etc. – all applied
to our current political situation. The language has become part of our popular lexicon, and as
such, has become clichéd through overuse. Blithe, habitual use of language robs it of
its power to crack open the safe that hides the realities of life.
There is no doubt that Orwell wrote a brilliant political warning about the methods of
totalitarian control. But hidden at the heart of the book is another lesson lost on most
readers and commentators. Rats, torture, and Newspeak resonate with people fixated on political
repression, which is a major concern, of course. But so too is privacy and sexual passion in a
country of group-think and group-do, where "Big Brother" poisons you in the crib and the
entertainment culture then takes over to desexualize intimacy by selling it as another public
commodity.
The United States is a pornographic society. By pornographic I do not just mean the
omnipresent selling of exploitative sex through all media to titillate a voyeuristic public
living in the unreality of screen "life" and screen sex through television, movies, and online
obsessions. I mean a commodified consciousness, where everyone and everything is part of a
prostitution ring in the deepest sense of pornography's meaning – for sale, bought.
And
consumed by getting, spending, and selling. Flicked into the net of Big Brother, whose job is
make sure everything fundamentally human and physical is debased and mediated, people become
consumers of the unreal and direct experience is discouraged. The natural world becomes an
object to be conquered and used. Animals are produced in chemical factories to be slaughtered
by the billions only to appear bloodless under plastic wrap in supermarket coolers. The human
body disappears into hypnotic spectral images. One's sex becomes one's gender as the words are
transmogrified and as one looks in the mirror of the looking-glass self and wonders how to
identify the one looking back.
Streaming life from Netflix or Facebook becomes life the movie.
The brilliant perverseness of the mediated reality of a screen society – what Guy Debord
calls The Society of the
Spectacle – is that as it distances people from fundamental reality, it promotes that
reality through its screen fantasies. "Get away from it all and restore yourself at our spa in
the rugged mountains where you can hike in pristine woods after yoga and a breakfast of locally
sourced eggs and artisanally crafted bread." Such garbage would be funny if it weren't so
effective. Debord writes,
The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by
images .Where the real world changes into simple images, the simple images become real beings
and effective motivations of hypnotic behavior.
Thus sex with robots and marrying yourself are not aberrations but logical extensions of a
society where solipsism meets machine in the America dream.
As this happens, words and language become corrupted by the same forces that Orwell called
Big Brother, whose job is total propaganda and social control. Just as physical reality now
mimics screen reality and thus becomes chimerical, language, through which human beings uncover
and articulate the truth of being, becomes more and more abstract. People don't die; they "pass
on" or "pass away." Dying, like real sex, is too physical. Wars of aggression don't exist; they
are "overseas contingency operations." Killing people with drones isn't killing; it's
"neutralizing them." There are a "ton" of examples, but I am sure "you guys" don't need me to
list any more.
Orwell called Big Brother's language Newspeak, and Hemingway preceded him when he so
famously wrote in disgust In a Farewell to Arms ,
"I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice, and the expression
in vain. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene "
This destruction of language has been going on for a long time, but it's worth noting that
from Hemingway's WW I through Orwell's WW II up until today's endless U.S. wars against
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc., there has been the parallel development of screen
and media culture, beginning with silent movies through television and onto the total
electronic media environment we now inhabit – the surround sound and image bubble of
literal abstractions that inhabit us, mentally and physically. In such a society, to feel what
you really feel and not what, in Hemingway's words, "you were supposed to feel, and had been
taught to feel" has become extremely difficult.
... ... ...
But as we learn in 1984 and should learn in the U.S.A. today , "seemed" is the
key word. Their triumph was temporary. For sexual passion reveals truths that need to be
confirmed in the mind. In itself, sexual liberation can be easily manipulated, as it has been
so effectively in the United States. "Repressive de-sublimation" Herbert Marcuse called it
fifty years ago. You allow people to act out their sexual fantasies in commodified ways that
can be controlled by the rulers, all the while ruling their minds and potential political
rebelliousness. Sex becomes part of the service economy where people service each other while
serving their masters. Use pseudo-sex to sell them a way of life that traps them in an
increasingly totalitarian social order that only seems free. This has been accomplished
primarily through screen culture and the concomitant confusion of sexual identity. Perhaps you
have noticed that over the past twenty-five years of growing social and political confusion, we
have witnessed an exponential growth in "the electronic life," the use of psychotropic drugs,
and sexual disorientation. This is no accident. Wars have become as constant as Eros –
the god of love, life, joy, and motion – has been divorced from sex as a stimulus and
response release of tension in a "stressed" society. Rollo May, the great American
psychologist, grasped this:
Indeed, we have set sex over against eros, used sex precisely to avoid the
anxiety-creating involvements of eros We are in flight from eros and use sex as the vehicle for
the flight Eros [which includes, but is not limited to, passionate sex] is the center of
vitality of a culture – its heart and soul. And when release of tension takes the place
of creative eros, the downfall of the civilization is assured.
Because Julia and Winston cannot permanently escape Oceania, but can only tryst, they
succumb to Big Brother's mind control and betray each other. Their sexual affair can't save
them. It is a moment of beauty and freedom in an impossible situation. Of course the
hermetically sealed world of 1984 is not the United States. Orwell created a society in
which escape was impossible. It is, after all, an admonitory novel – not the real world.
Things are more subtle here; we still have some wiggle room – some – although the
underlying truth is the same: the U.S. oligarchy, like "The Party," "seeks power entirely for
its own sake" and "are not interested in the good of others," all rhetoric to the contrary. Our
problem is that too many believe the rhetoric, and those who say they don't really do at the
deepest level. Fly the flag and play the national anthem and their hearts are aflutter with
hope. Recycle old bromides about the next election when your political enemies will be swept
out of office and excitement builds as though you had met the love of your life and all was
well with the world.
But understanding the history of public relations, advertising, propaganda, the CIA, the
national security apparatus, technology, etc., makes it clear that such hope is baseless. For
the propaganda in this country has penetrated far deeper than anyone can imagine, and it has
primarily done this through advanced technology and the religion of technique – machines
as pure abstractions – that has poisoned not just our minds, but the deepest wellsprings
of the body's truths and the erotic imagination that links us in love to all life on earth.
In "Defence of Poetry," Percy Bysshe Shelley writes:
The great secret of morals is love; or a going out of our nature, and an identification of
ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own. A man,
to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the
place of another and of many others; the pains and pleasure of his species must become his
own. The great instrument of moral good is the imagination.
We are now faced with the question: Can we escape the forces of propaganda and mind control
that run so very deep into American life? If so, how? Let's imagine a way out.
Orwell makes it very clear that language is the key to mind control, as he delineates how
Newspeak works. I think he is right. And mind control also means the control of our bodies,
Eros, our sex, our physical connections to all living beings and nature. Today the U.S. is
reaching the point where "Oldspeak" – Standard English – has been replaced by
Newspeak, and just "fragments of the literature of the past" survive here and there.
This is
true for the schooled and unschooled. In fact, those more trapped by the instrumental logic,
disembodied data, and word games of the power elite are those who have gone through the most
schooling, the indoctrination offered by the so-called "elite" universities. I suspect that
more working-class and poor people still retain some sense of the old language and the
fundamental meaning of words, since it is with their sweat and blood that they "earn their
living." Many of the highly schooled are children of the power elite or those groomed to serve
them, who are invited to join in living the life of power and privilege if they swallow their
consciences and deaden their imaginations to the suffering their "life-styles" and ideological
choices inflict on the rest of the world. In this world of TheNew York Times ,
Harvard, The New Yorker , Martha's Vineyard, TheWashington Post , Wall
St., Goldman Sachs, the boardrooms of the ruling corporations, all the corporate media, etc.,
language has become debased beyond recognition. Here, as Orwell said of Newspeak, "a heretical
thought should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words. Its
vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every
meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express." The intelligently orthodox, he
adds, must master the art of "doublethink" wherein they hold two contradictory ideas in their
minds simultaneously, while accepting both of them. This is the key trick of logic and language
that allows the power elites and their lackeys in the U.S. today to master the art of
self-deception and feel good about themselves as they plunder the world. In this "Party" world,
the demonization, degradation, and killing of others is an abstraction; their lives are
spectral. Orwell describes doublethink this way:
To tell deliberate lives while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion
for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while
to take account of the reality one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in
using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink . For by using
the word one admits one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one
erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the
truth.
... ... ...
*
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely; he is a frequent contributor
to Global Research. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website
is http://edwardcurtin.com/ .
"... Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon has invested a lot of time and money in positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets. ..."
The Helsinki hysteria shone a spotlight on the utter impotence of the establishment media
and their Deep State controllers to make their delusions reality. Never before has there been
such a gaping chasm visible between the media's "truth" and the facts on the ground. Pundits
compared the summit to Pearl Harbor and
9/11 , with some even reaching for the brass ring of the Holocaust by likening it to
Kristallnacht , while
polls revealed the American people reallydidn't care .
Worse, it laid bare the collusion between the media and their Deep State handlers –
the central dissemination point for the headlines, down to the same phrases, that led to every
outlet claiming Trump had "thrown the Intelligence Community under the bus" by refusing to
embrace the Russia-hacked-our-democracy narrative during his press conference with Putin.
Leaving aside the sudden ubiquity of "Intelligence Community" in our national discourse –
as if this network of spies and murderous thugs is Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood – no one
seriously believes every pundit came up with "throws under the bus" as the proper way of
describing that press conference.
The same central control was apparent in the unanimous condemnations of Putin – that
he murders
journalists , breaks
international agreements , uses bannedchemical
weapons ,
kills women and children
in Syria , and, of course,
meddles in elections . For every single establishment pundit to exhibit such a breathtaking
lack of insight into their own government's misdeeds is highly unlikely. Many of these same
talking heads remarked in horror on Sinclair Broadcasting's Orwellian "prepared statement"
issuing forth from the mouths of hundreds of stations' anchors at once. Et tu, Anderson
Cooper?
The media frenzy was geared toward sparking a popular revolt, with tensions already running
high from the previous media frenzy about family separation at the border (though only one
MSNBC segment seemed to recall that they should still care about that, and belatedly included
some footage of kids
behind a fence wrapped in Mylar blankets). Rachel Maddow , armed with the crocodile tears that
served her so well during the family-separation fracas, exhorted her faithful cultists to
do something.
Meanwhile, national-security neanderthal John Brennan all but called for a coup, condemning the
president for the unspeakable "high crimes and misdemeanors" of seeking to improve relations
with the world's second-largest nuclear power. He called on Pompeo and Bolton, the two biggest
warmongers in a Trump administration bristling with warmongers, to resign in protest. This
would have been a grand slam for world peace, but alas, it was not to be. Even those two
realize what a has-been Brennan is.
Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring
the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in
her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in
case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with
him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two
heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon
has invested a lot of time and money in
positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice
with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the
American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable
hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker.
Trump's grip on his long-elusive spine was only temporary, and he held another press
conference upon returning home to reiterate his trust in the intelligence agencies that have
made no secret of their utter loathing for him since day one. When the lights went out at the
climactic moment, it became clear for anyone who still hadn't gotten the message who was
running the show here (and Trump, to his credit, actually joked about it). The Intelligence
Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the
media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets.
On to the Playmates .
Sacha Baron Cohen 's latest series, "Who is America," targeted Ted Koppel for one segment.
Koppel cut the interview short after smelling a rat and expressed his
high-minded concern that Cohen's antics would hurt Americans' trust in reporters. But after
a week of the entire media establishment screaming that the sky is falling while the heavens
remain firmly in place, Cohen is clearly the least of their problems. At least he's funny.
*
Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. She covers
politics, sociology, and other anthropological/cultural phenomena. Helen has a BA in Journalism
from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University.
Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski .
"... The Democrats preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Sanders ..."
"... Note that the predominance of these two doctrines undeline a deeper contradiction in the USA: its resources are limited, therefore it can only fight one of the two at a given time. This is funny, because that means the USA is not destined to be the sole superpower in the first place (the underlying objective of both doctrines). ..."
"... It seems to me that both Democrats and Republicans are colluding with each other now. They have agreed to share the Presidency and alternate with each other every 8 years. They wont get serious about winning until 2024, assuming there will still be elections then. ..."
"... Both parties have the same elite controllers. Basically voters chose between 2 flavors of neoliberal imperialism. One is a bitter in your face brew, the other is a sickly sweet poison. Both make you sick ..."
"... USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes into effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran. ..."
"... Neo-macarthyism as just another aspect of the Trump psy-op. The 'bad cop' to Trump's 'good cop'. ..."
"... In every case what they are looking for is candidates who are not 'soft.' Not soft on crime. Not soft on Russia. Not soft on welfare etc etc. Thus it is that the primary defenders of "our nation's intelligence services" and cops nowadays are the democrats, and none more than the 'progressives' howling about the treason of not believing in CIA intelligence assessments, as leaked to the Washington Post. ..."
Blaming 'Russian meddling' for their loss of the 2016 elections allowed the democratic
establishment to avoid any discussion about their unelectable candidate and their bad centrist
policies. Meanwhile the party base has moved on. Progressives candidates continue to win in
primaries. The centrist party establishment will now use their genius invention of 'Russian
meddling' to defeat them.
Suddenly a lot of stories about centrists. Somebody must have gotten funding.
The centrists and their big money sources feal endangered. They
try to find strategies to defeat calls for 'medicare for all', demands to 'abolish ICE' and
other progressive aims:
The gathering here was just that -- an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the
rising Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see
a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better
chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, co-hosted the event and
addressed attendees twice underscored that this group is not interested in the class warfare
vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
...
The invitation-only gathering brought together about 250 Democratic insiders from key swing
states. Third Way unveiled the results of focus groups and polling that it says shows
Americans are more receptive to an economic message built on "opportunity" rather than the
left's message about inequality.
"Once again, the time has come to mend, but not end, capitalism for a new era," said Third
Way President Jon Cowan.
The 2016 elections have shown that people no longer buy the Third Way nonsense. The
republican electorate moved to the more radical candidate Trump. The democratic electorate is
now well underway to mirror that
move :
[T]rends within the Democratic Party itself could take the Washington-based establishment by
surprise, just as the Republican national security community found itself out of sync with
the broad base of GOP voters as demonstrated in the 2016 election. The muscular
interventionism championed by almost all of the Republican party's standard-bearers was
rejected in favor of an "America First" message which resonated with primary and general
election voters. Similarly, the rise and growing prominence of a more unabashedly progressive
wing of the Democratic Party has similar implications , because the activists' critique of
the status quo does not end at the water's edge. The Democratic foreign policy establishment
may find it difficult to forge a stable marriage with a mobilized voter base and the
candidates it is putting forward.
The republican establishment has now bought into the 'Russian meddling' meme to suppress the
insurgency within its party. It is trying to limit the space for Trump to achieve more radical
measures, especially in foreign policies. The democratic establishment is using the very same
trick. 'Russian meddling' must be responsible for the insurgency within their own party.
Progressive candidates are Putin marionettes.
It seems that Democrats are now incapable of talking about anything but Russian interference
in our sacred elections.
...
We're seeing Dem pundits even accusing Bernie Sanders and other insurgents within their party
of being Russian agents , witting or unwitting. Their indictments of Trump for treason make
them sound like demented right-wingers at the height of the Cold War.
This obsession does relieve mainstream Democrats of concocting an attractive agenda that
might win an election or two, but to do that they'd have to tack left, and Goldman Sachs
wouldn't like that.
This Russia obsession's a win win for the establishment though – subdue Trump and
the domestic left insurgency all at once.
A few days later Henwood points to a Facebook
post by Columbia Law lecturer and Harpersauthor Scott Horton which
accuses progressive Democrats of being Putin's agents. Horton comments on a New York
Timespiece that
discussed the wave of progressive candidates in democratic primaries:
Horton claims to have talked with 'European intelligence analysts' who allegedly told him
that Putin authorized an 'active measure campaign' to split the Democratic party to let Trump
and the Republicans win again:
The Russian operation will also aim, in the classic fashion, to pick Democratic candidates in
the primary period who, for whatever reasons, are seen as likely not electable. Some evidence
for this is clearly at play now. The key thing to look for is not positive messaging
supporting any particular policy program, but negative messaging attacking other Democrats.
To point out what Democratic candidates Putin will pick Horton adds a picture from the
NYT piece which shows a 'progressives' candidate with an 'Abolish ICE' t-shirt.
In other words, we should look at these [progressive] candidates as tainted by a "Russian
operation". Based on nothing other than the word of an individual who cites no facts but
alleged conversations with "European intelligence analysts".
Robin points to historic similarities with McCarthyism. He adds :
If this thing catches on , if it becomes something that now gets reported in the paper,
everything single candidate from the left, who is running in a Democratic primary, will be
tainted by the suspicion that they are somehow or other a Putin operation.
Tainting leftish candidates as Putin stooges is the ideal tool for Democratic centrist to
defeat them. Tuition free colleges, single-payer health care and $15 minimum wage are obviously
Russian conspiracies designed to destroy the United States. This scheme is effective and will
therefore be widely used by the centrists during all primaries and the next federal
elections.
It also guarantees that Trump and the Republicans continue to win.
During the Obama years the Democrats lost over 1,000 positions in state and federal
elections. Centrist policies have been tried and they failed to win votes. More of the same
will not lead to different results. To move even further to the right to catch a few
conservative votes from republican voters disgruntled with Trump will not help to win. The
further the party moves to the right the more people on the left will abstain from voting for
it. These are the decisive few percent that cost the Democrats the presidency and the
majorities in Congress and in various states.
These centrists are the ones who are really helping Trump. Aren't they the real 'Russian
agents'?
how far are we from a civil war in the usa? i think we are a long ways away.. i think most
of the folks buying into this bs will go for a hot war with russia instead..
horton is trying to make like christopher steele with his intel sources, lol.. now if
horton had talked with skripal, i would be impressed!
mccarthyism version 2 seems very prevalent in the usa at this point..
"Once again, the time has come to mend, but not end, capitalism for a new era," LOL at that
choice piece of advice which has been trotted out by centrists and conservatives at least
since the legion horrors of the capitalist system were mercilessly exposed to the world by
William Wordsworth, Thomas Carlyle, Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, Freiderich Engels, and
dozens of other perceptive writers during the 19th Century.
And we have global neoliberal capitalism, the very acme of capitalist cruelty to the vast
mass of humanity forced to labor hard daily, for relatively ever worse wages and under
deteriorating conditions as well, rather than be able to make millions, indeed, even billions
annually simply by being lucky stock holders in a financial market system rigges in favor f
the plutocrats and against everyone else!
The only people daft enough to buy the idea that the vicous, inhuman, indeed, inherently
ever more unequal, irrational, environmentally detructive, and profoundly unjust neoliberal
capitalist system all are subjected to today needs merely to be "mended, not ended" are those
who are historical, social, political, cultural and economic illiterates.
"Capitalism lives on as ruthless totalitarianism, because the moment for the transition to
socialism was missed," said Max Horkeimer as early as the 1930s while observing the rise of
Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini. High time we quit missing it and built a movement to end
capitalist exploitation in all its forms once and for all! ON TO SOCIALISM!!
Establishment Democrats have, since 1968, considered holding the left in check a main
function. I forget who formulated this sentence but it is completely accurate: "The Democrats
preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Sanders."
The NBC News article on the so-called moderate Democrats reveals the game of the past five
decades: the Republicans go further and further to the right, and the Establishment Dems
follow them to hold an ever-shifting centre. (not to mention that the party has been
deliberately courting potential candidates who have military and Intelligence
backgrounds)
oops, according to Scott Horton, by using the term "Establishment Democrat" I've revealed
myself as part of a Russian influence campaign.
Bottom line is this: the myth of the end of History of the early 1990s evaporated after
2003-2008 (the period which begun with the Iraq Invasion and ended with the financial
meltdown). After this, there's an ongoing debate in the USA about what the empire must focus
on.
As I've mentioned before many times in this blog, there're three extant doctrines in the
USA, of which only two are accessible to the civilian population.
The first is the Wolfowitz Doctrine, by far the dominant one, so dominant Americans don't
even give it a name (it's just spelled out a common sense), which states that Russia is the
military successor State of the USSR, which inherited its nuclear arsenal, therefore,
objectively, the only country materially capable of turning the entire American territory
into radioactive ash. So, long story short, Russia is still the main enemy.
The second is the "Clash of Civilizations" doctrine, which states that, after the Cold
War, conflict on a global scale would happen only in the cultural front, between many
cultures and creeds. The main conflict in the long term, however, would be the cultural clash
between West and East, i.e. Western Civilization against the "Yellows", a.k.a. China (the
Japanese are the "Westernized yellows", the "honorary whites", as is South Korea, Japan's
carbon copy, so they don't count).
Note that the predominance of these two doctrines undeline a deeper contradiction in the
USA: its resources are limited, therefore it can only fight one of the two at a given time.
This is funny, because that means the USA is not destined to be the sole superpower in the
first place (the underlying objective of both doctrines).
In general, I also think that by banking mainly on the evidencefree Russiagate conspiracy
theory instead of normal political opposition based on issues that are important to most
people, mainstream Democrats set themselves up for losing again.
But increasingly, I also think that we (everyone interested in world peace and fearing an
escalation of conflicts) also have to hope that this is the case. I find it quite strange
that I now think that way because as a center-left European I always used to think that
Democrats are the lesser evil and Republicans are the greater evil.
Now, I think there is a scenario that really seems frightening to me. Progressives have
won some primaries, but in general, the Democratic party is still dominated by the same
forces, and I have read that now, a record number of people from the secret services and
other organizations of the military industrial complex will probably be on the Democrats'
ballots. If Democrats manage to win in the mid-term elections, the establishment forces in
the Democratic forces may see this as a sign that the strategy of banking on the Russiagate
conspiracy theory and extreme hostility towards Russia and treating everyone who doubts the
allegations of secret services a traitor was the right one. Then, if in 2020 a mainstream
Democrat wins the primaries and then the general election, what is he or she going to do?
Their core base will be those people who daily watch Rachel Maddow's minutes (or hours) of
hate against Russia, and there will be an expectation that they will act on these sentiments.
After four years of extreme demonization of Russia, when even just a normal meeting between
the US and Russian presidents was treated as a kind of treason, it will be very difficult to
return to normal international relations. They will hardly be able to say that all this
hatred was just a means to weaken the Trump administration and can be done away with after
winning the elections, they have caged themselves in with their extremely hostile rhetoric,
and their core base will probably expect that they act on their jingoistic rhetoric and
conduct an extremely hostile kind of foreign policy with ultimatums against Russia, which
could have extremely dangerous consequences.
I think that the more likely scenario is that mainstream Democrats' behavior will lead to
losing again and Trump being re-elected, but I think we should not forget about the
possibility of such a horror scenario which could bring the world to the brink of the abyss
or beyond.
It seems to me that both Democrats and Republicans are colluding with each other now.
They have agreed to share the Presidency and alternate with each other every 8 years. They
wont get serious about winning until 2024, assuming there will still be elections then.
Both parties have the same elite controllers. Basically voters chose between 2 flavors
of neoliberal imperialism. One is a bitter in your face brew, the other is a sickly sweet
poison. Both make you sick .
Trump was used by the establishment to "turn the page" on the Obama years.
Just as Obama was used to "turn the page" on the Bush years.
If we surmise that the Presidency is the most important office for the Empire, and is the
"face" of the Empire, if you will, then the Obama Presidency was designed to present a
peaceful and rational public face ( very different from the Bush neocons!) while
covert opts were used to further the interests of the Empire.
The Obama faux populist psy-op worked very well. Putin recently admitted that he
was slow to understand how the game had changed.
The Trump/MAGA psyop lays claim to a new sort of "realist" peaceful and rational
standpoint: ending costly adventurism and ending the new Cold War with Russia. But what does
the establishment really want? They want to recover from the embarrassing Syrian debacle and
stop the rise of SCO. They aim to do this via distractions and splitting Russia from China.
Iran is the anvil for splitting Russia and China.
The howls of protest about Trump's meeting with Putin are NOT because Trump seeks "peace"
with Russia but because he wasn't successful in convincing Putin to play ball.
USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes
into effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
1) Neo-macarthyism as just another aspect of the Trump psy-op. The 'bad cop' to
Trump's 'good cop'.
2) Hillary could never have "turned the page" like Trump. In fact, she talked about how
her election would secure Obama's legacy. Conclusion: the 2016 election was a set-up.
some of the targets of these tactics aren't helping themselves; both sanders and
ocasio-cortez have hinted that they actually believe the russiagate stupidity. nor did the
latter score any hits with the stumbling (and possibly cowardly) interview regarding israel's
lunatic tendencies. just letting that idiot get away with saying "the war in the middle east"
is enough to make me question her spine.
the establishment dems - like any "establishment" group - are whores. so are the media who
have their collective backs. at this point it's time to realize they all - like their
financial masters - mistake kindness for weakness. what anyone needs to win at this point is
to (unfortunately) copy pre-election trump's tactics with their own message.
there's no law that says you can't be for $15 minimum wage and single payer while also
saying "shut up you dumb cunt " to any media prostitute that brings up russiagate. the
idiots acting as middle(wo)men for their plutocrat owners rely on forced politeness and
decorum. many people have noted that is their main grievance with trump: it's cool that he's
horrible and surrounded by warmongers but does he have to be so vulgar and gauche? well i
never!
the US is (as it has been for most of its short bloody history) quite angry and wound up
right now. obama showed what good a "polite yes man" does. the left needs a fire-breathing
populist demon. what they have is a pleasant bartender from the bronx.
Bernie Sanders was quick to respond to these attacks by giving in. For every 'progressive'
Democrat who has won in the primaries there have been ex CIA, ex FBI, ex military types to
add the appeal of their blood stained hands to that of the former prosecutors (boasting about
the number of death sentences they have won) and ultra rich candidates.
In every case what they are looking for is candidates who are not 'soft.' Not soft on crime.
Not soft on Russia. Not soft on welfare etc etc.
Thus it is that the primary defenders of "our nation's intelligence services" and cops
nowadays are the democrats, and none more than the 'progressives' howling about the treason
of not believing in CIA intelligence assessments, as leaked to the Washington Post.
Democrats simply cannot understand what the word 'principle' means. That is why they are
continually adopting their opponents' ideas- filling the prisons with black people,
cancelling welfare programmes- and persecuting their own supporters.
Now Sanders, who knows very well why Hillary lost the election, and spent months warning her
that she would do so in the primary campaigns, is front and centre in the farcical campaign
to blame Putin and internet trolls 'sowing discord'!
And what is his evidence? The most dishonest and reactionary deep state warmongers say it is
true. So it must be.
What will be interesting in the coming months is to watch as these "progressive"
Democrats-the victors of primary battles- settle down to agreeing that "Israel has a right to
defend itself" by massacring defenceless Palestinians whenever the mood comes over it. And
attacking Iran.
Watch in the coming weeks for people like Sanders to attack Trump for not changing the
'regime' in Damascus- the way that Obama with their support did in Libya.
The great thing about the Democrats is that they are united-they are all as bad as each
other. This is after all the working man's party that supported slavery with such enthusiasm
that when it had been abolished they re-introduced it, in the form of Jim Crow plus lynching,
in the states that they controlled. In which it lasted until the late 1960s. Its shadow-in
the form of vote suppression and a crooked criminal justice system- still looms over
America.
The dems have nobody. Not at the plate or on deck. After DJT's state of the union, they
trotted out a Kennedy that had vasoline smeared all over the sides of his mouth as he gave
the Dem response. No one remembers what he said, but they do remember that substance.
Now this inexperienced Socialist-airhead from the Bronx who claimed a rough upbringing
only to have forgotten her silver-spoon childhood comes along.
Here on the west coast, in Seattle, a socialist mayor and city council has tried to push
egalitarian policies regarding wages and taxation, allthewhile dealing with a pervasive
homeless population that is tainting the city and its reputation. Their policies have gotten
a stiff rebuke from Amazon and Microsoft and so their ironfisted will has itself been crushed
and they have yielded to these business behemoths. They will be ousted very soon. As will the
wannabe-socialists up and down the west coasts. If they are not...we are talking mass exodus
and floundering economies.
So b is right that the centrists will prevail but it is mostly because the left is lost
right now. Can't drum up a unified beat to march to for the life of them.
At least DJT tapped into what must be done to save this country, irrespective of his
actual will and desire to get there (which I believe is being hampered by both sides of the
aisle).
Does this not come down to a fight for the BRAND - DNC? The establishment wants to keep the
"donors" (same as the Rs) and millions rolling in so they support their interests and try to
freeze out progressives.
It's like an invasion, what happens the next day? The progressives take over the DNC, then
the donors depart and the DNC brand is the worth about as much as the Green brand.
The problem is that the entire system of Western Liberal Democracy is corrupted entirely
and clearly an unmitigated failure.
The so-called "insurgents" are no such thing. That's a standard Democrat scam to keep
potential apostates roped in. Bernie Sanders always has been a con artist. Not that it's any
secret: His entire senate record is of worthless grandstanding and zero real monkey-wrenching
or grid-locking action .
As for his campaign, from day one he proclaimed he was a loyal Democrat soldier and that
he would support Clinton and do all he could to deliver his supporters to her. He dutifully
kept that promise. Along the way and since the 2016 election he's done zero toward building
any kind of grassroots alternative. That's because he never intended to be part of any real
alternative in the first place. And that's why the DNC always has supported his "independent"
senate campaigns - he does an excellent con-job on behalf of their agenda.
And today he's fully on board with the Russiagate campaign, doing all he can to rope in
"progressives" who might be having doubts about the anti-Russia lunacy. His usual job.
As for the latest wave of progressive heroes, for just one typical example I'll observe
that Ocasio-Cortez immediately after her primary win lost no time scrubbing the anti-war
plank from her site and publicly retracting her previous statements on behalf of the
Palestinians. The Democrat con always runs like clock-work.
And as the post describes, with Russiagate the fake insurgents provide a new service to
the Party: To serve as bogeymen for internally-directed Party propaganda, as an
organizational vehicle to "get out the vote" among establishment loyalists.
There's no way forward with the Democrat Party. It always has been a death trap for all
progressive, let alone radical aspirations. The Party and its partisans must politically
perish completely, as a prerequisite for any good transformation of America.
I used to have great admiration for Scott Horton for his intrepid reporting on Gitmo and the
War on Terra during the Bush era, so it's very sad to see how he deep has fallen into silly
Neo-McCarthyian group-think.
I don't think much of Trump as a person or as a politician. But I think he's great as a
trickster performance artist, doing what used to be the task of the 20th century avant-garde:
shocking bourgeois complacency. And boy, is there a lot of that around these days. Trump is
21st century Dada.
The term Progressive is now so mutilated that it's no longer effective as an identifier. To
be a truly modern Progressive: one must 1st be Anti-War, except in the most dire of
circumstances, which includes being Anti-Imperialist/Anti-Empire; 2nd, one must be
Pro-Justice as in promoting Rule of Law over all else; 3rd, one must be tolerant and willing
to listen to others of all stripes--even terrorists (not imitation state-sponsored mercenary
terrorists); and 4th, work for Win-Win outcomes and denounce Zero-sum as the #1 promoter of
inequality. As you might imagine, by that set of criteria there are very few Modern
Progressive Politicians in any nation at any level of government--certainly an endangered
species within the Outlaw US Empire. Bernie Sanders is not even close to being a Progressive
of any sort as he supports and promotes Militarism and Apartheid. The actual differences
between his political stances and Hillary Clinton's is really very small--health care and
social security are the only two with large gaps.
But there appears to be much happening at the grassroots nationally and the next 2 months
will see lots happening--but how will it be reported locally and nationally is my main
concern. Insurrections are being aimed at a great many Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.
IMO, this off-year election will be the most important for the planet ever as the stakes are
very high. IMO, the key factor is if Russiagate's still in play or will it finally be slain
by November.
True progressives and populists (which characterizes a lot of Trump supporters such as
myself) have a lot more in common with each other than with the Centrist Democrats and
Beltway Republicans (A.K.A. Cuckservatives.) If we could only dispense with all the BS
identity politics, we could join forces.
Posted by: William Fusfield | Jul 22, 2018 3:00:18 PM | 13
(Comment lost after Timeout)
Some wag once said "Experience is a good school, but the fees are high."
You can easily bulletproof your draft comment by right-clicking in the comment box and
choosing Select All from the menu. That hilites the entire draft. Right click again and
select Copy. You can then safely refresh the page knowing you've preserved a copy.
All you really need to do is back arrow and refresh. I've never had a draft erased by
refreshing. But then again I usually refresh AFTER copying..
Also Undo (in the right click menu) can usually recover accidentally deleted text.
Wow - Comey, the guy that fixed Hillary's email problem has an urgent centrist plea.
"Democrats, please, please don't lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This
president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America's great
middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."
"... It is clear that Trump's own DoJ acted to sabotage him by releasing the indictments of the twelve russian GRU officials just before Trump's meeting with Putin. ..."
"... A year ago legislators introduced a bill in Sweden to restrict [total] media ownership to no more than 5% by any person, family, company or ethnic group. The Jews wasted no time screaming anti-semitism. ..."
"... It is a ritual, so the purpose is to convey loyalty. It doesn't placate anyone. What it unfortunately does is to undermine all else Derbyshire says. If he is this uninformed, or conformist, about basic facts, how can one take what he says seriously? ..."
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this somewhat jingoistic prefatory note is, or whom it is
intended to placate. It is a farrago of false, outdated stereotypes about Russia based
entirely on the situation there in the 1990s.
Like it or not, Putin is the democratically elected leader of Russia, in elections that
have been generally free and fair. They like him over there, and vote for him in huge
numbers. Given that per capita GDP in Russia is about 3-4 times as high as when he took
office, this is not surprising.
As for its being an "economic non-entity among nations", it is a mid-sized economy, about
the size of an Australia, Italy, India and so on, a $2 trillion economy, give or take, using
the purchasing power parity figures. It is no America, China, Japan or Germany, but is
nestled in the tier of countries just below those. Much of the disparagement of its post 2014
economy is based on the US$ figures of its GDP, a misleading measure that is severely
affected by transient fluctuations in the exchange rate.
Lastly, there is plenty of credible evidence that deaths from alcoholism have fallen by
50% or so, since the bad old days, two decades ago. Yes, that's still twice the rate for
males in the EU, but they're sobering up.
Russia has a number of problems but a rusting military? Derbyshire needs to be put up to date
with Putin's successful drive to modernize the Russian military. In some cases (for example,
the hypersonic missiles announced by Putin early this year) they actually have more advanced
weaponry than the US. And Russia has actually won a war in the Middle East (in Syria)
something that the US gave been unable to do for the last 15 years.
"Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks."
Putin took over on December 31, 1999. The country had been raped by the oligarchs and
suffered hyperinflation. Pensioners were driven into horrific poverty en masse. Life
expectancy plummeted. Putin neutralized the oligarchs without renationalizing industries and
put the economy on a more sustainable upward path. The people are now in much better shape,
including ordinary Jews. Drunkenness has lessened. Putin is reasonably popular. There is
hope. Russia also has new advanced weapons.
Losing the 2016 election was a terrible, colossal psychic trauma for the American Left.
They can't believe Trump did it by himself. They can't believe 63 million Americans voted
for him of our own free will.
This just shows that a lot of people no longer trust the MSM. The next step is to take a closer look at Congressional candidates and get commitments for
1) no ME wars 2) infrastructure spending 3) no mass immigration 3) stop $ billions for Israel
6) active swamp draining.
The poisoning in England of Sergei Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty
It was the falsiest false flag in the history of false flags. Nothing about it made any
sense whatsoever. A complete PR operation. The whole(and failed) purpose was to derail the
World Cup.
Mr. Derbyshire is pretty good at spoon feeding people who enjoy being told that they're
superior to blacks, especially those who also think Brits are, in turn, above them.
But Mr. Derbyshire once again genuflects before his adoptive Uncle Sam, mindlessly
parroting the PutinIsEvilTyrant mantra that the likes of Pat Buchanan, Andrew Napolitano, and
occasionally even Tucker Carlson need to keep their spots along the Right side of
Establishia.
That Mr. Derbyshire does so here -- fancying himself a martyr in the war against
institutional thinking like that at National Review -- indicates naïveté or
cravenness.
Before further embarrassing himself by sharing his gulled views on Russia, he should read
and think about the work of the more informed, insightful authors at Unz Review who provide a
broader and better readership than he deserves.
The poisoning in England of Sergei Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty; it's
disgraceful, and deserving of diplomatic retaliation
Agree that "diplomatic retaliation" is called for. The U.S. should break off diplomatic
relations to the UK immediately, and through them out on their ear.
The Skripals are DEAD, murdered by MI5 to extend the useful life of Hillary's
anti-Trump "Steele Dossier" that Sergei Skripal helped concoct.
The fact that Britain claims to have Sergei and Yulia Skripal in custody proves that
Britain is responsible. British media coverage is smothered by "D notices" and blithely play
along with a ridiculous government "narrative" – another bad sign.
Does anyone really expect to see the Skripals alive again?
Who else do you expect will come back from the dead?
I don't think there is any reasonable way in which Trump can be said to be a more legitimate
president of his country than Putin. He did not even receive a majority of votes, after all.
Certainly, the electoral college is the way it is done in the US, so overall, Trump is still
the legitimate president of the US, but there are certainly fewer doubts in Putin's case than
in Trump's.
Calling Russia dysfunctional is completely ignorant. That may have been the case in the
90es when the authoritarian darling of the West, the drunkard Yeltsin was in power and the
Russian economy was ruined by oligarchs and American advisors. Things have changed a lot
since then.
The Romanovs undoing was the collusion of a large part of the Russian elite with the British
Empire – the very same British Empire that had happily contributed to the Japanese
Victory in the war of 1905.
The still-slandered Rasputin was a strong voice against the (for the Romanovs) suicidal
war of 1914, and, surprise, the British consul was present on the occasion of his
murder).
Indeed, our ruling class is crazy, as is any ruling class that sides with the British.
Sure, post-Soviet Russia has done naughty things. [ Crimea ] and they've intervened
energetically in Syria's civil war. Naughty for sure
Intervening in Syria's civil war is naughty? Thus saving a christian tradition of 2.000 years is naughty? Mr. Derbyshire certainly knows who is acting murderously naughty in Syria. What has happened in Syria is a disgrace for the christian West.
Derbyshire articles are always tricky: a sharp intelligence married to the capacity for utter
nonsense.
Once Derbyshire dismounts from his immigration/cultural Marxism hobby horse he often ends up
to his ankles in poo of his own making.
He seems to have swallowed the MSM/establishment line on the Skripnals hook, line, &
sinker. His views on Russia are simply embarrassing.
But, he's spot on re: causes of the Russia hysteria. Russia is the great convenience –
perfect to explain the defeat of the vile Clinton & a perfect stick to constantly bash
the President. (I didn't hear the whole of the Putin press conference, but my impression of
Trump's so-called treason was that he merely implied that the US's IC wasn't correct re
hacking etc So this amounts to treason ? Treason, because Trump is correct & the IC are a
ravening pack of liars & monsters.)
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks. Trump is the constitutionally elected
leader of a country so prosperous, buoyant, and secure, our main national problem is
holding back the tide of people trying to break in across our bordersto share in our
blessed bounty.
So much bullshit. Putin is not an illegitimate leader. The is no country on the face of
the earth more corrupt than the US.
Derbyshire must be under attack by the Deep State.
Derbyshire is a phony. First of all, the deep state in the US is controlled by a certain
ethnic minority. They're not all patriotic Americans by any means. Trump is doing nothing
wrong by winding things up in Syria – or by making peace with Russia, a country with
which the US has little trade. I think Trump is preparing for a bigger clash with China and
the Russia and Middle East things are diversions. Of course, in a clash with China, which
side would Derbyshire be on? 'Nuff said.
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks. Trump is the constitutionally elected
leader of a country so prosperous, buoyant, and secure, our main national problem is holding
back the tide of people trying to break in across our borders to share in our blessed
bounty.
Richard Lowry employed you for the amusement value of an elderly man making throwaway
remarks. In the course of your current employment, you and your readers might benefit if you
actually checked the numbers now and again.
1. You could classify Russia as a high-end middle income country or a 2d tier affluent
country. Depending on the metric you prefer, its productive base is the world's 6th largest
or 12th largest. Since 1998, it has registered a doubling of domestic product per capita with
a growth rate exceeding that of all but 5 European countries and all but 1 European country
from among those with a population exceeding 4 million. Of course, it has been more dynamic
than North America, the Antipodes, and the affluent Far East.
2. Russia's total fertility rate at 1.75 exceeds both the European and occidental means.
Russia, unlike many countries, has seen a dramatic recovery in fertility since 1998. If past
proves to be prologue, they may reach replacement-level fertility within 10 years. Israel is
the only affluent country with replacement-level fertility as we speak.
3. Russian life expectancy at birth (71.6 years) is depressed for an occidental country.
However, they've pulled out of the public health catastrophe they suffered during their
Yeltsin-era economic depression and have added 7 years to life expectancy at birth since that
time.
4. The homicide rate in Russia is high for an occidental country (11 per 100,000).
However, it's been cut by 30% in the last 7 years or so.
5. Russia's military expenditure ranks 4th globally. Persons familiar with proper
performance metrics can weigh in on how effective that military is. Please note, however,
that Russia is one of a small menu of occidental and quasi-occidental countries willing to
act independently abroad. (The others are the United States, Britain, France, and
Israel).
6. It encompasses all territory in the world which is predominantly Great Russian bar the
city of Narva in Estonia and some border counties in Kazakhstan. Over 90% of it's population
lives in territories in which ethnic Russians predominate. The only peripheral areas in which
Great Russians do not form a majority are in the Caucasus. About 4% of the country's total
population lives in those areas. Russia is not territorially over-stretched.
7. The political order is deficient in various ways. It is, however, pluralistic and
pluralistic to a degree matched in Russian history only between 1905 and 1918 and between
1988 and 2005. The degree of public assent to VP and his confederates in the Duma exceeds
that accorded a head of state and government in just about any other occidental country.
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks.
Other commentators have noted how highly inaccurate this statement is, so I'll say only
that I lived in Moscow from September 2016 until January 2018 and the country that I saw in
no way resembles Derb's characterization. Russia has its problems but I don't see demographic
replacement or civil war in the cards, as I do for the [sooner-or-later-to-be] Disunited
States.
Russian control of the Crimea is essential to its national security; the Black Sea is to
Russia what the Gulf of Mexico is to the U.S. Any Russian leader, seeing the Ukrainian
government toppled by a U.S. backed coup, that failed to act to secure Crimea, is
irresponsible. The wisdom of Russian involvement in Syria can be fairly debated among
Russians, but Syria is a lot closer to Russia than to the United States. At least Russian
involvement in Syria is not the result of being a pawn of a foreign power, as it is in the
case of the U.S.
"Sure, post-Soviet Russia has done naughty things. They occupied the Crimea and they've
intervened energetically in Syria's civil war. Naughty for sure, but under strong
geostrategic compulsion: Russia needs those naval bases."
Seriously, you wrote this? Besides the hypocrisy of someone living in the US writing this,
you actually think the Syria thing is about Russia wanting naval bases.
That's so wrong, I don't know where to start. I'd be here for a while writing exactly why
I think Russia is in Syria. Not in my wildest imaginings did any of it involve naval bases
though.
"They've murdered people in foreign countries, too. The poisoning in England of Sergei
Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty; it's disgraceful, and deserving of diplomatic
retaliation -- which indeed it's got: 23 Russian diplomats were expelled from Britain."
So I take it you believe the Russian poisoned this guy?
"On 4 March 2018, he and his daughter Yulia, who was visiting him from Moscow, were
poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent.[5][6] As of 15 March 2018,[7] they were in a critical
condition at Salisbury District Hospital. The poisoning is being investigated as an attempted
murder.[6] He holds both Russian and British citizenship.[8] On 21 March 2018 Russian
ambassador to the UK Alexander Yakovenko said that Sergei Skripal is also a Russian
citizen.[9][10] [7]
On 29 March, Yulia was reported to be out of critical condition, 'conscious and
talking'.[11] A week later, on 6 April, Skripal was said to no longer be in a critical
state.[12] He was discharged on 18 May."
I say it never happened. I think it was made up out of thin air. Just for a talking point
and propaganda piece. And it is a clumsy, ludicrous framing job. Nothing clever about it,
just BS as brazen as Colin Powell lying his ass off to the UN.
So in England people theoretically exposed to nerve toxins get treated by the NHS at a
public facility? Really? Really? That's how they do it? Not by a military doctor trained to
specifically deal with cases like this?
I suspect trashing Russia makes him feel better about his own country going to shit. He
knows America and the West in general are anything, but "buoyant". A healthy, confident society does not elect president Donald Trump.
The 3d of these is apportioned about evenly between Zhirinovsky admirers and the
remainder. The last is apportioned between parties of a more social democratic or populist
bent and parties of a more social-liberal bent. The sort of Europhile element you're calling
'the leading opponent' is generally good for 7% of the ballots. People wanting that choice
had that choice, just not the particular person to whom you refer.
To add insult to the Left's injury, the Russians -- well, some of them -- returned
openly to Christianity. And not only did they drop actual Marxism, they showed no
enthusiasm for Cultural Marxism, marginalizing homosexuals and feminists and keeping
themselves overwhelmingly, shamefully, white.
So called "Cultural Marxism", or whatever is passing under this term in the West, didn't
exist in USSR since Stalin. It was a profoundly conservative society with a huge emphasis on
family values, with homosexuality considered a crime and with many other cultural features,
including "folkish" Russian culture (somebody has to lecture Western "academia" on what were
the most popular TV series in USSR in 1960s-1980s) promoted, including a massive and greatly
influential art-movement of Pochvenniki. But I guess for "connoisseurs" of Russian culture
whose bottom line is founded on Solzhenitsyn with some Pasternak and Hollywood cliches it is
difficult to admit the fact that they pretty much know nothing about Russia's history of the
20th century.
I'll even have to admit I agree with the people who piled on Trump for dissing our
intelligence agencies at the news conference. I'm not a fan of those agencies, or indeed of
intelligence agencies in general, ours or anyone else's. I think Trump's right to distrust
them.
Maybe. Maybe not. It is clear that Trump's own DoJ acted to sabotage him by releasing the
indictments of the twelve russian GRU officials just before Trump's meeting with Putin.
I would like to see a couple questions asked of Trump's critics (maybe Tucker Carlson
could ask them).
1.) When was the last time that the Justice Department indicted foreign intelligence
agents living abroad? Have they ever done it? Are we truly shocked that foreign spies are
spying on us?
2.) Has the CIA ever interfered with a foreign election? Is there any current operation in
which they are interfering with a foreign election? Have they supported any NGO or political
party in Russia that is in opposition to the current russian government?
3.) When did liberals decide that the acid test of loyalty to America is one's loyalty to
the US government's clandestine intelligence agencies?
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks. Trump is the constitutionally elected
leader of a country so prosperous, buoyant, and secure, our main national problem is
holding back the tide of people trying to break in across our borders to share in our
blessed bounty.
Mr. Derbyshire, in what sense is Putin "illegitimate" as the Russian head of state?
I mean, for all my horror of the HellBeast (and it's substantial), let's face it: Trumpy
is the skin-of-his-teeth winner of a Constitutional, yes, but also corrupt and rigged,
election process. And our main national problem isn't holding back the tide of
border-breakers; it's the lack of any interest in doing so on the part of the ruling class,
and the failure of the ruled to rise up and overthrow our corrupt rulers. In a lot of ways,
we make Russia look pretty good.
The Russians went into Crimea after the US instigated a coup ("regime change") against
Ukraine. Crimea is the home to the Black Sea Fleet and has tremendous national importance to
Russia. Think of it as our San Diego.
The Russians went into Syria at the express invitation of the government of the Syrian
Arab Republic. The US is in Syria on the basis of "no one can tell us no." Might makes right?
Is that a principle the Derb really wants to endorse? (If need be, we could go deeper into
the weeds and discuss just who each side, the Americans and the Russians, are supporting in
Syria; that also favors the Russians.)
Perhaps the Derb should educate himself by visiting Pat Lang's site and reading what
non-propagandists are saying.
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military
Watch it there, pal, you are coming dangerously close to what that genius Hitler once said
about Russia – something about Russia being a limp virgin ready to be taken into the
lustful mighty arms of German Mars – or some stupidity like that. It turned out that
our limp virgin by 1945 developed such a phallus that managed to tore a new one to
Germany.
If I was you, I wouldn't worry so much about the condition that Russia is in today, I
would rather worry about the shape that your country of origin – GB is in. On one hand,
Britain still rules over the same eclectic mix of people like in the glory days of its empire
– the only difference is that now they had to scale down their "empire" to about 244
000 sq km and also had to suffer some minor indignities along the way, such as organized gang
rapes from their subjects of indo-pakistani origin, but other than that – it's just
like it used to be.
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks.
Bullshit!
They've murdered people in foreign countries, too. The poisoning in England of Sergei
Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty; it's disgraceful, and deserving of diplomatic
retaliation -- which indeed it's got: 23 Russian diplomats were expelled from Britain.
More Bullshit!
I just don't think a news conference in a foreign country is the right place to air that
distrust.
That's your stupid opinion. It was a crappy presentation. And presentation for you means more than substance. You are
NOT helping Derb.
As for its being an "economic non-entity among nations", it is a mid-sized economy,
about the size of an Australia, Italy, India and so on, a $2 trillion economy, give or
take, using the purchasing power parity figures.
It's a $4 trillion economy using the purchasing power parity figures (the same as
Germany).
And many of them are dual citizens, foreign nationals, immigrants or the children of
immigrants, so they are not American at all. No one not a natural born citizen born to natural born citizens should be employed by the
US government in any capacity, including the military.
Mr. JD doesn't appear to keep up with the news about Russia Puzzling.
But even more puzzling: he believes the UK leaders nonsense about the "Skripals affair." A
bad sign, indeed.
As for Trump's performance at Helsinki, I don't see why he should be pained by it: it was no
worse than any of his previous shows.
And Putin was just his usual self: efficient and together. Trump did well to agree that Putin
should present the summary of their talks, as there was no time for producing a written
report for Trump to read. Putin had, as usual, taken notes during the two meetings.
What Trump said in his opening remarks was fine, and he sounded just right and convincing.
The problem arose when he was answering questions, and he certainly shouldn't have run his
intel down as he did, but in all fairness they don't deserve better.
I wonder why nobody denounces the asking of idiotic questions, solemnly to embarrass the
leader of another country [H.E. Mr. Putin] in front of an international audience ?
With the exception of the period 1919 1933 the USA, that is, the ruling class, wanted to
control the world.
In this period the ideas of the ruling class, to be precise, were the same, but the people
had enough of USA blood flowing for imperialism, neutrality laws came, the laws that FDR
hated.
If trying to control the world is crazy, I wonder.
Rome also then wanted to control the then known world, that is, the accessible parts.
The British empire controlled 40% of the world, also the then accessible parts.
So when in fact one man blocks that the whole world is controlled, the ruling class
assumes that after Russia had fallen China will fall too, I wonder if one can say they're
crazy.
If they are, then mankind has been crazy forever.
A historian calculated that on thirteen years of war in Europe on average there were three
years of peace.
If I'm right in my ideas on Trump, he's unique in world history, the first time the ruler
of an empire sees that the empire can no longer be held, and acts accordingly.
Those who still think the USA can conquer those parts of the world the USA does not yet
control, are, of course are near a nervous breakdown. Panic is not good for thoughtful solutions, if one of these days Trump dies unexpectedly,
from whatever cause, it will not surprise me.
What is interesting, to understate, what the reaction will be among those who elected
Trump.
Yeah, what happened to the Novichok story? Last I heard was that a person died 4 months after because she found a novichok dispenser
somewhere, and the UK announced that after painstakingly combing through CCTV footage and
Russian passenger records "they knew who did it".
Trump derangement syndrome makes idiots (greater idiots) of the establishment. These morons
can't see that the alliance between Russia & China is THE greatest threat to US
international ambitions. If appearances are correct Trump wishes to weaken that alliance
– which is diplomacy 101. Trump has a multitude of faults, but his actions re Russia
would possibly gain Bismarck's approval.
It seems this author can't overcome his Cold Warrior past of supporting (((Soviet
dissidents))) against the evils of Communism so he believes what he wants about Russia and
its current state. As others have pointed out here, if he's so wrong about Russia, he's
probably getting a lot else wrong as well. Perhaps Unz should become no country for old men,
and leave the revolution to the younger vanguard who seem much more reality based.
Based commentary by Michael McCaffrey for RT:
Captain America savages
Trump in battle of the useful idiots He just left out Mr. Schwarzenegger's tweets. People playing tough guys doing shouty politics by short message, thinking they are what
they pretend to be on stage. It's pretty liberal out there.
I would add number 7: dismantle the monopoly on American media and internet. You're not going to have a functioning democracy when one small ethnic group controls a
country's media. And expect the inevitable. A year ago legislators introduced a bill in Sweden to restrict
media ownership to no more than 5% by any person, family, company or ethnic group. The Jews
wasted no time screaming anti-semitism.
And expect the inevitable. A year ago legislators introduced a bill in Sweden to
restrict [total] media ownership to no more than 5% by any person, family, company or ethnic group.
The Jews wasted no time screaming anti-semitism.
I can understand person, family and company but ethnic group? Do you mean minority ethnic
group – or are ethnic Swedes not allowed to own more than 5% of their own media?
The Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Warfare just issued a report last week
stating that there is no evidence that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Another false
flag. I really don't believe a word I read in the press any longer. I can't believe that
anyone does.
The left means to take and hold power and that's it.
That idiot Andrew McCarthy from NR has just expressed astonishment that he could have been so
naive as to believe in the integrity of the FISA warrant process. What a load of
codswallop.
last year the BBC had a bunch of nostalgic puff pieces on the 1917 Revolution, this year all
the press is silent about the murder of the Romanovs. The brutal murder of that family was a grisly foreshadow of what was essentially a
government ran by a foreigners was to do to the Russian (and Ukrainian) people. and perhaps its a grisly foreshadow of what the globalists want to do to badwhites. also remember that 'revolution' was sponsored by many wall street firms, who made a ton of
money liquidating the nobility's assets
That stratfor chart is outdated and already proven wrong: It projects a total Russian
population of 137 million in 2020, but in 2018 Russia's population is 146 million (144
without Crimea), and it has been basically stable for years.
It's true that the Muslim share of Russia's population is rising, but it is doing so very
slowly, because the fertility of Russia's Muslims isn't high (below replacement in every
majority-Muslim region except Chechnya). It's currently something 1.9 children per woman for
Muslims, vs. 1.6 for ethnic Russians, and will likely equalize long before Muslims are
anywhere near a majority.
Muslims and the Chinese are taking over the south and east of Russia through high birth
rates and (illegal) immigration.
The trope that Chinese are taking over Russia's east is complete nonsense. Chinese have
little economic incentive to migrate north to Siberia, rather than south to the wealthy
regions of their own country.
what the purpose of this somewhat jingoistic prefatory note is, or whom it is intended
to placate
It is a ritual, so the purpose is to convey loyalty. It doesn't placate anyone. What it
unfortunately does is to undermine all else Derbyshire says. If he is this uninformed, or
conformist, about basic facts, how can one take what he says seriously?
I'm about 65% Russian, 25% Lak (Dagestani), and 10% other (mostly Italian, Jewish).I
have a degree in Political Economy from U.C. Berkeley.
Reminds me of http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/06/high-v-low-m.html
. That Political Economy degree from Berkeley surely is a signal for that. I like humanities.
Problem is a lot of US humanities is garbage, and if you have only a humanities degree from a
US school, smart, knowledgable people will assume you to be problematic.
Maybe I come across as high V low M too, but I'm not, see https://gmachine1729.com/writings-by-category/pure-math/
. Yes, I also consider many people in programming and software engineering to be high V low
M. I've seen Google senior engineers who don't even know what divergence or curl are.
Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups:
pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American
population, they have been prominent in pornography. Many erotica dealers in the book trade
between 1890 and 1940 were immigrant Jews of German origin. According to Jay A. Gertzman,
author of Bookleggers and Smuthounds:The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 'Jews were prominent in the distribution of
gallantiana [fiction on erotic themes and books of dirty jokes and ballads], avant-garde
sexually explicit novels, sex pulps, sexology, and flagitious materials'.
In the postwar era, America's most notorious pornographer was Reuben Sturman, the 'Walt
Disney of Porn'. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman
controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country. Born in 1924, Sturman grew up
in Cleveland's East Side. Initially, he sold comics and magazines, but when he realized sex
magazines produced twenty times the revenue of comic books, he moved exclusively into porn,
eventually producing his own titles and setting up retail stores. By the end of the 1960s,
Sturman ranked at the top of adult magazine distributors and by the mid-70s he owned over 200
adult bookstores. Sturman also introduced updated versions of the traditional peepshow booth
(typically a dark room with a small colour TV on which the viewer can view X-rated videos).
It was said that Sturman did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the
industry. Eventually he was convicted of tax evasion and other crimes and died, disgraced, in
prison in 1997. His son, David, continued running the family business.
The contemporary incarnation of Sturman is 43-year-old Jewish Clevelander Steven Hirsch,
who has been described as 'the Donald Trump of porno'. The link between the two is Steve's
father, Fred, who was a stockbroker-cum-lieutenant to Sturman. Today Hirsch runs the Vivid
Entertainment Group, which has been called the Microsoft of the porn world, the top producer
of 'adult' films in the US. His specialty was to import mainstream marketing techniques into
the porn business. Indeed, Vivid parallels the Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and
1940s, particularly in its exclusive contracts to porn stars who are hired and moulded by
Hirsch. Vivid was the subject of a behind-the-scenes reality TV show recently broadcast on
Channel 4.
German Christians whose children are force-fed LGBT sex ed in schools and where home
schooling is not permitted, and where parents will be arrested if they do not put their
children in the schools, have sought asylum in Russia, and there have been more than a few of
them, much as the media likes to ignore it. When the US no longer allows home-schooling, and forces their children into the schools,
you will see the same thing happening in the US. Christian Americans will be seeking asylum in Russia
When Trump said he considers Russia a "competitor", he was right. No truer words were ever
spoken.
But the only way to get Americans on board with the greedy plans of greedy people in and
out of government is to demonize your "competitors."
"Naughty things in Syria"??? Saving the non crazies in Syria from jihadi lunatics is naughty?
I suppose if you an Israeli, Saudi or US Democrat. To others , Russia was a savior. This writer appears to be auditioning for a return to NRO.
Russia's economy is stillborn while China's is booming and feasting on America's assets
and market.
Russia's per capita product exceeds China's. It hasn't been as economically dynamic as
China (a 2-fold increase in per capita produce over 1998-2016, v. China's 3.3-fold), but it
has done quite well and has satisfactory macroeconomic indicators across the board. It's
export sector remains dominated by oil and minerals, there's an excess of state ownership in
the economy, and there are some quality of life issues (street crime). Room for improvement,
but not doing badly.
Not by a whole lot (China=$8,800 vs Russia=$10,900 2017).
Also, China's huge GDP is divided by 1.38 billion people.
I doubt anything more than 200-300 million of those ~1.4 billion are involved in contributing
anything significant to China' GDP. So their $12 trillion GDP is quite impressive.
Russia should be doing much, much better.
{It hasn't been as economically dynamic as China}
China's economic 'miracle' is largely thanks to America, like South Korea before, and like
Japan before SK.
America opened up its rich, practically unlimited market to Chinese goods _and_ American
companies were encouraged to setup shop in China ( .like in South Korea).
Chinese are smart people and they learned, and over time started creating their own.
You go to Home Depot or Lowes today and there is hardly _anything_ manufactured in US: it's
all "Made in China".
Russia, on the other hand, is considered an enemy by US, so everything is done to thwart
its economic progress. Russians are also at fault, but we cannot ignore the fact that China
got a huge boost from the economically advanced West to get its (dynamic) economy going.
"... By the way, I should note the date of that exchange with Jay: October 2008. We were still in the Bush era. The entire discussion -- of lies and facts, the disregard for facts, and such -- was framed by the Iraq War and the epic untruths that were told in the run-up to the war. It should give you a sense that the world of fake news that so many pundits seem to have suddenly awakened to as a newborn threat has been with us for a long time. The Bush era may seem like ancient history to some, but in the vast, and even not so vast, scheme of things, it was just yesterday. ..."
"... Once the facts aren't a threat to power, they can generally be revealed. ..."
"... Bush appeared confident the facts won't matter, after the invasion. They did matter–if you're just talking about the truth. The non-existence of the WMDs wasn't widely denied (though a few in the administration would try) –the fact was simply swept away because they weren't politically relevant anymore. ..."
"... Isn't that why everyone is saying we're in a 'post-truth' moment? ..."
"... Prior to this, an unsavory or humiliating or shameful or dangerous truth was extremely salient, and would be fuel for a response. It's partly the power of gaslighting – denying the obvious creates a sufficient level of confusion to let you keep going when normally others would stop you. ..."
"... I understand the difference between the two types of truth, truths of logic vs empirical facts that are contingent, but I think the difference between the liar and the sophist is mostly nonexistent. People who lie about empirical facts are also unwilling to follow chains of logic if they don't want to accept the necessary conclusion. ..."
As Hannah Arendt wrote in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism , "The ideal
subject of totalitarian rule ... [are] people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction
(ie the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (ie the standards of
thought) no longer exist."
By the way, I should note the date of that exchange with Jay: October 2008. We were still in
the Bush era. The entire discussion -- of lies and facts, the disregard for facts, and such --
was framed by the Iraq War and the epic untruths that were told in the run-up to the war. It
should give you a sense that the world of fake news that so many pundits seem to have suddenly
awakened to as a newborn threat has been with us for a long time. The Bush era may seem like
ancient history to some, but in the vast, and even not so vast, scheme of things, it was just
yesterday.
Ray Vinmad 07.16.18 at 8:11 am (no link)
"Should enough people come to believe the liar's claim, the facts about which he lies could
be lost from the world forever. "
This isn't what happens, usually. When the interests connected to the lies change, then
the truth is usually admitted. In the US, the truth often becomes irrelevant, even if real
horrors are admitted to. Americans are fairly disinterested in the dirty particles of most of
the nation's past.
Once the facts aren't a threat to power, they can generally be revealed.
That's not to say that certain false narratives won't be retained, but the revival of
these is generally shaped to current interests, and even if lies are borrowed from the past,
the main way they get a hold on the present is because they serve certain interests.
Bush appeared confident the facts won't matter, after the invasion. They did
matter–if you're just talking about the truth. The non-existence of the WMDs wasn't
widely denied (though a few in the administration would try) –the fact was simply swept
away because they weren't politically relevant anymore.
In these cases, it seems that salience or irrelevance is a better way to understand what's
driving the weak practical impact of the facts rather than truth or falsity.
Isn't that why everyone is saying we're in a 'post-truth' moment? Trump's trick is to make his story the salient
story, and his denials have a way of disabling or thwarting action, even when people are fully aware of the truth. Except for
the total fanatics, Trump's enablers are vaguely or even completely aware they are operating on a lie. What matters isn't that
the claims are factual disprovable but that they drive action toward the pursuit of particular interests, and disable action
that harms those interests.
Prior to this, an unsavory or humiliating or shameful or dangerous truth was extremely
salient, and would be fuel for a response. It's partly the power of gaslighting – denying
the obvious creates a sufficient level of confusion to let you keep going when normally
others would stop you.
There's something odious and misleading in the way you distinguish between types of truth and
their role in politics, though I can't put my finger on it, and perhaps whatever error I
can't quite describe might explain why you fell for Trump so neatly, but perhaps part of it
can be easily seen here:
Having staked his presidency on the claim that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction, he's going to have to wage war against Iraq in order to eliminate those
weapons.
This gets the nature of Bush's lies completely wrong. He wanted to invade Iraq and he knew
he could lie his way into it because of the way American politics rewards muscular action and
militarism, and because of the recklessness of his political supporters. He didn't stake his
presidency on a lie, he staked his presidency on a war and lied his way into it. In 2008 did
you really believe bush had been sincere about his belief in wmds?
This definition of lies here seems weird and unnecessary.
Donald 07.16.18 at 4:18 pm (no link)
I understand the difference between the two types of truth, truths of logic vs empirical
facts that are contingent, but I think the difference between the liar and the sophist is
mostly nonexistent. People who lie about empirical facts are also unwilling to follow chains
of logic if they don't want to accept the necessary conclusion.
That aside, I think politics is full of lies because the system collapses otherwise. I
think this ties in with the endless debate people have here about Trump and Trump's
opposition. Like Hidari in the other thread, I think Trump's war crimes ( listed below) are
far more significant morally speaking than Russiagate, but in our political system collusion
with a foreign power in dirty tricks during a political campaign is much easier to attack
than war crimes and US complicity in genocide. Both political parties would collapse if we
started holding politicians of both parties along with various government officials
accountable. We have a functioning democracy by some definition of " functioning" precisely
because we allow the biggest crimes to be treated as policy choices and not crimes, while
pretending that the worst crime an American politician has or could commit would be to
collude with a foreign power in stealing some emails to embarrass the other party.
For those curious, Trump's biggest war crimes are the bombing of civilians in Iraq and
Syria and the assistance to the Saudi assault on Yemen. According to the Airwars site the
killing of civilians by our bombs increased dramatically under Trump, probably because of
loosened restrictions. The policy in Yemen continues what Obama did. In both cases it isn't
just the President who is guilty, unless Obama and Trump singkehandedly carry out all
functions of our government in the Mideast. Holding them accountable would mean holding a lot
of other people accountable.
michael 07.16.18 at 6:06 pm (no link)
This is the first intelligent thing Robin has written, in my view. It also helps me formulate
more explicitly some of my longstanding discomfort with Arendt, which is rooted in the way
her predilection for natality leads her to posit a rather simplistic political ontology.
After all, we do not enter politics with a given floor and horizon; politics is about which
floor and which horizon does and should exist. This is what makes factual truth coercive: not
its validity, but its tendency to impose rather than set out from a set of political givens.
Which is to say, natality is always already operating within the status quo; it is not
introduced there by "politics."
I know I have in the past quoted from Twitter (which would seem to be where the most
interesting conversations are nowadays, as opposed to the blogosphere) but Branko Milanovic
has some interesting insights (he also has the inestimable advantage of not coming from the
UK/US/Australasia AKA the 'Anglosphere': he has more of a cosmopolitan sensibility).
His basic point is that you really can't understand Trump unless you look at what came
before his (Frederic Jameson: 'Always historicise!'). Since Thatcher/Reagan (and Clinton and
Blair were not really much different) we have been taught to look up to 'entrepreneurs' as
'wealth creators'. Or, to put it another way, to obsequiously grovel to semi-earned wealth
and power. But politics, we were told, floated above the grubby world of 'material interests'
like a soap bubble.
Trump tears the veil aside. He doesn't govern on behalf of capitalists as Thatcher/Blair
and the rest did. He IS a capitalist. And he self-evidently became President to help his
business interests (including, yes, those in Russia. But that's probably as far as the Russia
thing goes). This is terribly disturbing for liberals, who have been taught to see
'capitalist' ('liberal' is normally the euphemism) 'democracy' as being merely a neutral
description of the 'mode of production' of our current set up, as opposed to being a harsh
description of political realities: politicians are allowed to govern insofar as their
policies benefit capitalists.
Hence to talk about Trump lying is like talking about an advert 'lying'. Do adverts 'lie'?
Of course to a certain extent. But then they were never supposed to tell the truth. Their
purpose is to sell a product. Truth is irrelevant.
Every word that comes out of Trump's mouth is to help Trump PLC. It's true (sic) that some
of his statements are false. But to assess it in these terms is like to point out that
Heineken is not, in fact, probably the best lager in the world, or that one should not, in
fact, necessarily Drinka Pinta Milka day.
Again, I think this is what disturbs people. Bush et al, consciously lied. Trump I don't
think he knows what truth is, and I don't think he cares. What boosts profits that's what's
good and true.What doesn't isn't good (or true).
But these are the value of capitalism, and Trump is, in this sense, the logical end
product of where Western society has been heading since 1979 (1981 in the 'States).
Orange watch, the order of the claim seems important to me. Stumbling into a war because you
told a lie about a possible cause of a war ends all the other options to deal with it dried up
is one thing; setting up a war and lying your way into it is a different thing. Eg you decide
to cheat on your wife and set up an incredibly thin lie to do it, versus you have a habit of
lying to your wife that ultimately ends with you having a chance at an affair.
Also the empirical difference between these types of liar seems irrelevant. Everyone who
lied about the true cause of the war also lied about basic facts like global warming. As the
commitment to one kind of lie has grown so has the magnitude oft he other kind. Why waste
time distinguishing? And why did Arendt? The liars of her time lied in both ways as well.
AND somebody -(even if it is "not actually being a U.S. citizen) needed to point to "the
truth" of this:
"He wanted to invade Iraq and he knew he could lie his way into it" – as lying in
politics is (sadly) nothing but "another tool" or "another strategy" to get what any
-"political actor" (even some of the lesser evil) – want.
And the Sawyer-Bush example is about the best example for this fact:
"Sawyer: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed
to the possibility that he [Saddam] could move to acquire those weapons.
Bush: So what's the difference?"
For somebody who wants to start a war – or wants to become US President? – and
who realizes that the best "strategy" in ending up with "a war" or "becoming US President"
-is lying -(day and night) – lying becomes just a a very "practical solution"
– (especially if the liar is dealing with a bunch of people who might believe that "France
isn't France anymore" – if just a Clownsticks tells them)
And I fear that by conflating the above described type of liar with "the type of liars
described in the OP – WE may have allowed the virtues – or at least the charms
– of the ones to obscure the vices of the others.
In "Lying in Politics," Arendt writes:
A characteristic of human action is that it always begins something new, but this does not
mean that it is ever permitted to start ab ovo, to create ex nihilo. In order to make room
for one's own action, something that was there before must be removed or destroyed, and
things as they were before are changed. Such change would be impossible if we could not
mentally remove ourselves from where we are physically located and imagine that things might
as well be different from what they actually are. In other words, the ability to lie, the
deliberate denial of factual truth, and the capacity to change facts, the ability to act, are
interconnected; they owe their existence to the same source, imagination."
So she directly links lying to natality. And this paragraph, like much of her work,
describes what she takes to be the ontological conditions of politics. That is what she is
doing when she invokes "something that was there before," furnishing the ground for action.
And this in turn commits her to a view of the "already there" which is not itself political,
as she herself defines the term.
I completely agree that Stevenson likely has it all wrong meta-ethically. But my point was
that I was offering an explanation to describe what Trump, Giuliani, etc. are engaging in,
even if they don't know they're doing it. Emotivism is an attempt to explain what we usually
denote as moral language and behavior. It maintains that moral language and action amount to
the expression of emotional attitudes and nothing more. Therefore, beyond the fact that an
individual or group has some attitudes, there is nothing left for morality to do but for
individuals and groups to try and influence one another in attitude–to achieve
agreement in attitude. Any means to do so–lies and bullshit–are legitimate to try
and achieve agreement in attitude. Just listen to Trump's crowds. They don't care what he
says, or what he does, they just feel that he "gets" how they feel–shared attitudes. If
that's the case, then the Trump phenomenon might be best explained as reflecting a practical
embrace of such expressivism. Again, I have no claim to anything approaching political
expertise here–I'm just advancing a way of looking at the Trump phenomenon conceptually
to see if it's at all helpful.
16: "Such change would be impossible if we could not mentally remove ourselves from where
we are physically located and imagine that things might as well be different from what they
actually are. In other words, the ability to lie, the deliberate denial of factual truth, and
the capacity to change facts, the ability to act, are interconnected; they owe their
existence to the same source, imagination.""
This reminds me a lot of modern management speak: "Everybody said it was impossible
until someone came along who didn´t know that .. and just did it!"
To me, Arendt's claim makes no sense. Yes, mentally removing oneself from reality to
imagine a different one is difficult but it's not lying, it's not denial of reality.
Imagination isn't synonymous with delusion. I'll counter this weird idealistic view with Rosa
Luxemburg's materialism (quoting Ferdinand Lassalle): "Wie Lassalle sagte, ist und bleibt es immer die revolutionärste Tat: "laut zu sagen,
was ist"".
The most revolutionary act is to say loudly what is (what is true).
Btw Michael what do you mean by "natality"? It literally means birth rate, no?
Any means to do so–lies and bullshit–are legitimate to try and achieve
agreement in attitude.
It is empirically obvious that people use lies and bullshit in attempts to try and achieve
agreement in attitude; but the statement quoted is made different from that empirical
observation by the introduction of the word 'legitimate', which in this context is moral
language. Those who affirm that it is legitimate to use lies and bullshit to achieve
agreement in attitude reveal their moral bankruptcy. On an emotivist theory, that statement
expresses my moral attitude; what I have to say about that is that yes, it does express my
moral attitude, and if your moral attitude differs from mine on that point, what do you
suggest we do about it?
Arendt's NYRB piece, kindly linked @13, holds this very interesting nugget [for footnoting
-- see original]: As regards the domino theory, first enunciated in 1950 and permitted to survive, as it has
been said, the "most momentous events": To the question of President Johnson in 1964, "Would
the rest of Southeast Asia necessarily fall if Laos and South Vietnam came under North
Vietnam control?" the CIA's answer was, "With the possible exception of Cambodia, it is
likely that no nation in the area would quickly succumb to Communism as a result of the fall
of Laos and South Vietnam." When five years later the Nixon Administration raised the same
question, it "was advised by the Central Intelligence Agency that [the United States] could
immediately withdraw from South Vietnam and 'all of Southeast Asia would remain just as it is
for at least another generation.' "According to the study, "only the Joint Chiefs, Mr. Rostow
and General Taylor appear to have accepted the domino theory in its literal sense,"and the
point here is that those who did not accept it still used it not merely for public statements
but as part of their own premises as well.
"... The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept. ..."
"... American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of other countries. ..."
"... The Russians -- especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists -- should take note of the extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene ..."
"... There is no support for Trump's agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he declared that "We must deal with Putin's Russia as the rogue state it is." Russia is a " rogue state" simply because Russia does not accept Washington's overlordship. ..."
"... There is no support even in Trump's own government for normalizing relations with Russia unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is "normal." Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact. ..."
"... A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate. Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump is Putin's lackey, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump stood next to "the murderous thug Putin" and accepted Putin's word that Russia did not interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in Putin's pocket and that the Russiagate story is true. ..."
The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to
survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No
such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept.
American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative
doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of
other countries. The only way that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea can reach an agreement
with Washington is to become vassals like the UK, all of Europe, Canada, Japan, and
Australia.
The Russians -- especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists -- should take note of the
extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across
the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene. Putin is incorrect that
US-Russian relations are being held hostage to an internal US political struggle between the
two parties. The Republicans are just as insane and just as hostile to President Trump's effort
to improve American-Russian relations as the Democrats, as Donald
Jeffries reminds us .
The American rightwing is just as opposed as the leftwing. Only a few experts, such as
Stephen Cohen and Amb. Jack Matlock , President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union, have
spoken out in support of Trump's attempt to reduce the dangerous tensions between the nuclear
powers. Only a few pundits have explained the actual facts and the stakes.
There is no support for Trump's agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena.
The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he
declared that "We must deal with Putin's Russia as the rogue state it is." Russia is a " rogue state" simply because Russia does not accept Washington's overlordship.
Not for any other reason.
There is no support even in Trump's own government for normalizing relations with Russia
unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations
neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is
"normal." Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of
normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact.
A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate.
Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put
Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump
is Putin's lackey, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump
stood next to "the murderous thug Putin" and accepted Putin's word that Russia did not
interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in
Putin's pocket and that the Russiagate story is true.
"... Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it's a key tool in America's deep state playbook. ..."
"... Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim. ..."
"... Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington. Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America's hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations. Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies. ..."
Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it's a key tool in
America's deep state playbook.
Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets
most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim.
Not a shred of evidence suggests Russia meddled in America's political process –
nothing.
Yet an earlier NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed most Americans believe the Russia
did it Big Lie. A months earlier Gallup poll showed three-fourths of Americans view Vladimir
Putin unfavorably.
Americans are easy marks to be fooled. No matter how many times they were deceived before,
they're easily manipulated to believe most anything drummed into their minds by the power of
repetitious propaganda – fed them through through the major media megaphone – in
lockstep with the official falsified narrative.
America's dominant media serve as a propaganda platform for US imperial and monied interests
– acting as agents of deception, betraying their readers and viewers time and again
instead of informing them responsibly.
CNN
presstitute Poppy Harlow played a clip on air of Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asking Putin
in Helsinki the following question:
"Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials
to help him do that?"
Putin said: "Yes," he wanted Trump to win "because he talked about bringing the US-Russia
relationship back to normal," as translated from his Russian language response.
Here's the precise translation of his remark:
"Yes, I wanted him to win, because he talked about the need to normalize US-Russia
relations," adding:
"Isn't it natural to have sympathy towards a man who wants to restore relations with your
country? That's normal."
Putin did not address the fabricated official narrative notion that he directed his
officials to help Trump win. Yet CNN's Harlow claimed otherwise, falsely claiming he ordered
Kremlin officials to help Trump triumph over Hillary.
He did nothing of the kind or say it, nor did any other Kremlin officials. No evidence
proves otherwise – nothing but baseless accusations supported only by the power of
deceptive propaganda.
Time and again, CNN, the NYT, and rest of America's dominant media prove themselves
untrustworthy.
They consistently abandon journalism the way it's supposed to be, notably on geopolitical
issues, especially on war and peace and anything about Russia.
After rejecting, or at least doubting, the official narrative about alleged Russian meddling
in the US political process to aid his election, Trump backtracked post-Helsinki –
capitulating to deep state power.
First in the White House, he said he misspoke abroad – then on CBS News Wednesday
night, saying it's "true," deplorably adding:
Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, and he "would" hold Russian President
Vladimir Putin responsible for the interference – that didn't occur, he failed to
stress.
GLOR: "You say you agree with US intelligence that Russia meddled in the election in
2016."
TRUMP: "Yeah and I've said that before, Jeff. I have said that numerous times before, and
I would say that is true, yeah."
GLOR: "But you haven't condemned Putin, specifically. Do you hold him personally
responsible?"
TRUMP: "Well, I would, because he's in charge of the country. Just like I consider myself
to be responsible for things that happen in this country. So certainly as the leader of a
country you would have to hold him responsible, yes."
GLOR: "What did you say to him?"
TRUMP: "Very strong on the fact that we can't have meddling. We can't have any of that
– now look. We're also living in a grown-up world."
"Will a strong statement – you know – President Obama supposedly made a strong
statement. Nobody heard it."
"What they did hear is a statement he made to Putin's very close friend. And that
statement was not acceptable. Didn't get very much play relatively speaking. But that
statement was not acceptable."
"But I let him know we can't have this. We're not going to have it, and that's the way
it's going to be."
There you have it – Trump capitulating to America's deep state over Russia on national
television.
From day one in power, he caved to the national security state, Wall Street, and other
monied interests over popular ones.
The sole redeeming part of his agenda was wanting improved relations with Russia and
Vladimir Putin personally – preferring peace over possible confrontation, wanting the
threat of nuclear war defused.
Despite tweeting post-Helsinki that he and Putin "got along well which truly bothered many
haters who wanted to see a boxing match," his remarks on CBS News showed he'll continue dirty
US business as usual toward Russia.
Anything positive from summit talks appears abandoned by capitulating to deep state power
controlling him and his agenda.
Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington.
Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America's
hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and
populations. Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices
harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies.
Will Americans go along with sacrificing vital freedoms for greater security from invented
enemies – losing both? Will US belligerent confrontation with Russia inevitably follow?
Will mushroom-shaped denouement eventually kill us all?
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research
based in Chicago.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US
Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html "
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian
handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has
not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his
Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe.
NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
The offices of The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, and MSNBC have not been stormed by squads of jackbooted Trumpian
Gestapo.
The Destabilization of the Middle East, the Privatization of Virtually Everything, the Conversion of the Planet into One Big Shopping
Mall, and other global capitalist projects are all going forward uninterrupted. Apart from Trump making a narcissistic, word-salad-babbling
jackass of himself, which he does on a more or less daily basis, nothing particularly apocalyptic happened.
And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent
paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment (or his removal
from office by other means) were left standing around with their hysteria in their hands. It has become a sadistic ritual at this
point like a twisted, pseudo-Tantric exercise where the media get liberals all lathered up over whatever fresh horror Trump has just
perpetrated (or some non-story story they have invented out of whole cloth), build the tension for several days, until liberals are
moaning and begging for impeachment, or a full-blown CIA-sponsored coup, then pull out abruptly and leave the poor bastards writhing
in agony until the next time which is pretty much exactly what just happened.
In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its
mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor. While continuing to flog the wildly popular
baby concentration
camp story (because the Hitler stimulus never fails to elicit a Pavlovian response from Americans, regardless of how often or
how blatantly you use it), the corporate media began hammering hard on the "Trump is a Russian Agent" hysteria. (Normally, the corporate
media alternates between the Hitler hysteria and the Russia hysteria so as not to completely short-circuit the already scrambled
brains of Western liberals, but given
the
imminent threat of a peace deal , they needed to go the whole hog this time and paint this summit as a secret, internationally
televised assignation between Hitler and well, Hitler).
Consortiumnews Volume 24, Number 199
-- –Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995 -- –July 18, 2018
US Media is Losing Its Mind Over Trump-Putin Press Conference July 16, 2018 •
316 Comments
The media's mania over Trump's Helsinki performance and the so-called Russia-gate scandal reached new depths on Monday, says Joe
Lauria
By Joe Lauria Special to Consortium News
The reaction of the U.S. establishment media and several political leaders to President Donald Trump's press conference
after his summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday has been stunning.
" There are exactly two possible explanations for the shameful performance the world witnessed on Monday, from a serving American
president.
Either Donald Trump is flat-out an agent of Russian interests -- maybe witting, maybe unwitting, from fear of blackmail, in
hope of future deals, out of manly respect for Vladimir Putin, out of gratitude for Russia's help during the election, out of
pathetic inability to see beyond his 306 electoral votes. Whatever the exact mixture of motives might be, it doesn't really matter.
Or he is so profoundly ignorant, insecure, and narcissistic that he did not realize that, at every step, he was advancing the
line that Putin hoped he would advance, and the line that the American intelligence, defense, and law-enforcement agencies most
dreaded.
Conscious tool. Useful idiot. Those are the choices, though both are possibly true, so that the main question is the proportions
never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of another
country over those of his own government and people."
As soon as the press conference ended CNN cut to its panel with these words from TV personality Anderson Cooper: "You have been
watching perhaps one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president at a summit in front of a Russian leader, surely,
that I've ever seen."
David Gergen, who for years has gotten away with portraying himself on TV as an impartial political sage, then told CNN viewers:
" I've never heard an American President talk that way but I think it is especially true that when he's with someone like Putin,
who is a thug, a world-class thug, that he sides with him again and again against his own country's interests of his own institutions
that he runs, that he's in charge of the federal government, he's in charge of these intelligence agencies, and he basically dismisses
them and retreats into this, we've heard it before, but on the international stage to talk about Hillary Clinton's computer server
"
" It's embarrassing," interjected Cooper.
" It's embarrassing," agreed Gergen.
Cooper: "Most disgraceful performance by a US president."
White House correspondent Jim Acosta, ostensibly an objective reporter, then gave his opinion: "I think that sums it up nicely.
This is the president of the United States essentially taking the word of the Russian president over his own intelligence community.
It was astonishing, just astonishing to be in the room with the U.S. president and the Russian president on this critical question
of election interference, and to retreat back to these talking points about DNC servers and Hillary Clinton's emails when he had
a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy, and he didn't do it."
In other words Trump should just shut up and not question a questionable indictment, which Acosta, like nearly all the media,
treat as a conviction.
The Media's Handlers
The media's handlers were even worse than their assets. Former CIA director John Brennan
tweeted : "Donald Trump's press conference
performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors,.' It was nothing short of treasonous. Not
only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???"
Here's where the Republican Patriots are, Brennan: " That's how a press conference sounds when an Asset stands next to his Handler,"
former RNC Chairman Michael Steele tweeted.
Representative Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, said on Twitter: " As a member of the House Armed Services
Committee, I am deeply troubled by President Trump's defense of Putin against the intelligence agencies of the U.S. & his suggestion
of moral equivalence between the U.S. and Russia. Russia poses a grave threat to our national security."
All these were reactions to Trump expressing skepticism about the U.S. indictment on Friday of 12 Russian intelligence agents
for allegedly interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election while he was standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin at
the press conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki.
" I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia, Trump said. "I have great confidence in my intelligence people,
but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today."
The indictments, which are only unproven accusations, formally accused 12 members of the GRU, Russian military intelligence, of
stealing Democratic Party emails in a hacking operation and giving the materials to WikiLeaks to publish in order to damage the candidacy
of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictments were announced on Friday, three days before the summit, with the clear intention
of getting Trump to cancel it. He ignored cries from the media and Congress to do so.
Over the weekend Michael Smerconish on CNN
actually said the indictments proved that Russia had committed a "terrorist attack" against the United States. This is in line
with many pundits who are comparing this indictment, that will most likely
never produce any evidence, to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. The danger inherent in that thinking is clear.
Putin said the allegations are "utter nonsense, just like [Trump] recently mentioned." He added: "The final conclusion in this
kind of dispute can only be delivered by a trial, by the court. Not by the executive, by the law enforcement." He could have added
not by the media.
Trump reasonably questioned why the FBI never examined the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee to see whether
there was a hack and who may have done it. Instead a private company, CrowdStrike, hired by the Democratic Party studied the server
and within a day blamed Russia on very
dubious grounds.
" Why haven't they taken the server?" Trump asked. "Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?
I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social
media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying?"
But being a poor communicator, Trump then mentioned Clinton's missing emails, allowing the media to conflate the two different
servers, and be easily dismissed as Gergen did.
At the press conference, Putin offered to allow American investigators from the team of special counsel Robert Mueller, who put
the indictment together, to travel to Russia and take part in interviews with the 12 accused Russian agents. He also offered to set
up a joint cyber-security group to examine the evidence and asked that in return Russia be allowed to question persons of interest
to Moscow in the United States.
" Let's discuss the specific issues and not use the Russia and U.S. relationship as a loose change for this internal political
struggle," Putin said.
On CNN, Christiane Amanpour called Putin's clear offer "obfuscation."
Even if Trump agreed to this reasonable proposal it seems highly unlikely that his Justice Department will go along with it. Examination
of whatever evidence they have to back up the indictment is not what the DOJ is after. As I
wrote about the indictments in detail on Friday:
" The extremely remote possibility of convictions were not what Mueller was apparently after, but rather the public perception
of Russia's guilt resulting from fevered media coverage of what are after all only accusations, presented as though it is established
fact. Once that impression is settled into the public consciousness, Mueller's mission would appear to be accomplished."
Still No 'Collusion'
The summit begins. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
The indictments did not include any members of Trump's
campaign team for "colluding" with the alleged Russian hacking effort, which has been a core allegation throughout the two years
of the so-called Russia-gate scandal. Those allegations are routinely reported in U.S. media as established fact, though there is
still no evidence of collusion.
Trump emphasised that point in the press conference. "There was no collusion at all," he said forcefully. "Everybody knows it."
On this point corporate media has been more deluded than normal as they clutch for straws to prove the collusion theory. As one
example of many across the media with the same theme, a New York Times
story on Friday , headlined, "Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton. Were They Listening?," said Russia may have absurdly
responded to Trump's call at 10:30 a.m. on July 27, 2016 to hack Clinton's private email server because it was "on or about" that
day that Russia allegedly first made an attempt to hack Clinton's personal emails, according to the indictment, which makes no connection
between the two events.
If Russia is indeed guilty of remotely hacking the emails it would have had no evident need of assistance from anyone on the Trump
team, let alone a public call from Trump on national TV to commence the operation.
More importantly, as Twitter handle "Representative Press" pointed
out: "Trump's July 27, 2016 call to find the missing 30,000 emails could not be a 'call to hack Clinton's server' because at that
point it was no longer online . Long before Trump's statement, Clinton had already
turned
over her email server to the U.S. Department of Justice." Either the indictment was talking about different servers or it is
being intentionally misleading when it says "on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for
the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third party provider and used by Clinton's personal office."
This crucial fact alone, that Clinton had turned over the server in 2015 so that no hack was possible, makes it impossible that
Trump's TV call could be seen as collusion. Only a desperate person would see it otherwise.
But there is a simple explanation why establishment journalists are in unison in their dominant Russian narrative: it is career
suicide to question it.
As Samuel Johnson said as far back as 1745: "The greatest part of mankind have no other reason for their opinions than that they
are in fashion since vanity and credulity cooperate in its favour."
Importance of US-Russia Relations
Trump said the unproven allegation of collusion "has had a negative impact upon the relationship of the two largest nuclear powers
in the world. We have 90 percent of nuclear power between the two countries. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous what's going on with
the probe."
The American president said the U.S. has been "foolish" not to attempt dialogue with Russia before, to cooperate on a range of
issues.
"As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats
who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct," Trump said. "Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards
the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of
peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
This main reason for summits between Russian and American leaders was also ignored: to use diplomacy to reduce dangerous tensions.
"I really think the world wants to see us get along," Trump said. "We are the two great nuclear powers. We have 90 percent of the
nuclear. And that's not a good thing, it's a bad thing."
Preventing good relations between the two countries appears to be the heart of the matter for U.S. intelligence and their media
assets. So Trump was vilified for even trying.
Ignoring the Rest of the Story
Obsessed as they are with the "interference" story, the media virtually ignored the other crucial issues that came up at the summit,
such as the Middle East.
Trump sort of thanked Russia for its efforts to defeat ISIS. "When you look at all of the progress that's been made in certain
sections with the eradication of ISIS, about 98 percent, 99 percent there, and other things that have taken place that we have done
and that, frankly, Russia has helped us with in certain respects," he said.
Trump here is falsely taking credit, as he has before, for defeating ISIS with only some "help" from Russia. In Iraq the U.S.
led the way against ISIS coordinating the Iraqi and Kurdish security forces. But in the separate war against ISIS in Syria, Russia,
the Syrian Arab Army, Kurdish forces, Iranian troops and Hizbullah militias were almost entirely responsible for ISIS' defeat.
A grand deal? (Photo: Sputnik)
Also on Syria, Trump appeared to endorse what is being
reported as a deal between Russia and Israel in which Israel would accept Bashar al-Assad remaining as Syrian president, while
Russia would work on Iran to get it to remove its forces away from the northern Golan Heights, which Israel illegally considers its
border with Syria.
After a meeting in Moscow last week with Putin, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he accepted Assad remaining in power.
" President Putin also is helping Israel," Trump said at the press conference. "We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would
like to do certain things with respect to Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like
to work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work jointly."
Trump also said that the U.S. and Russian militaries were coordinating in Syria, but he did not go as far as saying that they
had agreed to fight together there, which has been a longstanding proposal of Putin's dating back to September 2015, just before
Moscow intervened militarily in the country.
" Our militaries have gotten along probably better than our political leaders for years," Trump said. "Our militaries do get along
very well. They do coordinate in Syria and other places."
Trump said Russia and the U.S. should cooperate in humanitarian assistance in Syria.
" If we can do something to help the people of Syria get back into some form of shelter and on a humanitarian basis that's what
the word was, a humanitarian basis," he said. "I think both of us would be very interested in doing that."
Putin said he had agreed on Sunday with French President Emmanuel Macron on a joint effort with Europe to deliver humanitarian
aid. "On our behalf, we will provide military cargo aircraft to deliver humanitarian cargo. Today, I brought up this issue with President
Trump. I think there's plenty of things to look into," Putin said.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street
Journal, Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at
[email protected]and followed on Twitter @unjoe .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
I'm really hard pressed to come up with anything to be optimistic about given the dire nature of our current global and national
predicaments combined with the bat-sheet crazy nature of our current version of the mass psyche. About the only bright spot I
can find is that it is really encouraging to read the overall high quality of the comments here at CN, which suggest that I can
look forward to taking part in some wonderful future conversations in "the camps."
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll gathered responses from 1,011 registered voters throughout the United States, including 453 Republicans
and 399 Democrats. The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 4 percentage points."
Independents/anaffiliated make up more than 42% of the registered voters currently in the USA.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:09 pm
"medium = Social / source = Twitter"
Babyl-on , July 17, 2018 at 9:35 pm
I think we should take heart that they are such a small group – loud yes, they have the corporate press, but it is not a big
group and they have already lost the narrative. This has to be the end for them, they have no political support for impeachment
after all this screeching articles can't even get introduced mostly the "resistance" isn't even trying – they know they don't
have evidence.
The scream these words TREASON and COLLUSION but they are powerless politically to do anything. So a "treasonous" president
goes on. Clearly they are at their wits end their heads have actually exploded. The powerful "liberal" cabal which has run Washington
for decades is disintegrating before there very eyes. Clinton is the witch – Trump is the water.
A , July 17, 2018 at 11:33 pm
Okay , I get it, I will go down , but I am not going down by the orange shit head. You guys win, you wanted your Cheeto to
give us some love, and tax breaks , favorable trade deals, get rid of people like me , be besties with Russia, kill everyone from
central America. Cool. You guys win. I hope you are happy , apparently you have achieved what you wanted.
Thanks, Drew and Realist, i just read Finian Cunningham's essay at Information Clearing House. Yes, this is indeed scary. It
does appear a coup is being planned. All the more reason for us to speak up. The thought of Mike Pence is scarier than Trump.
willow , July 17, 2018 at 9:30 pm
I was a Sanders supporter and donor who voted for Trump because he promised diplomacy, whereas Hillary wanted a no-fly zone
in Syria, and her proven track record of supporting illegal regime change in Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Ukraine and Syria. She was
a faux progressive and ultimate racist in that she has the blood of countless brown people (mostly women and children) on her
hands. What is really scary and disheartening is that the pro-WW3 propaganda seems to be working if the reader comments from the
NYT and WaPo are accurate gauges of public perception. The verdict of commenters in corporate media websites is unanimous: Trump
is a traitor for committing the crime of détente. Consortium news readers are informed because we search truth in alternative
media. I hope it's not naïve to believe we are the silent majority and most Americans still possess the common sense and critical
thinking skills necessary to see through the hysteria even if they don't venture to sites like Consortium news.
AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Don't worry yourself too much. The highest rated MSM news shows only garner about 1.2 million viewers. That's far less than
1% of the American population.
The MSM fancy themselves what they have not been in decades; Relevant.
That was good, mrbt (not enough vowels for me). Yes, we are in a jalopy headed for a cliff. Instead we get a cliffhanger with
this Mueller intel fiasco. I misspoke with the bank bailout, of course, it was 2009 just after Obama got into office; he told
those banksters, "I'm the only one between you and the pitchforks". Now it seems like we're on a roller coaster ready to jump
the track!
mrtmbrnmn , July 17, 2018 at 7:33 pm
This disgraceful and obscene display of pants-wetting by the MSM over the Trump-Putin meeting and press conference was pre-planned
and essentially pre-scripted to advance the deep state regime change op against Trump (and ultimately Putin). I was trying to
imagine these journalistic malpracticers prepped to embarrass and humiliate Obama in a similar setting by asking questions like:
"Mr Obama, which do you prefer, watermelon or chicken bones?"
It is clear beyond doubt that we are helpless passengers in the back seat of the out of control jalopy that is America, barreling
helter skelter down the highway bound to hell and total collapse. The Dementedcrats need to get off the crack pipe and the unconscionable
CIA thug John Brennan might benefit from a frontal lobotomy to get him to chill out.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm
the best description i've read of this insanity is : 'the MSM is (p-faced) drunk on its own p . . . " with appreciation
to the commentor who wrote that !
It sounds like Lisa Page is, unlike Strzok (remember him, from late last week ?) cooperatively providing information which
might implicate China as the 'party which got the 30,000 emails'. Perhaps this is what Trump & Putin talked about ? In which case,
The Donald's walking back his press conference comments may be only a temporary feint. If true, Lisa will need excellent protection
and a new name !
Something big may be in the works, as Stephen says. Now Veterans Today says that a move on Iran by the US was discussed at
Helsinki, and they think that Putin would capitulate in some sort of trade-off -- what, to get off their backs? Putin is much
smarter than that. Zero Hedge just reports that Russia has dumped all their US Treasury bonds, further stating that Russia's close
ties to China indicate a trial run on the market preparatory to China dumping their pile, too. What many feel the big event is
really another economic meltdown, as nothing was done in the 2008 Obama crisis except bail out the banks, which went right back
to their chicanery. The western Deep State always sets up for war to divert attention from internal crisis.
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm
I get far more concerned when the press, intelligence agencies and various other DC gangsters lavish praise on Trump. Judging
by their reactions, it seems likely that Trump must have actually brought us closer to peace.
Stephen J, excellent verse as usual, "Blame It On Putin". It was reported that "the lights went out" in the White House when
Trump did his U-turn on Russian election meddling. Was that supposed to be symbolic of something?
Thanks Jessika. I believe something big is in the works. The powers that be have had things their own way for so long. The
corporate media monopoly are their mouthpieces and are barking like dogs in a frenzy in case they lose their bones. The bones
being the millions dead from planned wars and blood soaked profits that attained to the corporate cannibals. Enemies are needed
to continue the corrupt system. The War Criminals are getting desperate, the gangsters war is just starting. Unfortunately we
are all Prisoners of "Democracy" https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
Antiwar7 , July 17, 2018 at 6:22 pm
David Gergen says Trump acts "against his [Trump's] own country's interests of his own institutions [including] these intelligence
agencies."
There's the rub, isn't it? The interests of our country and of those institutions: are they the same?
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm
Also worth, sorry for broken record but, using Trump's unique "awfulness" as justification for vigilante-style "trial in the
press" or manipulated/propagandized "public opinion" there's a deep deep antidemocratic anti-due process or rule-of-law desperation
here which has had "liberal" (or "illiberal") precedent we've already seen in "political correctness" and #metoo (emanating from
the "progressive camp" often justified by the awfulness / despicable-ness of those they despise.
This is a very very sad devolution (or arguably the unmasking) of the Democratic Party (I vote the latter).
mike k , July 17, 2018 at 6:13 pm
Trump mumbled some sort of half maybe apology about questioning Russian meddling. But he will contradict that apology just
as quickly. They are really having trouble pinning this guy down on anything. His enemies want to nail him, but he just keeps
moving. For a fat guy, he is pretty nimble.
Now, Trump says he misspoke and "accepts US intel on Russian election meddling"! I guess he got anothet 'trip to the woodshed',
as Skip Scott has often said. James Howard Kunstler is right, it's a "Clusterfuck Nation". Well, the Russians are smart enough
never to trust the US.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 9:49 pm
He got the truth out first and for that I have to give him kudos.
He probably knew backtracking and its attendant issues was
Inevitable. Very nice that power went out while he said he misspoke.
as WaPo itself says, "Truth Dies in Darkness".
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 5:18 pm
Look, this is getting frightening.
Never in my lifetime have I witnessed a group think/mob mentality like what's occurring over Russiagate and the overriding
Russophobia fueling it all. This is washing over virtually all planks of the political spectrum. We just had a damaged and awful
president try to do one of the very few things he actually gets right: make rapprochement with Moscow; he was subsequently browbeaten,
smeared and viciously attacked by every single mainstream Western media outlet on the planet. Not just news media, but also the
entertainment media are completely on board -- Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Maddow, etc.
To say one kind word about Putin or the modicum of detente that Trump just unsuccessfully tried to pull off is to be mocked,
ridiculed, scoffed at and laughed at by liberal leaning friends, colleagues and acquaintances.
The militarist-corporate propaganda during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War pales in comparison to this new and scary McCarthyism
that has permeated everything.
I'm 47 y.o. and never experienced anything like this.
The liberal intelligentsia who are falling for this and propagating this have some of the hottest places in heII waiting for
them.
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 5:31 pm
If you think the overwhelming majority of the US cares about what the press and politicians think, then I would suggest you
spend less time with Democrats. I dont agree with many Republican platforms, but on the reliability of media, they are far more
prescient than the Democrats. I wonder if it is because they have more first-hand knowledge than the Democrats because they tend
to send their kids to the meat grinder oil, wars more frequently than Democrats.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 5:40 pm
The best thing we have going right now Deniz is the cynical and skeptical attitude of much the hardworking American population.
The Russians certainly aren't the ones who foisted this unconscionable inequality on the U.S. population, nor was it the Russians
who caused the American heartland to deteriorate into a wasteland of service sector employment and Oxy dependence. It wasn't Putin
who mired recent American college grads in deplorable debt in the range of $30,000 to $400,000, nor was it Putin who demanded
that millions of Americans go without adequate healthcare coverage.
It's economic inequality and it's political enablers who are stalking the towns and cities of America, not the Russian military.
John P , July 17, 2018 at 6:37 pm
That is the real problem, so why arn't kids, their parents and the poor out on the streets like those of my generation during
the Vietnam war stiring things up. Is it social media which kills the urge to go out and protest and make yourself heard? Get
the money and business influence out of modern day politics, Raise hell !
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:15 pm
There was a DRAFT during the Vietnam war. That made a huge difference.
And, I think we were actually better informed than today's young people.
Bringing the war live into people's living rooms was New Thing back then,
and we paid attention. Now, we are habituated and just tune out bad news,
unless it happens to be a domestic shooting spree or other home turf stuff.
willow , July 17, 2018 at 9:36 pm
Irina below is right. The draft was the difference. People would wake up and engage if we had the draft. We have an economic
draft today. It's the only option for poor and lower class kids who will never afford college. It's unfortunate that identity
politics doesn't include the socioeconomic bias of targeting of poor kids being used as cannon fodder
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:12 pm
And moreover, the draft was based on a birthdate lottery.
All in the luck of the draw. (And of course, economic standing
since there were college deferments, etc. etc.)
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:49 pm
I'm 71, Drew, and can tell you that the darkest days of the Vietnam War were not as scary. Our power structure has taken McCarthyism
as practiced during the Korean Conflict and doubled down on it, directing its kinetics at the office of the presidency. This is
as close to a civil war or an actual coup d'etat that I have ever seen, much more divisive and explosive than Nixon and Watergate.
Someone claiming authority they do not have may soon make a move against Trump. They've stirred up enough hate by the mob to mask
their motives.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 6:02 pm
Thanks for kicking some historical info to this Gen Xer. You make some very interesting (and quite scary) points.
Over at 'Information Clearing House' the always excellent Finian Cunningham has just penned a dynamite and trenchant essay
on a possible pending coup against Trump.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 6:32 pm
Thanks. I always read your spot-on posts at the ICH website, Drew.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 8:36 pm
Thanks Realist.
In solidarity,
Drew Hunkins
Madison, WI
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 7:13 pm
Yes. This excellent article by Finian Cunningham really nails it.
Monoloco , July 17, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Trump derangement syndrome is so powerful, it turns liberals into neocons.
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Drew your absolutely correct, this is a unprecedented groupthink & dangerous propaganda on a scale that's never existed before!
It's mass hysteria on steroids! And all because of the simple fact that Trump, a man who was never supposed to win the Election
over the anointed candidate, crooked Hillary Clinton occurred! Trump must be removed by a slow motion coup by any means possible?
Whether it's by undermining his authority or belittering his character. If that doesn't work they will take the JFK removal method?
As Stalin stated, death is the solution to all problems, no man, no problem? It's frightening where all this fake Russiagate nonsense
is going to lead us, it's almost as if they want to start the next great extinction event by starting WW3 & a Nuclear War with
Russia? The arrogance of America & its Deepstate, Propagandist MSM & political system is going to be the death of us all!
I don't know that to say. Whatever was left of the republic is either gone or doomed. If we have a mainstream media that is
so nakedly attempting a coup d'état or calling for one with such universal fury based on little evidence and just embroidering
one myth over another then I will have to just focus my energy elsewhere. My comrades on most of the left have, despite decades
of proof that the media is deeply dishonest and constantly howling for one war after another the only hope is to batten down the
hatches and just survive the next decade through local efforts. The sad part is I oppose many of Trump's policies but this isn't
about policies–this is about re-invigorating American militarism and imperialism.
I've been around a lot of crises but nothing like this madness.
As usual the "media impostors" and propaganda pushers blame Putin.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
January 10, 2017
"Blame It" On Putin
There is endless wars and devastation around the world
Western war criminals have their war banners unfurled
Millions dead and many millions uprooted
And the financial system is corrupted and looted
"Blame it" on Putin
The war criminals are free and spreading bloody terror
And their dirty propaganda says Putin is an "aggressor"
These evil plotters of death and destruction
Should be in jail for their abominable actions
But, "Blame it" on Putin.
The American election is won by Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton loses and gets politically dumped
The media is frenzied and foaming at their mouths
They are crying and lying, these corporate louts
They "Blame it" on Putin
Hollywood, too, is getting in on the act
The B.S. merchants are able to twist facts
In their fantasy world of channel changers
They do not approve of a political stranger
They "Blame it" on Putin
The spymasters and their grovelling politicians
All agree that "their democracy" is "lost in transmission"
Their comfortable and controlled system is now in danger
And these powerful parasites are filled with anger
They "Blame it" on Putin
One loose canon talks and babbles of "an act of war"
Could nuclear hell be started by a warmongering whore?
If the madmen of the establishment get their way
Could we all be liquidated in the nuclear fray?
"Blame it" on Putin
There is no doubt that the ruling class
Are all worried about saving their ass
Could there be huge changes and still more coming?
Is the sick and depraved society finally crumbling?
Hey, "Blame it" on Putin
[more info at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/01/blame-it-on-putin.html
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:46 pm
This just in: (NYT headline / top of page)
Trump Backtracks on Russian Meddling
Under Fire, He Says He Accepts U.S. Intelligence Reports
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm
and then
Guardian:
Trump flips – then flips again – a day after downplaying Russian interference
President says he supports US intelligence consensus on 2016 election – but then says 'it could be other people also'
I heard him say that. He meant that Russia did it and others could also have been involved.
Will , July 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm
Perhaps New York magazine has it right? "The president isn't a traitor: He's just constitutionally incapable of processing
simple information, or prioritizing the national interest above his own egoistic desires." or more maybe New York's earlier article
from last week suggesting Trumpkin has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987 is true.
One thing's for sure: Trumpkin borrowed 100's of millions from shady Russian bankers and other oligarchs, some of whom seem
to have laundered a bunch of money through Trump's real estate holdings by buying condos for dollars on the penny. If you foliks
don't see that as being at least somewhat on the same level as Dick Cheney holding those un-exercised Halliburton stock options
at the time Haliburton was servicing the Iraq invasion
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:06 pm
Or Hillary exchanging access to the State department for donations
Gregory Herr , July 17, 2018 at 7:40 pm
"Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a
war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two
occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits."
Profiting from the death and destruction of a heinous war of aggression that Cheney himself played a key role in instigating
can in no way be compared with shady business dealings. I harbour disdain for shady businessmen who cheat property owners, honest
contractors or workers. But that type of wrongdoing pales in comparison to the wicked malfeasance of Cheney (or the Bush family
for that matter).
Before you "process" any more simple "information" from New York magazine Will, I suggest you take note of the GIGO truism
and check yourself for leakage.
It seems President Lenin Moreno of Ecuador might have the perfect solution for his "problem" in London.
Free Julian Assange, Allow him to walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy with all the proper rights available for any innocent
man or woman on Earth.
Immediately upon Mr. Assange's exit, allow William (Bill) Browder to enter and occupy the same room at the Ecuadorian Embassy
– whereupon Mr. Browder will reside at that address until July 2024, punished under the identical treatment and conditions as
Julian Assange.
"Problem solved" – President Moreno!
David Otness , July 17, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Not much to say but the USA has gone bat-shit cray-cray.
I'm going to be delighted to be excised from many so-called "friends" – friends of mob mentality.
The US media and Intel complex have induced a national psychosis and a likely Constitutional crisis.
Keep yer powder dry.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:04 pm
I'd guess half the country considers this -- in the end -- just more partisan theatrics sad to suspect that they actually are
the "sane ones" It's ennui versus cynicism as to which is more deadly .
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm
The scary thing is, Americans second amendment right to bear arms against enemies both domestic & foreign! There's a Edward
Abbey saying that a days "a Patriot must always be ready to defend his Country against his Govt"! How long will it be before American
citizens reach a tipping point where they recognise that it's enemies are its own domestic leaders & institutions such as the
false corporate propagandist MSM & corrupt Politicians in both Republican & Democratic Parties who are undermining & sabotaging
their human rights as free people! How long will it be before they say enough's enough we can't stomach this anymore?
Larry Gates , July 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm
In the Odyssey a witch-goddess named Circe turned Odysseus' men into pigs. I think Trump is a modern day sorcerer. In the GOP
primaries he turned his more intelligent and more experienced competitors into incoherent cartoon characters. He has done the
same to the entire Democratic establishment, and he has done it to the entire mainstream press. There is no effective opposition
because politicians and the media have become stark-raving mad – wild swine, just as dangerous as the monster they oppose. We
are in America's darkest hour and only half the blame goes to the vulgarian in the White House.
The Ministry of Truth has declared that seeking détente with Russia is an act of treason. And peace is war. Long live Oceania!
jsinton , July 17, 2018 at 6:14 pm
I love it.
BobS , July 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm
The POTUS stood on foreign soil and announced to the world that the leader of one of our historical adversaries was more credible
than the US intelligence services.
If it walks like a traitorous duck, and quacks like a traitorous duck, ..
anon , July 17, 2018 at 4:25 pm
Then it is a traitorous troll.
Gregory Herr , July 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm
That's rich! Do please grace us with an explanation as to why "credible" is an adjective aptly applied to either the FBI or
the CIA.
Dario Zuddu , July 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm
Excellent piece. Fortunately, there is still someone here retaining sanity.
The only thing I have to add is that, most regrettably, it is not only the media and opportunistic politicians that have lost
their minds on this matter.
Large segments of the public appear to have too.
Just take a look at the readers' comments on the very same type of press coverage that is indicted by Mr. Lauria.
They overwhelmingly level the same one sided, unbalanced, shallow, wrong-headed and hysterical attacks on Trump as the press articles
they comment – and for the same completely questionable reasons.
Accusations of Trump "surrendering to Putin", being a "traitor" for siding with Russia instead of the US intelligence community
(on a totally unproven matter, by the way; and since when the US intelligence community is necessarily more reliable than foreign
leaders on these matters?) are the norm in the readers' comment (as well as in the mostly recommended ones).
Incredibly, the same public that lambasted at the intelligence community for its appalling record on Iraq, now does not even want
to consider that same community's obvious self interest in Russia-bashing.
In the USA, who stands the most to loose from a possible pacification of foreign relations with the biggest military counterpart,
i.e., well, Russia?
This question just rings as troubling now as it did at the onset of the cold war.
Yet, nobody seems to wonder it.
It's just over for those of us on the old left. The Orwellian nature of the media has taken hold and we are powerless against
it. We have a population utterly uncurious of facts or history, logic or science, rationality or erudition. It's over. People
want to belong, want to share their anger at whatever enemy there is no matter how ludicrous is that threat from the enemy. This
is how the oligarch has decided to use Trump's election–first to divide us on tribal grounds and second to invent some enemy that
uses all the mythology of Hollywood villains with Russian accents. It's working and it means the oligarchs are unassailable and
now are able to control public opinion with a bunch of gestures on the screen and the population will bark on command. Goebbels
is, somewhere, cackling with delight.
We will be lucky if we avoid war, fortunately the professional military understands the situation much better than the civilian
leaders and have put brakes on our drift into permanent major war everywhere.
Paula Densnow , July 17, 2018 at 2:19 pm
The US media tries to browbeat Trump into saying that he stole the 2016 election with the help of Putin, and when he refuses
to do that, they call him a traitor.
We live in an insane asylum.
Will , July 17, 2018 at 3:31 pm
No, trump is clearly a traitor.
Beard681 , July 17, 2018 at 9:07 pm
To who? The military industrial complex? Bill Browder who renounced his citizenship to avoid Taxes? Certainly not average US
people for whom Russia poses no credible threat.
Robin Harper , July 17, 2018 at 10:31 pm
Gee, if this is all made up, explain this: (And keep in mind, to get an indictment, you MUST have proof.)
The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller's probe:
Total of indictments (so far) – 35.
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements
to the FBI.
2) Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.
3) Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money
laundering, and false statements -- all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He's
pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and
bank fraud charges.
4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort's longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges
to Manafort. But in February he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller's team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge
and one conspiracy charge.
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of
identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies
involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a "Russian troll farm," and two other companies that helped finance
it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency's employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments,
and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick
Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.
23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who's currently based in Russia, was charged
alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort's pending case this year.
24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia's military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to
the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats' emails in 2016.
Two ex-Trump advisers lied to the FBI about their contacts with Russians:
Michael Flynn Mario Tama/Getty
No, Trump didn't 'steal' the election. The presidency was handed to him – by Putin.
skipNclair , July 17, 2018 at 2:01 pm
The US media lost its mind long ago.
didi , July 17, 2018 at 1:46 pm
What has happened on this trip of President Trump is simple. The axis Washington-EU/NATO has been thrown under the bus., It
has been replaced by the axis Washington-Moscow. Whether that is a cause to rejoice remains to be seen. Rejoicing now is wildly
premature. Axes can break.
There will be expectations of better lives by the Russian people. What if that does not happen? There have been far more uprisings
and revolutions in Russian history than in ours.
lizzie dw , July 17, 2018 at 1:34 pm
To respond to one commenter's suggestion that the US get rid of the electoral college; if one looked at the map of the US on
post-election morning, one saw that practically the entire country was coloured red – only the coasts were blue. If we went the
"popular vote" route, every president would be elected by the coastal states because that is where most of the people live. The
coastal population does not represent the country. In my opinion, since we want to have a representative government we need the
electoral college so that each state gets to vote. The people in each state can direct the vote of their state.
didi , July 17, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Sorry Lizzie. The population of all states represent our nation. That is why the vote count, while it does not elect the President
and Vice President, is not wholly without meaning. Governing totally against the views of the majority of voters implies that
they are wrong and stupid. That is my view. It is also arrogant.
strngr-tgthr , July 17, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Thanks you! The MAJORITY should ALWAYS rule. There should be no acceptions especially for President of the United States. Too
few people speak this TRUTH! In this day an age there is no reason to have any system or institutions in place that does not speak
for the MAJORITY! Electoral College down!
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Never heard of the "tyranny of the majority", eh? It's a genuine problem with democracy it's quite possible that many issues
would never have reached majority status -- slavery would never have been abolished (so much fuss about a regional "peculiar institutution"),
""The notion of the tyranny of the majority was popularised by the 19th century political thinkers Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy
in America) and John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). It refers to a situation in which the majority enforces its will on a disadvantaged
minority through the democratic process.""
The vote of far too many would be rendered irrelevant if there were no proportional representation mechanism in place too much
of those disenfranchised by the elimination of the electoral college are already amongst the have-nots of our country, at the
further hungry end of income inequality (some do better than other by providing "services" -- vacation homes/destinations and
cheap labor -- to the oligarchs. -- those coasts are where the money and jobs are wealth
The electoral college DOES NOT prevent the "tyranny of the majority" because you do not have equal voting. If every state cast
the same number of votes then you have equal voting. Because each state has different number of electoral votes based on their
populations, candidates can spend their time in a few states while ignoring others.
A national popular vote restores equality
A national popular vote means 3rd party candidates can win because there is no more electoral strategy or asinine argument
of red state / blue state.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:12 pm
We've never had such a system, wise guy. The Senate is inherently undemocratic, based on states' rights, not one man one vote.
Moreover, judges are not elected but appointed by the executive and confirmed by the legislature. Having the president chosen
by the Congress, as is done in all parliamentary systems, would be "tidier" ("fairer?") than the present system, but we've lived
with this mess since 1789 and several times have been governed by a "minority president" without the world coming to an end. The
rules were no excuse for a coup d'etat then, nor are they now.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:22 pm
The Constitution allows Amendments to change with changing times. The vote has been given to free men without property, freed
slaves and women. More than 10% of Presidents did not win the plurality of votes. If people truly want their votes to count more,
they can work to amend the Constitution, or vote with their feet and move to states where their votes count more.
A much bigger issue is the lack of proportional voting practiced by most real Democracies around the world. Gerrymandering districts
can result in the party getting the least votes (of the two) in a state still winning the most representatives. Proportional voting
would eliminate this problem, but was outlawed by LBJ in favor of first-past-the-post, winner takes all Districts.
Sorry, Didi, but our federal constitutional republican form of government is neither stupid nor arrogant.
It is a well designed construct that binds together the entire nation, not only the people but the states, into an organic
being. The electoral college consciously factors in the fact that we are a union of states, not only a union of "demos" (people).
That is why the "New Jersey plan" at the Federal Convention was a high point in your high school civics class. The states are
intended to mean something in our federal republican form of government.
Indeed, for those who view the massive growth of our federal government into an imperial hegemon over the past century or so,
it is no small coincidence that the balance constructed by the founders was tipped in favor of Washington, and BIG MONEY, by the
passage of the 17th Amendment in 1912. That amemdment (for the popular election of Senators instead of their being appointed by
state legislatures as written in the constitution) inexorably led to the growth of our imperial state; immediately thereafter
came the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, enactment of a the personal income tax to replace import tariff's to fund the federal
government, our engagement in WW 1, and increasing alliance with the British Empire that lasts today in our "special relationship",
the NATO alliance, and the Anglo American hegemon.
It is also no coincidence that the root source of "Russia-gate" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a sustained effort by British
Intelligence, in cahoots with US deep state intelligence that works not for the people of the US but for the Anglo-American empire
of western capital centered on Wall Street and the medieval City of London. That is why the "golden shower dossier" was written
by a British intelligence officer (Steele), that the basis for the deep state rat Strzok to spy on Trump was an Australian "diplomat"
(read spy) Downer, friend of the globalist Clintons, and US deep state intelligence operatives attempted entrapment of Trump campaign
supporters (such as by Stefan Halper, an Mi-6 and CIA asset).
The entire attack to undermine the results of the Electoral College triumph of Donald Trump is directed by Anglo-American deep
intelligence assets, working for the globalist western capitalist cabal, that cannot permit a mere president to alter their globalist
plans; ergo, deep state rats Brennan and 10 hand picked analysts come up with "Russian collusion", unleasigh Mueller (protector
of the Whitey Bulger Winter Hill Gang), Strzok, Rosenstein, etc. to to find a basis to neuter, if not impeach, the constitutionally
elected President.
Indeed, Pres. Washington foresaw such an eventuality of foreign influence tainting our Republic; see his Farewell Address at
Paragraphs 32-39. Indeed, his prescience amazing; read these warnings:
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite
nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing
into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without
adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which
is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained,
and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And
it
gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or
sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of
a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or
foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened
and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of
seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards
a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of
republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence
to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another
cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on
the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its
tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."
Indeed, if any nation can be found to be interfering in our domestic politics and seeking to influence the actions of the President,
or more precisely to have him removed from power, it's not Russia, its the United Kingdom.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Interesting, thank you. I will read up on the 17th. I've blamed the "federalization" of politics for a lot of the apparent
decline in citizen interest in Democracy as state and local influence "on people's lives" seemed to have been ceded over to the
fed not entirely a bad thing (when it comes to civil rights, equal opportunity and federal funding for stuff states could never
afford) still, I think something encouraged a complacent electorate even if the educational values of unions (voting for your
interests rather than against) signifies.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Jim in NH – brilliant post! Thank you. Everybody should read it.
Fred , July 17, 2018 at 10:08 pm
If three million more voted for Hillary than Trump, then majority of voters are wrong and stupid. Good thing the Electoral
College saved us from ourselves.
" one saw that practically the entire country was coloured red – only the coasts were blue."
Right, "only the coasts". The ones where nearly 50% of the US population live.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:09 pm
And that 50% mostly live in big cities which would not survive long
without the rural areas which provide the resources to support them.
Fred , July 17, 2018 at 10:09 pm
They actually think food comes from the supermarket Irina.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:17 pm
And you buy it with EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards.
JoeD , July 17, 2018 at 3:06 pm
The coasts were not blue. Clinton got the west coast. Trump won most of the east: FL, GA, SC, NC and they split Maine. Trump
won 30 out of 50 states. There were also less people who voted in 2016 than did in 2012 and in 2008.
So it does not follow Clinton would win if there was a National Popular vote.
Our electoral system(s) have very serious problems voter access (and apathy) and gerrymandering probably top the list, but
that "neoliberal income inequality" appears to color/overlay everything
Bob Van Noy , July 17, 2018 at 1:33 pm
Great article and commentary CN, many thanks. There is an excellent comment by Craig Murray at his site and one should not
miss the commentary there either
Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. They voted a Russian bribery hag Hillary and now go far-right John Birch in drumming
up war with Russia -- just because Trump hurt their feelings by beating Hillary. Sad!
I was impressed on the eve of 2016 election how ineffective Clinton's constant beating on Obama's drum wrt to Russia-Russia-Russia
had been I don't remember the polls but the numbers for "major concern" iirc were low, around maybe 12% (after months and months)
I think the media is drunk on their own piss . I remember feeling frustrated when Gore (who had a better case for "stolen electoin"
imho) walked away my suspicion is that on completion of the Mueller inquiry this is going backfire badly . even if Manafort gets
decades in prison for money laundering
Anon , July 17, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Debate: Is Trump-Putin Summit a "Danger to America" or Crucial Diplomacy Between Nuclear Powers?
Glenn Greenwald and another thoughtful dude, Joe Cirincione. All substance and strong disagreements without shouting or personal
attacks.
Greenwald:
I also think that that last point that Joe made is actually an important one, and it does put people like me into a difficult
position, which is, you know, on the one hand, of course I don't think that Donald Trump is well intentioned and is going to have
the diplomatic skill to negotiate complicated new agreements of trade and of arms control with very sophisticated regimes like
the one in North Korea, or at least complicated regimes in North Korea, or in Russia. On the other hand, as we've been discussing,
unfortunately, he's the only game in town. There is nobody else who's saying that we ought to question NATO. Democrats, when you
say we ought to question NATO, act like you've committed blasphemy. There is nobody else talking about tariffs and the unfairness
of free trade agreements, except for a couple of fringe people within the Democratic Party. Just like this week, when he said
that the European Union was a foe, what he said was something that for a long time on the left was really kind of just uncontroversial
orthodoxy, which is that of course the European Union is an economic competitor of the U.S., and a lot of what their trade practices
are do harm the American worker. We put up barriers against Chinese products entering the U.S., and yet the EU buys them and then
sells them into the U.S., indirectly helping China circumvent those barriers in a way that directly harms U.S. workers. This is
something that people like Robert Reich and Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders have been talking about for a long time. So it does
make it very difficult when the only person who's raising these kinds of issues and talking about these things-we need to get
along better with Russia and China, we need to reform these old, archaic, destructive institutions-is a megalomaniac, somebody
who's completely devoid of any positive human virtue, which is Donald Trump. So it puts you in the position of kind of trying
to agree with him, while knowing that he's really not going to be able to do anything about those in a positive way.
On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable being aligned with people like Bill Kristol and David Frum and all of those Bush-era
hawks who are now the best friends of MSNBC and the Democratic Party, either, because they're not well intentioned, either. And
so, what I try and do is use Donald Trump and the kind of shifting alliances, that we started off by talking about, to open up
a lot of the debates, that will remain closed if you only look at U.S. politics through the prism of the 2016 election and Republicans
versus Democrats. And I think the most important point is the one that, as I said, Joe made just this week, which is that until
the Democratic Party figures out-and this is true not just of Democrats but of center-left parties all throughout Europe and here
in Brazil-until they figure out how again to reconnect, not with the highly educated class and the rich and the metropolitan enclaves,
but with the working class of these countries, that feel trampled on and ignored, and for that reason are turning to demagogues,
we're going to have more Donald Trumps and worse Donald Trumps, not just in the United States, but throughout the world. And that
is, for me, the greatest problem that we face politically
This is the best article I've read on the topic, hands down.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:38 am
No question about that, TIEDE, but considering the pitifully low standards applied to what emanates from the wreckage of the
American mass media, Mr. Lauria really didn't have much competition to beat. Of course, no matter how deserved, he will not be
winning any Pulitzers, since mediocre groupthink, especially of the warmongering variety, is the new standard of excellence in
American letters.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 12:45 pm
As others have noted, it "treason" isn't impeachable, what is? If not now, when?
Should we go off and invade Somalia in retaliation? The anti-Trump/Democrats are undermining their own credibility -- not to
mention the press, whose credibility might reach nosedive if they still had much of an audience .
More ridiculous than GWB after 09/11 . which reminds me that Trump keeps reminding me of want-to-share-a-beer-with GWB but
stupider and with less "fund of knowledge"
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:26 pm
And how are these "others" defining "treason?" Whatever they say it is, and without any evidence that it genuinely occurred?
This is not a case of treason, it is a case of attempted mob rule, like the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. The
vile media acts as the bull horn of the seditionists, they show some insurrectionists making a hullabaloo on your television screen,
and the coup plotters point and say, "see, it's treason, off with his head!" Meanwhile, your government has been stolen yet again
because some insiders didn't like the results.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:42 pm
To have treason you must have a declared war and a declared enemy. If you look at the list of people convicted of treason in
the US, there are what, a dozen?
The President has broad powers of foreign policy (and immigration) which may be a bad thing, but I applaud Trump's peace overtures
to North Korea and Russia as well as Obama's (reviled by many of the same warmongers) deal with Iran. Unfortunately all these
deals are President-specific and undercut by un-elected Intelligence agencies with agendas of their own, and politicians taking
money from the MIC and foreign lobbyists with war profiteering agendas. No one can believe a President no matter how well meaning
and sincere. Clinton abrogated Reagan's deal with Gorbachev, almost destroying Russia, as did Obama reneging on the deal with
Gaddafi, destroying Libya. Clearly the best option is to build up a cache of nuclear arms and to use them if necessary to protect
sovereignty.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 10:53 am
At least Cooper used a small window – there haven't been many U.S. Russia summits – but Fallows? Uh, 9/11 and the Saudis anyone?
More evidence there than Russian collusion and three Presidents – including Trump – have given that a pass.
Treason-schmeason, Dave! You don't seem to know much about the real history of the US government, only the manufactured one
of the powers in charge. Pick up a copy of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick's book "The Untold History of the United States".
As for the vaunted democracy these talking bobbleheads and puppet politicians go on about, we don't hear them speaking about
lobbying, do we, or Citizens United or McCutcheon vs Buckley decisions of the Supreme Court? It's not even the Electoral College
that skews the vote and takes democracy out of the citizens' decisions -- it's lobbying, which is legalized fraud and bribery.
No, they go on and on about Russia, Russia, Russia, all to make sure folks look somewhere else while they continue the hijacking.
Dave , July 17, 2018 at 10:35 am
What is amazing is how you and so many GOP are actually defending Russia! This was treason!
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 10:53 am
What is amazing is the extent that the Democrats are lied to, and the extent that they believe those lies. I am awestruck by
the complete and utter brainwashing of a democratic, educated country by the CIA. Getting Republicans, who are inclined to think
negatively of foreigners is one thing, but Liberal Democrats, who profess to believe in education and equality becoming the brown
shirts, it never occurred to me that was possible.
By the way, i am speaking as a former Democrat, Obama voter.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 10:58 am
Yes, it is quite frightening. I think Trump is dangerously inept but reading the intelligence report on Russia released Jan.,
2017 was the most frightened I have ever been as an American. It provided no evidence (apparently keeping things top secret is
more important than alleged election tampering which should give cause to thought right there) and instead laid out a game plan
for attacking dissenters of U.S. foreign policy.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:18 am
Maybe it's just wishful thinking, because I am one too, but it seems the country must be full of former Democrats (and thoroughly
disillusioned Obama voters), or at least we should be if we want to survive over the long term. Hillary was just another pack
of lies (and threatened violence) too far, which is why she lost. Had NOTHING to do with Russians hacking elections, influencing
the vote or stealing our democracy. That is simply the revisionist bullshit in the aftermath of her self-inflicted debacle, as
she persists in dragging down the party, the country and maybe the world out of self-centered petulance.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:24 am
Unless you are trying to be sarcastic, Dave, you added an extraneous letter to the word you should really want. What Mr. Lauria
has written here is pure "reason," not "treason." Go back and consider all the relevant issues again, this time accurately.
Daniel , July 17, 2018 at 1:12 pm
I guess Dave forgot that our intelligence agencies have lied us into war in the past.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:29 pm
And YOU are prosecuting Russia on what EVIDENCE? None! That is madness and the ticket to war. You are just the sort of pawn
to make Goebbels tremble with delight, Dave.
Samuel , July 18, 2018 at 12:34 am
I am not American but like so many out there, am concerned by what is going on in your once beautiful country. It amazes to
realize that people have chosen to bury truth and reason for hatred's sake. How can one hope to build a secure, prosperous democracy
based on a fraudulent lie? If one can pick a leaf from the Iraqi war it is that one should never believe unquestioningly everything
that comes from the intelligence community. That deception resulted in perhaps millions dead. This time round it might result
in billions dead including Americans. Is that what people like Dave want? Could this be a secret conspiracy to bring destruction
to the entire universe? To what ends?
David G , July 17, 2018 at 10:00 am
Trump's actual treason:
-- turning environmental policy over to the biggest polluters
-- turning financial regulation over to parasitic elites
-- turning education policy over to anti-public, pro-charter grifters
-- turning the FCC over to the big telecoms
-- turning the Iran-nuke deal over to Netanyahu
What gets Trump called a traitor by the Beltway blob:
-- wanting to talk with Russia, and holding a Soviet/Russia summit just like every president since FDR
Wotta country!
Karen , July 17, 2018 at 11:06 am
Exactly!
BrianS , July 17, 2018 at 7:54 pm
Don't relish the me too, or "same here" moniker, but: Exactly!
mike k , July 17, 2018 at 9:39 am
The enemies of Peace, having failed to prevent the Putin/Trump summit, are now busy saying that it was a disaster, and that
it was meaningless – two seemingly discordant observations. The real religion of America is WAR. Anything that smacks of peace
is Heresy!
David G , July 17, 2018 at 10:08 am
"The stories of how North Korea is now violating an imaginary pledge by Kim to Trump in Singapore are even more outrageous,
because big media had previously peddled the opposite line: that Kim at the Singapore Summit made no firm commitment to give up
his nuclear weapons and that the 'agreement' in Singapore was the weakest of any thus far."
Yeah. The lunatics would have the world believe that Trump was a cowardly traitor because he didn't i) berate President Putin
to his face for rigging the election in his favor (as did the impertinent network goon Chris Wallace whom Putin totally pwned,
though absolutely unbeknownst to the American jingoist corp) and ii) summarily declare war on the Russian Federation to cap everyone's
day of fun and games. Insults and war seem to be what the imbeciles so passionately want. I wish I could give them their suicidal
war that didn't involve me, my relatives, friends and other innocent bystanders, but that's not how it works and they will eagerly
take us all down if given the chance. We are seeing war fever sweep across a crazed nation led astray by the worst demagogues
to come down the pike since the "Greatest Generation" got an invite from Uncle Sam to Hitler's big dance. Everybody is a flag
waving blood-lusting maniac, from the corporate boardrooms, to the residue of what is left skulking around the fake newsrooms,
to the cocky stand-up comedians now inhabiting every late night channel spewing trash and attitude without having the first clue.
Must be as invigorating as sucking in the cordite-perfumed air of Berlin circa 1939. The pity is that this time the glorious experience
will be so short once the rockets are launched. Almost seems a waste to squander the experience on a bunch of lame brains who
probably assume they can get their ticket price back if they don't fully enjoy the show.
Realist, As always, your comments are stunningly accurate, and have literary flavor as well. It is really getting there as
you have described.
As Gore Vidal wrote long ago, this brainwashing started long time ago during the nineteenth century when they started inoculating
the innocent American population against socialism and all that, the ideas which were sweeping across Europe in that century.
Here we are now, it is almost a crazed Nation. My wife reads L.A. Times religiously and being a Hillary fan has been watching
CNN, MSNBC, Judy Woodruff and other channels like these.
It is not going to end up pretty, the atmosphere is frightening.
Doran Zeigler , July 17, 2018 at 9:32 am
I consider my politics as beyond progressive, and I am definitely not a Trump cheerleader, but I must say that this article
by Consortium News is by far the most balanced and fair article I have read on the Trump/Putin press conference. Did the Russians
hack Clinton's emails? Most likely. Were the hacks responsible for Clinton's defeat -- not on your life. Hillary offered nothing
other than the same old tired rhetoric and hostilities toward Russia. She basically defeated herself.
The fact that Clinton won the popular vote by three million should dispel any notion that the Russian hacks were effective.
What this does say is that we should get rid of the antiquated and unfair Electoral College. The press conference was not the
venue to grill or attempt to embarrass Putin, besides, Putin could hurl those same accusations at the US for not only interfering
in the Ukraine election, but also contributing millions of dollars to it. Putin, if he wanted, could point to NATO creeping up
to Russian borders when NATO had promised years ago not to go beyond unified Germany. The Russians have a multitude of complaints,
but are more diplomatic than the provocative Americans and would rather not solve these problems in the press.
Is Trump a bumbler -- no doubt. The conference was not the place to air America's dirty laundry or bring up his usual complaints.
All of this hoopla is a dog and pony show, a theatrical media event to distract the American people from their real problems like
a collapsing economy made worse by Trump's tariffs, like the bloated military budget, the horrific income inequality, the rise
of poverty, and an endless stream of worsening problems of which neither party has a solution. It is the old sleight of the hand
trick -- watch the hand I wave in front of you face, but pay no attention to the hand that is stealing you blind.
I am at least happy to see a media outlet that has broken from the pack of running lemmings that are not heading for a cliff,
but are running in a small circle.
Daniel , July 17, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Where is the evidence that Russia, rather than an insider like Seth Rich, released the emails?
Assange has all but verbally confirmed it was Seth Rich, not Russia.
Zinny , July 17, 2018 at 1:44 pm
Begs the question; Why doesn't the NSA either confirm or deny the download?
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:50 pm
Why doesn't Mueller offer Assange immunity to testify? Sounds like Mueller may offer the Podestas (Manafort's partners in crime
in the Ukraine) immunity to testify against Manafort.
TragiCom , July 17, 2018 at 9:28 am
You'd be forgiven if you thought Brennan's rant was an episode from 'Who is America'!!
Brennan & co. behaving absolutely like unaccountable gangsters. Very dangerous gangsters. Nuclear armed gangsters.
"The indictments, which are only unproven accusations, formally accused 12 members of the GRU, Russian military intelligence,
of stealing Democratic Party emails in a hacking operation and giving the materials to WikiLeaks to publish in order to damage
the candidacy of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictments were announced on Friday, three days before the summit, with
the clear intention of getting Trump to cancel it. He ignored cries from the media and Congress to do so."
The most blatant and desperate effort to date to sabotage détente, any effort to cooperate on crucial issues. The media and
its sources are hysterical but scary as hell. Using words like treason without a peep from the media or anyone in Washington is
also scary as hell.
Didn't watch much of the news but curious about CNN, turned it on to watch Blitzer and Rand Paul exchange. Last question do
you trust our security folks or Putin. The patriots versus the devil. Rand Paul ignored it and earlier pointed to our less than
Simon pure history of trying to meddle in elections. Hell we ran the campaign of the greatest thief in Russian history, Yeltsin.
Bottom line, folks will do anything to stop the President's efforts to improve relations with Russia. It began before the inauguration
and has not let up since.
There is reason to use the word treason but it is not Trump's.
It's a bizarre world when Donald Trump is actually the voice of reason in the USA. The corporate media (including our "public"
networks) are running around with their hair on fire at the thought of the two nuclear nations having a rational relationship.
Why can't the public see the insanity of what's going on?
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Sedition is the more accurate word for those in the Intelligence agencies seeking a soft coup.
richard vajs , July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am
The US Media lost its mind about two years ago. After all this time they are still trying to change the 2016 election. It was
plain then – a dirt-bag vs. a fool. The US Media had a dog in that fight – the dirt-bag. What is driving them insane is that the
"fool" has survived their best efforts to destroy him – should have been easy, but it is not. So the insane manipulators are going
for the throat now – TREASON. It is all ridiculous – America has deep economic problems that need to be addressed, namely the
terminal income inequality that exists. Killing the fool and re-elevating the dirt-bag will accomplish nothing but give the U
S Media and the elites they represent another fifteen minute stroll on the decks of the Titanic
Charron , July 17, 2018 at 8:24 am
The corporate press has been shocked that President Trump would not believe the findings of his own intelligence. Never once
has anyone in the Corporate press ever noted that out intelligence sources, the CIA in particular lied when they said Iraq had
WMDS. It was a terrible lie. And even if you prefer to believe that the intelligence community had merely made a mistake, our
invasion cost us over 3trillion dollars, cost thousands of American soldiers their lives, and ended up causing the death of hundreds
of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and has ignited the middle east, resulting in the rise of ISIS. But no one in the corporate press
sees fit to even mention the fact that the CIA claimed were a "slam dunk." Nor has anyone in the corporate press mentioned the
fact that James Come, when he was in the FBI, who headed up the Anthrax investigation fingered the wrong man, though he had said
when questioned if he had the right man, said he was absolutely certain that Hatfiield was the man who spread the Anthrax. The
government settled the false charges against Hatfiled for 5.82 million, as it turned out a fellow named ivans. P.S. Robert Mueller
was the head of the FBI during most of the investigation. And let me make this clear, I also think Trump is a scoundrel, but the
members of our corporate press are scoundrels too.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 11:09 am
That the parroted information that got us into Iraq was a lie was widely reported and the intelligence debunked in independent
media at the time. There was no mistake. The information was out there but went ignored by the mainstream media. But it goes back
further. Yugoslavia, the first Gulf War erroneous reporting on such issues has been consistent at CNN.
AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 3:18 pm
You could not be more wrong about the Anthrax.
Comey and co. ignored a material witness in that case (me) that caught Hatfill snooping around my house in November of 2001. Approx.
a month and a half after I received an anthrax letter. Mr Comey's Anthrax investigation was no such thing. It was just like Hillary's
email investigation. It was a "matter" not an investigation.
An investigation would have included having agents pay a visit to the man (me) that gave them Hatfill's last name 7 months before
his name became public. I was able to do that b/c I when I caught him snooping around my house he was arrogant enough to wear
his army jacket. Guess what is on your army jacket? Your last name.
MR. Comey's Anthrax matter also ignored when I informed the FBI that Ottillie Lundgren and Cathy Nugyen had posted on the same
internet message board at the same time and to the same article that I did.
Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller lied then and are lying now.
For kicks and giggles you can hear Hatfill admit that he was in North Carolina at the time I caught him snooping around my
house in NC here . https://youtu.be/fSfcIh1WCdg?t=1640
Mike , July 17, 2018 at 8:01 am
"The queen of diamonds the queen of diamonds"
padre , July 17, 2018 at 7:41 am
You ain't seen nothing yet, wait till your allies come tot their senses!
Well now I feel silly. I just saw the ZeroHedge piece and understand that Robert Parry wrote often about Browder, so presumably
most visitors of this site are familiar with the name. I'll have to look for those articles. Is Browder in the same league as
Soros?
Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 1:25 pm
Webb: "Trump and Putin are closing in on this Brennan/Browder gang; that's why you had that incredible reaction from Brennan
"
Putin tried to make the point that private citizens are not the state in a country. A private citizen doesn't speak official
government words.
Russian billionaires perhaps poured money into election campaigns. If so, the head of state is not to blame, nor is the crime
done by authority of the government.
Putin said Browder evaded Russian taxes and laundered $1.2 bn into USA, and moved one-third = $400 mn to Clinton's campaign.
Netted him $800 mn. With one-eighth of that Browder bribed Congress to enact Magnitsky (sp) proclamation to spur sanctions.
Russia filed criminal warrants with US under the 1999 treaty (Putin cited) to question Browder and bring charges; unlawfully
ignoring them, US violated treaty.
Browder money 'meddling' in 2016 campaigns is NOT 'Putin dunnit' and NOT 'Kremlin dunnit' and NOT 'Russia dunnit.' Only truthfully,
'Russian Browder dunnit.'
Trump's right for peace, but deplorable (almost) every other way.
If he did 'collude and conspire' that seems the least of his crimes. Impeach him for being morally unfit. Cripes, he was named
in Florida court indictments as co-defendant against charges of rape and abuse of 13- and 14-yo girls; his partner Jeffrey Epstein
was convicted and did time. Forget Russia, Trump's is a sex pervert, racist, and fascist -- unfit for office.
https://www.justice-integrity.org/1445-welcome-to-waterbury-the-city-that-holds-secrets-that-could-bring-down-trump
No link but find July 10 item at ClubOrlov.com titled, Taking Refuge in Insanity. It may be solace for Joe, in a way, and moreover
a general understanding of media cohort insanity.
If understanding is possible.
And MOST I stopped to say Thank You, thank you Joe Lauria. Your work brought me deep relief and it's refreshing.
_____
PS, I predict the 12 indicted Russians do get their day in US courtroom to defend themselves with lawyers rightfully allowed
to question (Mueller's) prosecution witnesses and testimony, and to present defense , and (Mueller's) prosecution loses there.
PPS, any rich moneybags domestic or foreign who aimed to spend in 2016 to hurt Hillary or help Donald be elected,
put all the money into Bernie's campaign: split the left vote and the rightist candidate skulks into office. Vice versa, Dems
in 2020 may prop up a Republican candidate on the left of Trump; split the R's vote between soft and hard rightwingers.
exiled off mainstreet , July 17, 2018 at 2:25 am
Who are the traitors? Those who seek war with a nuclear power or those who wish to solve the problems. What about Browder's
$400,000,000 to the Clinton campaign. Putin wouldn't make such a statement if there were nothing to back it up, though Mueller
is willing to lay unsubstantiated charges which go against proven evidence that the DNC leak was from a thumb drive, not internet
transmission. In any event, why is it so bad that the crimes of the DNC were revealed? I guess the truth is dangerous to the yankee
form of "managed democracy."
Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 2:10 am
I don't know if it's true or not, but I once read that Nicholas II actually ordered the de-mobilization of the Russian army
on the eve of WWI, but that his order was ignored by his subordinates who were eager for war. Trump in his interview with Hannity
implies at one point that he doesn't have full control over the military -- that the belligerent rhetoric has been having practical
and dangerous consequences. Frightening. Starting at ca. min. 5. https://youtu.be/dRMW4knpiUo
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:22 am
Just for sh*ts & giggles, try listening to prophecy preachers like Bro. Stair at
http://www.overcomerministry.org (Do NOT belive them!) Such folks
have radically different assumptions. Listening will clear your intellectual pallette, so to say.
David G , July 17, 2018 at 1:11 am
Others may not feel the connection strongly, but watching today's (yesterday's now) media meltdown flashed me back to the day
of Colin Powell's Iraqi WMD presentation to the U.N.
I watched that live, and even at the time – before the specific fabrications were exposed – it was such a self-evidently lame
effort that I was genuinely surprised and confused when all the media people instantly hailed the its supposedly irresistible
power in making the case for the coming war. And it's not like I went into the day with such a high opinion of the corporate media.
As with Trump in Helsinki, it was clear the media was activating a pre-arranged narrative (approval then, opprobrium now) rather
than genuinely reacting to what they had seen and heard.
Jared , July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am
That is an excellent assesment.
That is the dumbfound aspect the blatantly preconceived and coordinated attack on the public dialog.
I feel certain the media is being required to sacrifice its reputation for the purpose of distracting the public from some issue.
I dont thing the anderson coopers realise that this is the purpose they belive they are simply acting as political assasins of
the enemy.
Maybe is niave of me but is it possible this is simply to defray discussion of dnc communications and dnc conspiring by which
they pretty much destroyed the democratic brand? Of course there are also the globalists concern with nationalism and populism
and mic with concern fear of outbreak of peace.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 11:23 am
The average journalist, mostly print but even regional TV, statistically makes less money than school teachers. It's quite
different at the national TV level. They are paid ridiculously well and maybe coincidentally (maybe not) removed from the ground
work among the masses. The system has rewarded them so there is natural bias toward the status quo (something that exists to a
degree in objective journalism to begin with). They likely aren't aware but they are hired and keep their jobs based on questions
they are not likely to ask. It's corporate America. Just as in low level administrative job hiring at large companies, blandness
and safe get the jobs.
Chumpsky , July 16, 2018 at 11:23 pm
"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and
stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
A page taken out of JFK's playbook.
No wonder the democrats/MSM/Deep State are so disturbed and ready to shoot the messenger. He's encroaching on their sanctified
turf!
"As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats
who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity
to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to
risk peace in pursuit of politics."
Question for those who have seen the video: were these prepared remarks, or were they spontaneous?
I appreciate them either way, but if Trump crafted those lines on the fly I really might have to give the cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing
shitgibbon (thank you, Scotland!) a fresh look.
Nora De Groote , July 17, 2018 at 3:44 am
I was thinking the exact same thing when reading that quote. That doesn't seem like his rhetoric at all. The "good thing bad
thing" is where you have his level of "eloquence" again. Regardless, even if he had to memorize the statement beforehand, he still
scored in my book.
Vivian O'Blivion , July 17, 2018 at 7:10 am
"cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing, shitgibbon" as a Scotsman I can only apologise for my compatriots sickeningly sycophantic language.
We are normally less diplomatic in our appraisals. In Scotland, if you hear the word "f**k", it's just to let you know a noun
is coming.
Zim , July 17, 2018 at 9:00 am
It's hard to believe that statement came out of Trumps mouth. But I believe it to be spot on.
To Chumpsky : A very courageous statement of Trump! He is no fool . You can't tell a bonk from its cover,
David G , July 16, 2018 at 11:12 pm
Lauria: "The media's handlers were even worse than their assets."
Zing! Props to you, Joe.
David G , July 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm
I haven't read the article or the comments yet, but I want to chime in now:
I've been watching MSNBC on and off all day, and the summit has clearly caused their brains (already in parlous condition)
to completely liquefy.
"Treason! Worse than Watergate *and* 9/11!!"
Demented.
tom , July 17, 2018 at 10:07 am
+1
Lois Gagnon , July 16, 2018 at 10:38 pm
Once again, the hypocrisy of the media is on full display. Every president including this one pays total fealty to the criminal
state of Israel which we know has interfered in the US political process, not to mention sinking a US naval vessel. But heaven
forbid there be diplomatic talks with Putin who has bent over backwards to accommodate the US when he can. So far all he's gotten
is sand kicked in his face.
The behavior of the media and its fellow juvenile delinquents in Washington are an embarrassment. They are without realizing
it, making Trump look presidential. You can't make this sh*t up.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 10:35 pm
The Evil Monsters destroying our world with their greed and violence are being flushed into the open. But will the brainwashed
masses be able to see this? That is the crucial test that humanity faces at this time. The Rulers will go all out to spin this
in their favor, and if that fails, they will probably try to assassinate this dangerous man, President Donald Trump.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Meanwhile, while everyone is focused on Trump and Putin's summit, the real power of collusion is hard at work.
I'm posting this, because while it's appropriate we talk at length about the disgraceful reception Trump got for his trying
to wage peace, we should not lose sight to what country is using the U.S, as it's useful idiot.
Besides that, an article such as what Phil Giradi wrote should not go unnoticed thank you once again MSM for being the jerks
you are. Did the MSM ever hear of the word 'reporting'? Thank you Joe Lauria & the Parry family for being here when we need you
the most. I don't know what I'd do without the Consortium. Hey kudos to you too Robert Parry, your still number one with me.
For trying to restore a note of sanity and balance in the crucible of journalistic/political dialogue between Russia and the
US centers of power, where we sense the truth will be lost in white hot bombast, and the accepted narrative of reality will be
decided by the heads pushing the correct emotional buttons to fit their nationalistic needs, and their needs for continued employment.
Who can forget the last time all 17 intelligence services were of one mind on weapons of mass destruction – that turned out to
be nonexistent! Let's hope we can catch our breath before we trip into a patriotic war that destroys civilization.
John P , July 16, 2018 at 11:20 pm
Excuse me, but the intelligence service was turned upside down by Bush and his team inserting their own officials to sensor
what was released. The Agencies were very upset that the truth wasn't coming out, and you had the Valerie Plame incident also.
From Slate: "Trump and Putin Met in Helsinki's Hall of Mirrors. Here Are the Highlights." ends with the following:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
On a related note, Rob Goldstone, the British publicist who set up that Trump Tower meeting by promising Trump's son that it was
"part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," just tweeted that Putin had lied earlier in the day when he said
he did not know that Trump would be in Moscow for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant.
Rob Goldstone @GoldstoneRob
President Putin just stated that he had no idea Donald Trump was in Moscow in 2013. I know for sure that he did and tell the full
story in my soon to be released book "Pop Stars, Pageants & Presidents: How an Email Trumped My Life"
1:16 PM – Jul 16, 2018
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
There may not have been collusion but I think we can say there probably was interference, voting machines and misinformation spread
by agents throughout the social communications media of today. And Putin did admit late, that he was for Trump not Hillary.
If there was funding from Russia to the Democrats as some say, and Putin is truthful that he preferred Trump then why did they
give money to the Democrats? Was it to designed to undermine Hillary through its exposure.
Others complain about the timing of the 12 Russian agents, but that was no different from the timing of the Hillary email story
release shortly before the election.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:44 am
"Putin Stole the Election" is fantasy fiction, just like "Obama is a Kenyan" was.
Typingperson , July 17, 2018 at 1:46 am
So you're OK with Hillary using an illegal, off-the-books email server to do pay-to-play arms deals with shitty countries like
Saudi Arabia–that gave millions of $$ to Clinton Foundation in return?
If lawfully using a govt server, Hillary"s emails would be subject to FOIA petitions. By USA citizen taxpayers and reporters.
Her emails as Sec of State are the property of the American people, who paid her salary. That's what people still don't get.
She used a private server to keep secret the illegal, pay-to-play arms deals–in return for payola bucks to Clinton Foundation.
And Obama turned a blind eye for 4 years. His specialty: Suck-up talking while turning a blind eye.
To Hillary"s incompetence and murderous corruption, to his weekly drone-murders, and to accelerated deportation of innocent
immigrants–and ICE separating parents from kids.
While starting 5 new wars on top of Iraq and Afghanistan–including ongoing genocide of Yemen.
Obama was a good boy for the deep state / war profiteers. And he collected his $60M "book contract." Bribe.
Bill , July 17, 2018 at 3:59 pm
"So you're OK with Hillary using an illegal, off-the-books email server to do pay-to-play arms deals with shitty countries
like Saudi Arabia–that gave millions of $$ to Clinton Foundation in return?"
How is that different from Trumpkin or Bush doing much the same thing?
Tony Frede , July 17, 2018 at 1:50 am
Maybe it doesn't make sense because Russia never really worked for either side.
Ron Johnson , July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am
Tracing who, exactly, did the hacking is always difficult because the evidence left behind is usually impossible to trace.
In the case of the hacking or attempted hacking of certain states' data, the only evidence that it was the Russians came from
Russian language characters in the code. Slam dunk, right? Well no, since our CIA/NSA admitted to using exactly such techniques
to misdirect researchers away from their own hacking.
If you read deeper into the story of how the Russians funded Clinton, you'll find that it was not the Russian government. Putin
pointed out that the money was made 'illegally' in Russia and sent out of the country 'illegally', ending up in Clinton's campaign.
There are a number of differences between the indictments of the Russians and the release of information in the Hillary e-mail
investigation. First, there is no chance the Russians will ever end up in a U.S. court so it is an indictment with no future.
Second, Comey, a supporter of Hillary, made the announcement and subsequently cleared her, probably to save his own career because
the field office that was doing the investigating was about to go public with his dereliction of duty in the Clinton investigation.
Subsequent investigations have revealed how the highly politicized FBI and DOJ went out of their way to protect Clinton. Mueller's
indictments, on the other hand, are just pure political malfeasance.
John P , July 17, 2018 at 7:20 pm
Zhu Ba Jie, I never said that Russia influnced the results of the election. It probably didn't. But what I do think is that
the Russians are probably laughing at how didvided America has become. Neoliberalism which caters to busines rather than liberalism
which caters to the people and the country as a whole is destroying society. People need to get on the streets and voice their
concerns, Get together and form rallies like those who spoke out against the Vietnam War.
Is it social media that makes people babble and rave rather than be active out there getting the much needed attention?
Gather fo support a greener world, a fairer more benevolent world. To get local economies going putting money in needy people's
pockets is far better than trickle down or financing and support for big business. The poor will spend it locally and that's good.
Get out there and make a stir. Trump ain't going to help you. Get rid of PACs, superPACs and other big donor money pots for a
start start. Bernie Sanders and now some new young people are seeing the light. Get in there and help them along. Get out on the
streets and shout for change!
Throw away the smart phone and get marching!
John P , July 17, 2018 at 7:34 pm
Also, Ron Johnson , I'm not American, I didn't know the full story of the mob money and Hillary. My choice was Bernie Sanders
never Hillary or Trump. My fear is, the way things are going, it's like the period between the great wars and the effects of poverty
and big business. Support for the needy and the busting up of big business were two steps which helped the world climb out of
the mire. Perhaps we need to add robotics to the list. People need work and a purpose.
Larry Gates , July 16, 2018 at 9:59 pm
Donald Trump is a vile human being, and I disagree with 98% of what he says and does, but today he was right and everyone else
was wrong. I've been on a trip in my car most of the day, listening to public radio. It was an endless orgy of misinformation
and deep-state propaganda. PRI was as insane and dangerous as Fox News on a really bad day. I'm starting to think that nuclear
war is a more immanent danger than global warming. It isn't just Rachel Maddow who has gone off the deep end. It is the entire
national media. What kind of country have we become? Pray for peace.
strngr-tgthr , July 16, 2018 at 10:45 pm
Larry – Don't buy the Trump CoolAid He is completely wrecking are world order. Last month was Kim, this month was Putin and
now this! Look:
White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations
He is meeting with all the dictators of the world now! Guaranteed he will have Assad at the White House before we can get him
impeached. This is 100% out of Putin's play book. He is a trader to American Values. Never have we sunk so low, dissing are true
allies and honoring thugs, killers and despots! 110% vile!
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm
Do you mean like Pinochet, Somoza, Galtieri, Rios Montt, Suharto, Mobuto, shall I go on?
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 11:02 pm
And it is about time there are direct talks with the Taliban. The U.S. has lost in Afghanistan. It has to try to get something
out of it.
strngr-tgthr , July 16, 2018 at 11:23 pm
We are in Afghanistan for woman's rights! "Hillary: justified by the desire to emancipate Afghan women." And we have all seen
the concern that Trump has for woman (Billy Bush – Babies at the Border, shall I go on?) 120% vile!
You are totally deluded, Mr. Man Without Vowels in His Name, if you think we are in Afghanistan to promote women's rights.
I'm sure you still faithfully watch the Jay Leno Show to stay apprised of Mrs. Leno's featured assessment of that crusade. Ranking
light years ahead of your purported reason for the last 17 years of war in the Hindu Kush are i) the planned oil and gas pipelines*,
ii) the proven deposits of rare earth elements essential to modern electronic devices, and iii) the immediate proximity to Iran,
Russia, China and Pakistan giving Washington the ability to raise hell from its many military bases in Afghanistan on a moment's
notice (all part of Obama's infamous "Pivot to Asia," which implied far more than a new cadre of Peace Corp workers–more like,
we can buy any locals we need with the pallets of Franklins we now air drop on a routine schedule).
* Read "Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden" by Brisard and Dasquie, it's
still relevant 17 years later, while Hillary's "feminist" credentials remain completely irrelevant.
Gene Poole , July 17, 2018 at 5:48 am
An analysis of this contributor's writing style reports a 98.3% likelihood that he/she is Donald Trump.
Larry Gates , July 17, 2018 at 8:04 am
The United States has been "honoring thugs, killers, and despots" at least since Allen Dulles became the director of the CIA
in the 1940s. America is an expansive empire, controlled by our corporate oligarchy. It's all about their money and power. They
talk about human rights, but that is just a cover for their greed. Much of Trump's foreign policy is bad, but it is simply a logical
continuation of the foreign policies of Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Negotiations with Putin is a step in the right direction and
the Orange Beast deserves credit for it. It looks to me like it is you, not me that has swallowed the Kool-Aid.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 11:02 am
The Taliban, in the last week – 10 days, has said they will not negotiate as long as the USA occupies Afghanistan This was
abbreviated in most headlines to say that the Taliban refuse to negotiate.
The Americans have launched the "time to negotiate with the Taliban" trial balloon before -- "tragically" coming to nothing.
We (USA) interfere when the Baghdad government attempts their own negotiations. (or simply do things that encourage retaliatory
attacks) . Now ISIS in the mix.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:47 am
We've become a theater state. A powerful performance is what matters.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 11:08 am
Indeed. The histrionics of the last 48 hours have been beyond belief and credulity. The hardcore news-as-scandal-addicted will
stay tuned, but I lost respect for some "stars" of the news in ways that won't be forgotten I keep expecting Maddow to either
use hand puppets or present "crime reenactment" videos, along with her other show-and-tell visual aids.
BBC is just as bad in terms of prejudice but at least present a professional facade .DW and France 24 are alternatives as is
the (much too short, almost every hour on the hour) RT headline news. RT's interview and talk shows are excellent and quite sober.
It's not that they aren't slanted, they're just not insulting to the audience.
HiggBo , July 17, 2018 at 10:10 am
Maybe now you will think about the things these very same people said about him. Maybe they arent true either.
Hint: The vast majority arent.
Deniz , July 16, 2018 at 9:59 pm
They are losing their minds over Putins announcement of the $400 milion that was transferred Clinton through Browder.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:01 am
Seems Hillary learned a lot from Chinagate (where the Clintons paid the illegal donations from a foreign nation back AFTER
winning the Election). And China only received military technology, offshored jobs and permanent favored nation trading status
in return. Win-win.
You can be sure Hillary will claim that $400 million, if ever traced to her despite bleach bitting all her records, was for the
Clinton Foundation Campaign and it was just an inadvertent mixup.
PuddinNTain , July 16, 2018 at 9:54 pm
Thank you for this reasoned piece amidst a plethora of madness. Most of my friends and colleagues who identify as Democrats,
liberals, progressives, haters of Trump, etc, people I have the most in common with, politically speaking, have completely lost
their freaking minds over this stuff. Critical thinking? Who needs it! Mueller and the intelligence community have surely seen
the light since the "Iraq has WMDs" days.
Exactly when did the intelligence community, the sellers of lies and perpetrators of regime change world-wide, become a friend
to the American people?
Drew Hunkins , July 16, 2018 at 9:49 pm
"He had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy,.."
What democracy? 99% of the candidates' campaigns have been almost completely funded by Wall Street, the blood thirsty giant
defense contractors, or paranoid and hegemonic Zionist sociopaths.
It's been proven in a recent academic study by Princeton political scientists (and long lamented before these guys got on the
case by such luminaries as Michael Parents, S. Wollin, James Petras, N. Chomsky, Vidal, Hedges) that the American citizenry has
absolutely no influence whatsoever regarding poltico-economic decisions that emanate from Washington, they're drowned out by big
business and the imperialist ruling elites.
So I ask this warmongering Russophobic talking head once again: what democracy? What democracy do you speak of? The same democracy
that mires millions of newly college grads with $30,000 to $500,000 in student loan debt, or the same democracy that's witnessing
close to 50% of the entire population living close to the poverty level, or that has tens of millions of its denizens without
adequate healthcare coverage
Drew Hunkins , July 16, 2018 at 9:55 pm
typo: such luminaries as Michael Parenti, S. Wollin, James Petras
The editor regrets the error.
John P , July 16, 2018 at 11:26 pm
Trump ain't going to help you on that one. You need to get together with others work to get rid of PACs and Super PACs. In
most western countries they wouldn't be allowed.
Sam F , July 17, 2018 at 7:20 am
The political parties are also corrupt, taking donations fed back directly or indirectly from government funding of contractors.
These are extensive rackets supported by half the population, who have never worked for anything but a political gang operation,
and really believe in gangs.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:11 am
Why are you bringing up "ponies" that we will never have, when Hillary's private club (or so the judge ruled when Bernie's
supporters tried to fight their fraud, saying private clubs can do what they please, particularly picking potential presidents)
was hacked into by those supercompetent Russians? Much akin to the Nigerian guy who's been trying to help me collect money from
some dead rich relative I didn't know I had. Still waiting, but I'm sure if this was a fraud Mueller and our Intelligence agencies
would be all over it, just like Hillary's Private Club, the DNC. The Russians didn't steal any money from Hillary, as far as I
know, or there would have been War!
gcw919 , July 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm
These media "pundits" are truly an embarrassment. They become apoplectic about "possible" Russian hacking in our elections,
but one can search in vain for their comments about our own interference in Ukrainian politics, and many other countries around
the globe. (eg, Victoria Nuland, Hillary's pit bull, gloating about the US spending $5 billion in "support" of Ukrainian democracy).
Its as if real concerns, such as nuclear annihilation, or catastrophic climate change, were afterthoughts. We are certainly living
in mystifying times.
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 10:16 pm
I think the same thing. The whole "election meddling" hoopla, even if it was true, pales to insignificance in light of what
we are actually doing.
We have a base – a military base – in Syria. We weren't invited. We didn't get permission to set up a base. But we set up a
military base in another country while announcing that that country's leader "must go." And now – with a total absence of evidence
– we have the gall to condemn Russia for "meddling in our democracy."
What is wrong with these people? Can't they see the utter hypocrisy in it all?
AZ_bob , July 16, 2018 at 11:29 pm
I tell people all the time, if Russia did put their thumb on the scale, then hey – I guess "What Goes Around, Comes Around"
huh? If you CAN'T take it, DON'T dish it out. Quite simple, really
irina , July 17, 2018 at 1:28 am
The US media's hysterical (in the unfunny sense) response to "Russian meddling"
is very like the husband who catches his wife cheating on him and goes totally postal,
although he himself has been cheating on her ever since their courting days . . .
Tony Frede , July 17, 2018 at 1:53 am
No they don't see the hypocrisy. A large percentage of the population suffers from a severe Irony Deficiency and that can't
be cured.
Layne , July 17, 2018 at 6:55 am
I beat my head against the wall with the very same question! Thanks for sharing..
Tristan , July 16, 2018 at 9:26 pm
Thank you for doing the real journalism needed for readers to gain perspective and understanding. It is important to call out
propaganda in the face of facts. One thing that stands out significantly is the statement by Trump, "I would rather take a political
risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics." Even if only partially pursued, the goal of peace is indeed
a very worthy endeavor. In fact, this is one of the first times in recent memory that a US president has used the word "Peace".
I don't like the majority of what the Trump administration is doing, it is important to stick to the facts and support efforts
that could lead to a reduction of the tensions and hostility which dominate current US / Russia relations.
F. G. Sanford , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm
"A productive dialogue is not only good for the United States and good for Russia, but it is good for the world."
I could hear in the inflection of that sentence the profoundly courageous and confidently certain voice of John F. Kennedy.
Gergen, Amanpour, Cooper, Cheney, Brennan, Clapper and the rest of them be damned. The usual suspects, the bought and paid-for
mouthpieces of the "deep state" raised their reptilian ire in the expected reprehensible fashion. War is what keeps them on the
"payroll", and they'll tell any lie it takes to keep those checks rolling in. Despicable. It seems likely that their vitriol may
stem as much from fear of exposure as anything else.
I think President Trump gave a laudable and compelling performance. It's a tragedy that this article will probably not get
the circulation it deserves. Thanks to Joe Lauria for having the guts to write it.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 9:43 pm
Amen.
jaycee , July 16, 2018 at 10:15 pm
Cheers. I noticed the same JFK echo in that sentence.
Brennan and the whole lot of those pundits sound exactly like the paleolithic right from the 50s and 60s, the ones who insisted
MLK was a communist and were so effectively personified by Sterling Hayden in the Dr Strangelove film.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 10:35 pm
Here ya go F.G. your on par with Paul Craig Roberts.
I recall about 16 years ago when the U.S. media almost unanimously reported, with absolute certainty, that Saddam Hussein was
harboring numerous weapons of mass destruction. I also recall their fervent calls for regime change because Hussein was a threat
to our national security. There were a few voices who spoke against it, but they were drowned out by MSM. It would appear that
U.S. media is adamantly against anyone who is opposed to war. Is it because war is so profitable for the media, or is it because
war is so profitable for their masters?
Hey, Johnmichael, you must know that the US is headed by an oligarchy, UK too, France, etc. What runs the world is banks and
multinational corporations. The US could actually be called a corporatocracy, because the people have very little say in their
government. Yes, media bashers do bash media when they lie because they are supposed to ferret out facts but they don't, they
serve their money masters. They all use "Goebbels style" messaging, Putin the least, i notice. It's a western script.
Steve , July 16, 2018 at 9:08 pm
Everything the Main Stream media says about Trump applies ten times over to themselves, the presstitutes that they are useful
Idiots of the Corrupt New World Order.
Bob In Portland , July 16, 2018 at 9:03 pm
A look at Mueller's career will go far in explaining why Mueller is handling this and what he won't see while investigating:
I did Bob, and I'm encouraging more to read it. Joe
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 3:30 am
Bob – Yes, I have read the article about Mueller's career.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 5:08 am
Bob in Portland – excellent read! Thank you. Mueller is like a fixer, a sweeper, someone who cleans up and, as you said, moves
investigations away from the CIA.
"He knew where to look and where not to look."
No doubt he's a valuable asset to the Deep State. Not a nice man.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:39 am
Great work!
Yes, Mueller's a master of misdirection. Was it Parry who noted (likely others as well) that reporting is now less about lying
than deliberate omission. Hard to fact-check what ain't there (vs. a lie which lays out data which can be tested) Knowledge IS
power: we are not to have knowledge.
Bob Van Noy , July 17, 2018 at 9:34 am
Thanks to all in this thread. I filed this statement recently here, and it was edited out. I'll try again because it's appropriate.
A relatively vibrant Press was modified violently in the days and weeks following November 22, 1963. Some careers were enhanced,
some lives were lost. If some contemporary student of History or Journalism wanted to study the decline of American Democracy
they might begin by reading all of the linked article below about a Journalist named Penn Jones
As much as I loathe Trump, I have to admit this is one time I agree with him. No matter how much Trump screws up, the simple
fact is that no one is 100% wrong, and it's important to recognize when they are not wrong.
I don't agree that the Russians are our enemy. I don't believe they are our friends, but there's a large gap between an enemy
and a friend and I place the Russians somewhere in that gap. I don't deny that they hacked into the DNC database, but that doesn't
rise above my threshold of significance and certainly doesn't hold a candle to all the U.S. interference in the politics of most
of the world's nations (which includes deposing democratically elected presidents). And finally, I don't believe in gunboat diplomacy
and I agree that it's better to talk with the Russians than it is to beat the war drums and seek more confrontation.
Having said that, I deplore Trump's behavior toward our European, Canadian and Mexican friends, and his domestic policies are
the worst of any in the last 100 years. But as much as I deplore this buffoon, I believe that he is right in attempting to normalize
relations with Russia.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 9:49 pm
"I don't deny that they hacked into the DNC database,"
Well, you should, because there is zero evidence of a Russian hack.
On what basis in the world do you so confidently assert that you "do not deny" something that is untrue?
The evidence is of an inside leak.
Please, learn the difference between the two, a hack and a leak.
Another indication of the insidious power of the media over common sense.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 3:22 am
Of course it is entirely within the interests of America to have free and friendly relations with Russia. Why? Not only because
peace beats the hell out of war, especially the nuclear variety, but because we, along with the rest of the world, need Russia's
vast resources in a planet rapidly being depleted of everything essential to modern technology. If they don't sell their products
to the West on the open market because Washington thinks it can steal them after some kind of "regime change," all those essential
goodies will go to China, India and the other peoples of the East whom we look down upon, and are also fixing to mess with.
From all I have gleaned, Russia has always aspired to be a part of the West, ever since Peter the Great opened Russia to Europe,
but Washington thinks that being a member of team West means being a totally subservient vassal to it and only it. Look at how
shamelessly Washington has abused the interests of the EU in its efforts to subjugate Russia. There is mostly one party that threatens
the future of Western prosperity and moral values: the United States, or rather its government. Its motives are uncontested power
and greed to benefit its small clique of decadent aristocrats.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm
Why would anyone believe the Liars' Club (the CIA) about anything? Their successes are more shameful than their failures.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:43 am
Ah, but successes and failures are not ours to judge, no, it is for the ruling elite to judge, and given that their power and
wealth has but steadily increased it is safe to say, under their measuring, that the CIA has been quite successful.
Johnmichael2 , July 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm
Putin brilliantly heads an Oligarchy. Trump obsequiously admires Putin because he too, by all of his actions to date, aspires
to the same power. To all of you media bashers, who are on a very strange campaign of denial, don't forget that Trump and his
Goebbels style messaging received prime time from the electronic media throughout the campaign and was probably key to the win.
The real Deep State is the multinational world order of capitalism, which doesn't care what type of government it owns. Yet
CN seems totally oblivious to their existence. If the media is to blame for anything, it is that their coverage tends to be controlled
by ratings; in other words, by money, and the Deep State controls the money.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:52 pm
The US has oligarchic since 1789.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:53 pm
Goebbels was far smarter and articulate than Trump.
Danny , July 17, 2018 at 9:57 pm
the free $2B from the same media now screeching for his head? (Fox excepted) the 35-40 minutes dedicated to his empty podium
while Sanders talked? I have some REALLY bad news for you 'bout who was behind that
I highly recommend reading James Howard Kunstler's piece on Russia Insider, "Idiotic Russia Meddling Hoax Kept Alive by Trump-Putin
Summit". On his blog 'Clusterfuck Nation' he titles it "12 Ham Sandwiches with Russian Dressing". Kunstler is a great cynicist
humorist called a dystopian by the NYT. This piece he just published is one of the best and will undoubtedly be picked up by others.
Has a funny cartoon on Russia Insider for a musical based on the Mueller never-ending saga. At least it's a few cynical laughs
for this sorry affair.
Mass hysteria is a frightening spectacle to behold. The power with which it grips the minds of virtually everyone is beyond
belief. As I watched the media coverage of Helsinki unfold, it seemed the media minions were perceptibly working themselves into
a collective frenzy, a totally berserk, bonkers group who were bidding the price of tulips up to a million each. The ironic aspect
of all this to me is that even if the commie bastards did what we say they did would it have made any difference? And if indeed
it was they who hacked HC's "personal" email files and made them available to Wikileaks, I'm glad as Hell they did.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:56 pm
It would not make any difference. We Americans are to blame for our own follies and mistakes.
KiwiAntz , July 16, 2018 at 9:03 pm
It's Washington & the MSM's mass hysteria, not the common folk who couldn't give a rats ass about this lunacy? Ask the ordinary
citizen in the US or Worldwide what they care about? It's not the never ending Russiagate BS spewed out by the MSM or corrupt
DEMS! It's about, how will my Family be housed, Fed, & cared for! How will I support myself & my Family's needs & wants! THATS
WHAT WE CARE ABOUT, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FAKE RUSSIAGATE NONSENSE & it's BS! But what do these MSM idiots know, they think
their smarter than those who voted for change & are getting that with Mr Trump!
David G , July 17, 2018 at 12:01 am
Right on, Lester D.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:39 pm
I'm starting to get hopeful about Trump after a lot of doubts.
Whatever his limitations, he at least has some common sense. This is something we would never have seen happen with Crooked Hillary
Clinton, ever. Somebody had to listen to Putin, who actually has quite a lot of sensible things to say about this, and is a very
intelligent and articulate politician.
Given enough time, Trump might actually figure things out in Washington before he leaves office and sees all the treasonous forces
in the permanent security state. I didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump in '16 but if he listens to Putin and gives peace a
chance, this will mend all cracks with me.
Maybe they should put up a fence around CNN headquarters and call in a battalion of psychs to provide mental health treatments
to the war profiteers and talking heads.
I voted for peace. I want to see peace. Kudos to Trump and Putin for bringing an oasis of sanity to the world. Nuclear war is
bad for our kids. I am very relieved to see this happening. Even General Eisenhower could not buck the Military Industrial Complex
in 1959 when he tried to reach detente with Khrushchev. Trump will go down in history as a great president if he can pull this
off.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 8:38 pm
The incredible ugliness of the media, spy agencies, military figures, and politicians is unfortunately only the tip of a huge
iceberg. Underneath all that is the deep state oligarchs, who are willing to sacrifice billions of lives and the very continuation
of life on our precious planet – just to fulfill their insatiable greed for wealth and power. These evil monsters are the real
enemies of Humanity.
Lolita , July 16, 2018 at 8:29 pm
Not only the U.S. Media, but also the Canadian, French, British etc that is, the agitprop tools for NATOland/Soros, ready for
selective and well rehearsed indignation, on cue.
Tonight CBC The National managed to invite a "balanced" panel to discuss the Trump-Putin press conference: a researcher from
Stratfor and a journalist from the Washington Post!!!! LOL
Lolita , July 17, 2018 at 5:32 pm
And when CBC's narrative and their fake-debate in the National is challenged in the comment section the CBC sycophants know
only one action:
"Your account has been banned until 10/15/2018. Reason: We have banned this account for 90 days because we believe it is in
violation of our Terms of Use, specifically repeated off-topic comments, uncivil comments, and personal attacks. For more information,
please visit: http://www.cbc.ca/aboutcbc/discover/submissions.html
."
All of this to mask political censorship
In my last posts, I quoted Joe Lauria and they did not like it one bit:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
Good Bye ICIJ
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 2:16 am
And add NZ's Media to that shameful list of Propagandists telling lies & expecting us to belithis tripe!
The calls of President Trump being a traitor mimic those of the calls that President Eisenhower was a traitor back in the 1950s.
But what can you expect from the cult followers of the former Goldwater girl who have done their best to turn the Party of Gene
McCarthy into the Party of Joe McCarthy?
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:59 pm
Dems have GOP lite for a long time, at least since Reagan.
Pandas4peace , July 16, 2018 at 8:22 pm
Americans need to turn off their damn television sets.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm
I canceled my cable subscription three months ago and haven't missed it one bit.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:53 am
One needs to keep apprised of the lies that the enemies of humanity so effectively spread through their propaganda in order
to counter them.
Besides, if you ever need a good emetic, there is always the opportunity to tune in Rachel Maddow until your stomach upchucks
its contents.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:51 am
Ha ha! The Rachel Maddow weight loss program!
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:01 pm
Good idea. I quit watching regularly in the '70s. But does make one somewhat alienated from everyone else.
Freedom lover , July 16, 2018 at 10:32 pm
Actually I have Direct TV and for a change I can tune in to channel 321 RT America and listen to some real news instead of
the 24-hr fake news on the rest of the channels.
Skip Scott , July 17, 2018 at 6:55 am
Last night I blocked CNN on the TV where I am currently forced to reside. I am the only one with the p/w to unblock it. Take
that CNN!!!
Well said, as always, Realist, but the scary part is to read the vitriolic anti-Trump responses indicating the 'liberals' would
actually rather risk war! I just read a few of them and honestly wonder if there's any hope for this country, maybe we will have
to take some harsh lessons that will be meted out. They do not realize that they are assisting in bringing down every one of us
with their hate. The controllers who play them love it.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:47 pm
The danger is that they will bring their war hysteria into the next election and get someone elected that is even worse than
Hillary would have been.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:02 pm
I'm not convinced that anyone is control. "Time and chance come to them all."
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:46 am
My, how we have come full circle, Jessika. So, now it's the "liberals" who would rather be "dead" than "red?" That used to
be the far right John Birchers back in my youth. (Not that anyone anywhere on the planet is a genuine "communist" any longer,
not even in Cuba or North Korea.) I just wish there was some mechanism to allow them to self-immolate without killing or harming
the rest of us nearly 8 billion human beings. They have some potent demons colonizing what passes for their minds. Perhaps they
could use a convincing exorcist to drive the Hillary entity out of their system.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am
All comes in cycles. Dixiecrats, anyone?
Brad Owen , July 17, 2018 at 12:09 pm
EXACTLY. Actually, FDR was the "Bernie Sanders" of his day, and completely turned the Party upside down with his "New Deal
for the forgotten man" (Labor and farmers). The traditional D-Party was the party of southern plantation aristocracy and their
money handlers on Wall Street, and the original R-Party contained the fire-breathing radicals within its ranks.
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:10 pm
It is my understanding that Russia and US are holding approximately 90% of nuclear weapons worldwide. In a sane world, The
US media should be commending Trump for trying to reach an agreement regarding denuclearization with Putin. Nonetheless, Trump
is being grilled for doing what almost the entire planet is seeking: a world free of nuclear weapons. Indubitably, US national
media are very busy undermining Trump's efforts to reduce the scorch of nuclear war. Do the US media think that in a nuclear exchange
humans will survive? We will all lose.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:54 pm
No, the elites on both sides of the political spectrum are living in a mythical Hollywood rich man's fantasy world believing
that the worst that can happen to them is they will retreat to their luxury underground cities and live out the nuclear war, communicating
with their nuclear subs, while the rest of us paeons fry. They don't care about us, at all. They are congenital psychopaths.
It sounds crazy because it is, and it is hard for the rest of us to believe they could be so foolish. They are fatally misguided
in their beliefs that this would ever work and be good for them.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:34 pm
I think your right. Joe
Jean wyman , July 16, 2018 at 9:53 pm
Good comment Jose. In answer to your observations, I'd pose a question: what was Obusha thinking when he proposed a 3TRILLION
dollar upgrade of America's nukes? Who exactly was it that he was placating and that T-rump isn't.
Skip Scott , July 16, 2018 at 8:09 pm
When the talking heads said that Trump trusted Putin more than his own Intelligence Agencies, I screamed at the TV, "ME TOO!".
I can think of no clearer sign that the CIA is still embedded with the MSM. Discussion of the history of our Intelligence Community
in both the near and distant past, and it's utter lack of trustworthiness, is a forbidden topic. My only hope is that enough people
actually listened to what Putin said, instead of the talking heads' rantings, and saw for themselves that Putin is a rational
and fair-minded leader. The near hysteria of Anderson Cooper and his ilk is a sure sign that their grip on the narrative is slipping.
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm
I concur with your post. Personally, I rather listen to Putin than the US national media. You are correct to assert that "Putin
is a rational and fair-minded leader" You would have to be mentally retarded to pay any heed to US national media that have proven
to be a tool of those controlling the livers of power. Well done, Skip.
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 9:04 pm
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:07 pm
Anderson Cooper, the grandson of Gloria Vanderbilt, and great-grandson of robber baron railroad mogul Cornelius Vanderbilt
is CIA trained in Operation Mockingbird. https://youtu.be/w8NTLVOjas8
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm
I said that once, and got booed out of the room. Joe
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:28 pm
Skip I hear ya, but allow me to tell you what I saw, and heard today. So after Trump made his remarks about trusting, or not
trusting, certain intelligence data, I while driving in my car heard callers calling in to the local talk show. The callers who
expressed themselves the way we do on this comment board were berated by the callers who thought this kind of talk (like we here
on CN talk) was treasonous by all known treasonous standards. The callers who sounded like we do here were labeled as their being
crazed Trump supporters, and yet all of them said of how they don't even necessarily like Trump, but right is right and left is
now warmongering. None of the other opposing callers bought this denial of Trump, as they just fluffed it off, as Trump supporters
hiding behind whatever it was their suppose to be hiding behind. Facts are painfully ignored, especially when it comes to analyzing
Trump.
I see the MSM pundits and the strongly patriotic lying legislators taking Trump's remarks while calling him a trader, as the
launching of a great American vs American social confrontation. This new confrontation will pit brother against brother, child
against parent, and wife against husband . just ask my wife. The discontent is about where we were back during the Vietnam years,
as the only thing missing are the peace marchs. This time our civil war will be fought strictly on a social level, aided by an
instigating MSM, as division messes up any real citizen advocacy as the citizen may require to straighten out any of this disconnection
of their society or that's at least the way I see it.
We citizens are officially at war with each other. We will all look back upon this period of our evolvement, and laugh over
the Facebook censorship, and dream of a time when it was merely just about politics, and taxes. We are moving in a direction where
the National Security Deep State is beating up an outsider maverick, and this maverick is now in the Deep States crosshairs. It's
darn strange, and I swear if something awful were to happen to President Trump that the MSM would encourage us Americans to make
Trump's ugly fate a new national holiday . I think there are many among this Deep State cabal who still celebrate with joy the
sad happenings of November 22nd, 1963.
The empire is finally going down, and we are all witnessing it first hand. Joe
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 4:14 am
"I see the MSM pundits and the strongly patriotic lying legislators taking Trump's remarks while calling him a trader, as the
launching of a great American vs American social confrontation. This new confrontation will pit brother against brother, child
against parent, and wife against husband . just ask my wife. . . ."
Good observation Joe. It already started happening some time back in our home. A truce was reached with a compromise that my
wife would not watch CNN, MSNBC . . . when I am around the house and I will not read CN and make comments, at least when she is
around. This morning my wife went to our retired neighbor's house to watch these channels with her. Both of them have been feeling
today as if some tragedy has happened.
That is what this two years of Russia Gate hysteria fueled by the Media and Politicians has done to the people. Today was probably
the worst day; they are really messing up the population. It is even worse than those cold war days of 1950's which I have read
about. And there is no end in sight.
Killary had a crap platform. That is why she lost. If the platform was something progressives could support, then people would
come out and vote for her. Her record of dependability is crap; just a double talking republican liar. No good. That's why she
lost. I didn't vote for her and won't vote for her if she is forced on us again. Lyle Courtsal
http://www.3mpub.com
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:20 pm
You are correct Lyle about Hillary's lost. I would like to add the following:Vladimir Putin has not meddled in the US election,
Hillary Clinton has. Leaked emails reveal that the popular socialist Bernie Sanders had his chance of becoming president stolen
from him by Hillary Clinton and her associates at the Democratic National Committee. If defrauding democracy is worth going to
war over, certainly it is worth going to jail over. Millions of Americans had their votes stolen.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:34 pm
Yes, I listened to some of her campaign speeches, and they were embarrassingly awful, and empty of ideas except inciting horror
of "Le Trump"! She was truly pathetic in her confidence that she was in the in-group, addressing others in the "in-group," thus
not needing to actually campaign.
Recently Hillary was awarded the Radcliffe medal, and she spoke at Radcliffe Day. I was horrified that she was given this honor.
I heard that she read from a Teleprompter. That indicates to me that she was and is indeed not physically up to the challenges
of the office, quite apart from her many other deficits.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:07 am
I wouldn't vote for a mass murderer. If you cannot fundamentally be for peace then all else, no matter how wonderful it sounds
(it could be) has nowhere to anchor.
John V. Walsh , July 16, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Great column.
There is no doubt that the Summit moved us away from confrontation with Russia which holds the grave danger of going nuclear.
Bravo for Trump and the brave words he spoke.
Now it is up to us.
If we wish the process to continue which these meetings with Putin initiated, let us raise our voices in support.
If we wish to let the neocons, "Deep State," Dem and GOP elites to stop the process, let us stay silent.
I read the New York times and the comments to the editorial. This is my comment.
The comments here sound like a lynch mob working themselves into a frenzy to hang someone. Proof? Who needs any dang proof.
Clapper the guy who admitted lying to Congress under oath said Trump was guilty and thats good enough for the people who commented
here. The Intelligence Agencies that lied to get the USA to invade Iraq with their WMD claims say he is guilty, well that must
be proof then.
This goes to show that Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute. But a whole nation suckered into believing this
nonsence about Russia having Trump elected with not one shred of evidence presented? Even Barnum would have been shocked and surprised
at that one.
Well, I guess that influential people on the inside figure that the "reign of terror" worked out so well in effecting regime
change during the French Revolution that they'd give it another go approximately two centuries later approximately a hundred years
after the Bolshevik Revolution, so maybe this is a natural phenomenon with a periodicity of about 100 years. Perhaps Hillary thinks
she's gonna pick up the pieces as the next Napoleon after the revolution burns itself out. More like her fate will be as the next
Robespierre, hoisted on her own guillotine.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:11 am
Yes, the cycle is tied to the controlling currency, the USD in current day form. That control is rapidly slipping away. The
crooks are pulling the fire alarms in the bank and running out the back door and the public is looking for safety from the crooks'
army (MSM, "authority figures" etc.).
There is nothing left to say.
The summit only leaves one to speculate.
Realist , July 16, 2018 at 7:57 pm
It would seem that there is not a single independent, unbought, honest, objective journalist left working for the corporate
mass media in America. They are all mere puppets delivering the propaganda and fake analysis demanded of them by the oligarchy
that owns them. It's absolutely stunning how lock-step they all are in maintaining the false narrative cooked up by the careless
and arrogant tyrants who threw away a sure thing (Hillary's coronation) by pressing too hard to give her what they thought was
the biggest patsy (Trump) in the clown show called the presidential election. They were so confident they actually allowed the
ballots to be counted and have been scrambling to undo the results using every possible mechanism and pretext ever since. If there
is one thing the American people can count on in the future, it is that no election will ever again be semi-free, fair and not
rock-solid rigged with the contrived results agreed upon months before the charade of elections ever goes on.
A rational mind might say, well, give us more reasonable candidates, those in tune with the problems of the voters (mostly
caused by government), and give us more of them, more parties, more platforms, more options. That is exactly what they intend
to avoid. They tried to force feed us Hillary as the only acceptable figure running for the position, but enough people saw through
that and chose the fellow they wanted us to abhor after they deliberately built him up to help the despised Hillary. Now absolutely
every loyal apparatchik in the elite establishment, and most especially the media–the essential propagandists, are working 24/7
for regime change in Washington, what they perceive as the necessary first step towards regime change in Moscow and later Beijing.
Only then will the NWO–in which they give all the orders and control everything and everybody–be complete.
I tell you, the reach of their tentacles and the uniformity of response amongst their minions is impressive in a most foreboding
way. They will brook NO peaceful co-existence with any geopolitical "partners" or competitors and will not give even the slightest
iota of respect to our own elected leader, not even to his office out of formal courtesy. Rather than "going high" when he "goes
low," they choose to up the ante in ad hominem insults and political thuggery. The power structure in this country has become
irretrievably warmongering neo-con and ruthlessly imperialistic. The most catastrophic consequence will be to see the dissolution
of civilisation itself as the myriad of environmental, population and resource crises hit the planet full on as the century unfolds,
for thuggery, tyranny and simplistic political slogans are not the solutions for escaping the impending bottleneck with an actual
future still remaining for humanity.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 8:42 pm
Hey Realist you brought back memories of the 2016 presidential election to when Trump was given 4.9 billion dollars worth of
free air time (JP Sottile quoted the 4.9). As it has been written about of how early on the Clinton campaign thought Trump was
the best to run up against, because who in their right mind would take the Trumpster serious, was the go to mindset among the
DNCer's. So the MSM turned on the cameras at Trump rallies believing that given enough rope that Trump would hang himself. The
backlash that came from this, was mind boggling on many levels. One no one likes Hillary, number two no one likes the MSM. So
with that the MSM, and Hillary's bend strategy was what loss the election for the Democrats, and oh yeah then there's Bernie.
I don't think in total we Americans are all living on the same planet. Joe
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 8:55 pm
I am absolutely appalled by the behavior of the American media. They are acting like Trump is a disgrace to the country but
the MSM is a disgrace to journalism.
I don't even like Trump but – to me – he is coming out better in this exchange.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:17 pm
Excellent statement.
Sam F , July 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm
Indeed the US mass media are no more than propagandists for the arrogant tyrants of its government. But despite US bluster
and economic arm-twisting, educated people know that BRICS cannot be dominated so imperialism is theater not policy. Over 20-40
years, the US can only choose cooperation or self-embargo. Few educated people believe the recycled hysteria of invisible threats.
The enmity of the PTB toward Russia and Korea always starts with and returns to the Mideast and centers upon Israel, which
controls the US mass media and both political parties, and thereby appoints the politicians who control the military budget and
agenda. Indeed "no election will ever again be semi-free." The MIC is large and will attack small countries anywhere, but it is
the servant of Israel.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 2:22 am
People who complain aboutIsrael somehow never mention Dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, etc.
Sam F , July 17, 2018 at 6:26 am
Thank you for mentioning those; I did not have room in that comment.
Israel also substantially controls the Christian z leaders.
I thought Mueller was playing politics to announce the indictments of 12 Russians mere hours before Trump met Putin more and
more I'm losing faith in Mueller and the Democrats who have damn near destroyed their party themselves
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:17 am
If the fact that the Dems managed to undermine the people's choice for president (Sanders) isn't enough to convince you that
the Dems are destroyed then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm almost certain that the CIA had a hand in that: consider their infiltration into the MSM (ensuring that Sanders was not
talked about). Not only was the CIA involved in trying to derail Trump, but it was active in preempting Sanders. For sure, having
meddling in BOTH parties would likely bring out real pitch forks: when it's just one party it's easy to use the other party to
offset the anger. Joe, if you're reading these comments (still), I'd love to get your take on this "theory."
Thanks for this report, Mr. Lauria; you're certainly of stronger mettle than me. I would not have withstood the noxious exhalations
of the US newsmedia (which itself now openly includes newly "retired" intelligence agents as commentators) you've described in
this article; the anecdotes alone almost had me hurling my phone across the room.
Thank you for performing a valuable public service with this report. Peace.
Welcome to what passes for "reality" in 2018 America. If the stakes for humanity were not so frightfully high these bizarre,
slapstick, nonsense comments from the MSM talking heads would be knee-slapping hilarious in their total off the charts lunacy
and patent absurdity. What can one say? Wow – off the freaking charts! You simply can't make this stuff up! Words are inadequate
in an age of mass delusion posing as sanity!
Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 7:34 pm
I think your words "total off the charts lunacy and patent absurdity" are as adequate as they come in this situation.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:42 pm
Not only absurd, though, but also deeply isulting, treasonous, really horrendous that our national-level journalists arrogate
to themselves the right to diss, insult, accuse, charge, condemn, vilify, etc. the president of the United States. I don't like
trump either, I hate waht he is doing in Israel, supporting the rabid Zionists there and here. BUT, standing up to the media and
intelligence onslaught took guts, and he came out of the meeting looking pretty good, I think. The meeting also gave Putin an
opportunity to score a few points for reason, thus an international platform he might otherwise not have had.
I LOVE the Putin points re Browder $$$ (rather, rubles) to Hillary. I do so hope that this topic is taken up and richly sucked
and considered and tasted and finally chewed and swallowed and digested and the real . . . finally is delivered to the AMerican
people regarding Hill's $$$ shenanigans. If that happens it could point once again to an investigation of her emails and those
of her assistant Huma Abedin. Remember her? When do we get the full investigation of this very compromised woman?
These people have no shame, as they take their massive paychecks for lying to keep the fools in line. Well, thanks to websites
like this one and others, there aren't so many fools anymore. They are pathetic, and days of Cronkite, Murrow et al who reported
news objectively are dead and buried.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Probably they believe their own nonsense, at least when they say. Much as crooked preachers do.
Jean , July 16, 2018 at 10:30 pm
Cronkite wasn't so objective, Jessika. He was pretty bought into the glory of our Viet nam adventuring until the war protesters
(whom he did not represent objectively either) opened Amerika's eyes.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 7:01 pm
FOR ONCE, I AM PROUD TO STAND WITH OUR PRESIDENT.
irina , July 16, 2018 at 7:17 pm
Roger That.
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 8:14 pm
Ditto
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:21 pm
Me, too. An act of extraordinary political courage.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That took guts, Mr. Trump. I didn't know you had it in you. Congratulations for standing up to your (deadly) opponents. They
are now showing themselves to be the evil scum they really are.
Rohit , July 16, 2018 at 6:57 pm
There is one small problem with this article. While I trust Consortium News far more than the New York Times, there are those
who trust the latter. And the article is far too long for those who already believe that Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia.
A shorter article by Consortium News with a one two punch is what is needed.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm
Oh, go pound sand, would you?
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:40 pm
People don't change their minds because of rational arguments. Russiagate will go on, in spite of logic and evidence, much
as Birther nonsense does.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 6:54 pm
I just listened to NBC nightly news, and CNN. They are screaming treason! And the end of America! They are absolutely aghast
that Trump is making peace moves with Putin. Doesn't he know that America is a Warfare State?? To talk peace is against everything
we hold sacred. Beware Mr. Trump, the CIA hit squads will be champing at the bit to field one of their "lone assassins on you".
Pray for the Donald not being gunned down for doing the right thing (for once).
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:37 pm
I still fear someone will do the president harm as a result of this. Trump is taking chances with the mafia that runs this
shadow permanent government, given this level of hysteria. They just have too much at stake. They are used to getting their way.
I hope I'm wrong. The last time a president took on the entire establishment to this extent was JFK. I wish I could be more optimistic.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:44 pm
"They are screaming treason! "
How dare they???
they are the treasonous ones.
These crazed zombies are terrifying.
Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 6:52 pm
"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than risk peace in pursuit of politics."
Bravo Mr. President.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 8:27 pm
Great quote Gregory. Joe
Bruce Dickson , July 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm
A JFK-worthy quote, that.
And, to quote its deliverer, "Who would think..?"
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:23 pm
That one statement will go down in history, mark my words.
Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2018 at 6:40 pm
"never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of
another country over those of his own government and people."
Really? You obviously haven't been paying attention to the US's obeisance to Israel. I can think of no other country that puts
another country's wishes ahead of their own the way the US does with Israel.
"he had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy, and he
didn't do it."
And he was wise not to do so. The United States has far more blatantly interfered with Russian elections than what the idiots
in our alphabet soup of intelligence agencies are accusing Russia of now. The reason you call Putin a thug is not because he is
one but because he won't let you get away with that kind of crap. Putin has made it clear that American regime change is off the
table and he intends to see to it that it stays off the table.
Rohit , July 16, 2018 at 7:30 pm
""never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of
another country over those of his own government and people.""
Is that why he wants NATO to beef up? Is that why he complained about Germany's energy dependence on Russia?
He is not putting Putin above the American people. He is just not accepting the lies told by the FBI which is really pretty
much still controlled by Obama.
JesseJean , July 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Bravo, Jeff!
David Hamilton , July 16, 2018 at 6:34 pm
If the allegations are true – of GRU officers successfully phishing for HRC campaign dirt from Chairman Podesta's emails –
then the officers are guilty as charged. As I understand it, this was the avenue through which Wikileaks obtained the content
of Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs. That confirmation of what most already suspected to be true – that Hillary had
been pledging fealty to Wall Street bankers at the expense of the people – probably contributed to Hillary's defeat at the polls.
So, I say "more power to 'em". Those officers show common cause with the common man and woman in America. Hillary was never going
to release those transcripts on her own!
And that same phishing – if true – was certainly no "terrorist attack" or "act of war' or other hyperbolic nonsense like "the
undermining of democracy in America". We have no democracy – only an oligarchy – much like the Russians under Boris Yeltsin. Maybe
the phishing undermined oligarchy here, which would be a good thing. Oligarchy is at the heart of the cruel neo-liberal order
which tyrannizes the people.
Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2018 at 6:42 pm
Julian Assange has consistently said he did not get the files from Russia. Assange has yet to be caught in a lie. The US is
a serial liar and doesn't even look embarrassed when caught in a lie.
David Hamilton , July 16, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Thanks Jeff, maybe I don't understand the transfers to Wikileaks very well. I wonder if the FBI/Justice Department really knows,
like they say they do.
LarcoMarco , July 16, 2018 at 7:41 pm
Well, if DNC's servers and Hillarious' stealth servers and Podesta's email were hacked, the NSA has Hooverd up all the evidence
(if it exists). The Dumpster should demand this material be revealed and also demand disclosure of proof that RussiaGate is more
than Deep State designs.
Something must be done to release Assange! Trump: do something.
backwardsevolution , July 16, 2018 at 8:57 pm
Frederike – I think Trump will release Assange. Patience.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm
911 ushered in the post-truth era.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:25 pm
Maybe they got the information because Hillary took home classified documents and recklessly-knowingly exposed them to hackers
in her private basement server?
Freedom lover , July 16, 2018 at 10:56 pm
"If the allegations are true". Well we probably will never find out will we. Putin was shrewd to offer to have Mueller and
his investigators come to Russia to investigate the indited GRU officers and offering full cooperation with Russian Law enforcement.
Putin and Trump both know that Mueller will make every excuse in the book of why that can't happen. Mueller must be craping his
pants wondering if he will somehow be forced to take his investigation to Russia and have it publically exposed for the fraud
that it is.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 3:42 pm
Freedom lover – yes, what a great move by Putin! "Come on, let's work together to get to the bottom of this." Mueller must
just be dying! Unfortunately, Trump is really in danger now.
"I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people." Translation: He has little confidence in Obama and Bush intelligence people.
Good for him.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:32 pm
Wow, that was explosive! Just imagine how bad things would be right now if someone other than Putin were in charge of Russia.
We should count ourselves as lucky.
This two part, excellent documentary on Russia in the 90's is all about VVP
and Major Russian Jewish Oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Boris took over the
Kremlin. Boris shot himself in the foot, but wound up saving Russia when
he picked Putin to succeed alchoholic Yeltsin. Putin took the country back.
Larry Summers, Harvard Jew American oligarch led the rape and looting
of Russia.
The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs (1/2)
Podesta failing to register as a foreign agent for Russia, Browder greasing the palms of
the Klintons with "illicit cash" purloined from Russia...lol...oh man, this is really getting
interesting!
Ahem...and just where in the world is...Mr.Mifsud? ;-)
Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the
threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors." It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only
were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots:
Where are you???
Senator John McCain released a scathing
statement :
... "President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin
seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend
a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested
platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.
...
"No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did
President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the
world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are -- a republic of free
people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. ...
These imbeciles do not understand the realism behind Trump's grand policy. Trump knows the
heartland theory of
Halford John Mackinder. He understands that Russia is the core of the Eurasian landmass. That
landmass, when politically united, can rule the world. A naval power, the U.S. now as the UK
before it, can never defeat it. Trump's opponents do not get what Zbigniew Brzezinski, the
National Security Advisor of President Carter, explained in his book The Grant Chessboard
(pdf). They do not understand why Henry Kissinger
advised Trump to let go of Crimea.
Trump himself professed his view (vid)
of the big picture and of relations with Russia in a 2015 press conference:
"I know Putin. And I tell you that we can get along with Putin. Putin has no respect for
President Obama. Big Problem, big problem. And you know Russia has been driven - you know I
always heard, for years I have heard - one of the worst things that can happen to our
country, is when Russia ever gets driven to China. We have driven them together - with the
big oil deals that are being made. We have driven them together. That's a horrible thing for
this country. We have made them friends because of incompetent leadership. I believe I would
get along very nicely with Putin- okay? And I mean where we have the strength. I don't think
we need the sanctions. I think that we would get along very, very well. I really believe
that. I think we would get along with a lot of countries that we don't get along with today.
And that we would be a lot richer for it than we are today.
It took 45 years, not 20 as Kissinger foresaw, to rebalance the U.S. position.
After the Cold War the U.S. thought it had won the big ideological competition of the
twentieth century. In its exuberance of the 'unilateral moment' it did everything possible to
antagonize Russia.
Against its promises it extended NATO to Russia's border. It wanted to be the peerless
supreme power of the world. At the same time it invited China into the World Trade Organisation
and thereby enabled its explosive economic growth. This unbalanced policy took its toll. The
U.S. lost industrial capacity to China and at the same time drove Russia into China's hands.
Playing the global hegemon
turned out to be very expensive. It led to the 2006 crash of the U.S. economy and its people
have since seen little to no gains. Trump wants to revert this situation by rebalancing towards
Russia while opposing China's growing might.
Not everyone shares that perspective. As security advisor to Jimmy Carter Brzezinski
continued the Nixon/Kissinger policy towards China. The 'one China policy', disregarding Taiwan
for better relations with Beijing, was his work. His
view is still that the U.S. should ally with China against Russia:
"It is not in our interest to antagonize Beijing. It is much better for American interests to
have the Chinese work closely with us, thereby forcing the Russians to follow suit if they
don't want to be left out in the cold. That constellation gives the U.S. the unique ability
to reach out across the world with collective political influence."
But why would China join such a scheme? Brzezinski's view of Russia was always clouded. His
family of minor nobles has its roots in Galicia, now in west-Ukraine. They were driven from
Poland when the Soviets extended their realm into the middle of Europe. To him Russia will
always be the antagonist.
[I]n the emerging multipolar order, Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any
new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States.
Kissinger is again working to
divide Russia from China . But this time around it is Russia that needs to be elevated,
that needs to become a friend.
Trump is following Kissinger's view. He wants good relations with Russia to separate Russia
from China. He (rightly) sees China as the bigger long term (economic) danger to the United
States. That is the reason why he,
immediately after his election , started to beef up the relations with Taiwan and continues
to do so. ( Listen to
Peter Lee for the details). That is the reason why he tries to snatch North Korea from
China's hands. That is the reason why he makes nice with Putin.
It is not likely that Trump will manage to pull Russia out of its profitable alliance with
China. It is true that China's activities, especially in the Central Asian -stans, are a long
term danger to Russia. China's demographic and economic power is far greater than Russia's. But
the U.S. has never been faithful in its relations with Russia. It would take decades to regain
its trust. China on the other hand stands to its commitments. China is not interested in
conquering the 'heartland'. It has bigger fish to fry in south-east Asia, Africa and elsewhere.
It is not in its interest to antagonize Russia.
The maximum Trump can possibly achieve is to neutralize Russia while he attempts to tackle
China's growing economic might via tariffs, sanctions and by cuddling Taiwan, Japan and other
countries with anti-Chinese agendas.
The U.S. blew its 'unilateral moment'. Instead of making friends with Russia it drove it
into China's hands. Hegemonic globalization and unilateral wars proved to be too expensive. The
U.S. people received no gains from it. That is why they elected Trump.
Trump is doing his best to correct the situation. For the foreseeable future the world will
end up with three power centers. Anglo-America, Russia and China. (An aging and disunited
Europe will flap in the winds.) These power centers will never wage direct war against each
other, but will tussle at the peripheries. Korea, Iran and the Ukraine will be centers of these
conflicts. Interests in Central Asia, South America and Africa will also play a role.
Trump understands the big picture. To 'Make America Great Again' he needs to tackle China
and to prevent a deeper Chinese-Russian alliance. It's the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals
who do not get it. They are still stuck in Brzezinski's Cold War view of Russia. They still
believe that economic globalization, which helped China to regain its historic might, is the
one and true path to follow. They do not perceive at all the damage they have done to the
American electorate.
For now Trump's view is winning. But the lunatic reactions to the press conference show that
the powers against him are still strong. They will sabotage him wherever possible. The big
danger for now is that their view of the world might again raise to power.
Posted by b on July 17, 2018 at 07:41 AM |
PermalinkJen , Jul 17, 2018 8:54:40 AM |
8
BTW it is worthwhile to keep in mind that back in 2001, Russia and China signed a treaty of
friendship in which, among other things, both nations renounced all and any territorial
designs on one another's territory. This meant that China would have renounced any claims on
parts of Primorsky Kray in the Russian Far East along the Amur River, that used to be part of
the old Ming and Qing empires.
There is one significant paragraphy to be noted: Neither party will join any alliance or group that harms the other's sovereignty, security
and territorial integrity. Neither of them will conclude such treaties with any third party,
or allow a third country to use its territory to harm the other's sovereignty, security and
territorial integrity.
Well ... there goes any attempt by Trump to prise apart Russian and Chinese
friendship.
"Playing the global hegemon turned out to be very expensive. It led to the 2006 crash of the
U.S. economy and its people have since seen little to no gains".
To continue the theme: "People? We don't need no stinkin' people". US government has long
been directed towards the enrichment of a tiny clique of the super-rich and powerful. It is
nothing more than a bloodsucking parasite on the USA itself.
I guess it was a successful meeting. What was all this news in some American news outlets,
that it was going to be and is disaster? Unfortunately here in New Zealand we get our
international news from cnn abc and BBC. Luckily I search for truth and go online to watch
the full uncut interview. Nice coverage.
"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than risk peace in pursuit of
politics". Will any media have the guts and gusto that President Trump has to make this quote
the headline? Or will they once again focus on the size of his hands or the color of his
skin? I pray people wake up and celebrate the gravitas of this man.
I am growing proud to be an American again, President Trump. Thank you for your service
and God bless you... along with the Russian people and their fine leader.
As a foreign observer, I can honestly claim, that this press conference between both
leaders, was a very productive and successful conference. Well done to both presidents!
Browder and his business associates who have not paid taxes in the USA or Russia acquired
400 million dollars illegally and gave it to Hillary Clinton! No wonder the leftist didn't
want this meeting to happen. They didn't want to be exposed
I would have loved to seen the expressions on the faces of the media, and the Democrats
and Mueller when Putin put it out there that there is a way to get the facts of who hacked
the DNC/DCCC servers out there, and also a legal treaty that can allow the indicted people to
be investigated, and Muellers team to be able to be present!! lol.... they really havent
wanted the American public to know that there is a way to actually prove there isnt any
proof!
So obvious that media and deep state and radicals on the left are protesting in a very
exaggerated way after the presser. Notice lots of hastags against POTUS but no hasthags on
the most important developments at the presser = $400 million to Hillary campaign from
Russia. Folks, embrace this President. The better he makes America, the worst the attacks
get. Just the fact that a US reporter ask such a file question against his President, in
front of Putin and other foreign reporters is a disgrace and should be regarded as the utmost
of treasonous acts. God bless your President. Defend him. Protect him. He could have very
easily sided with the witch hunt but he chose to stay neutral knowing that cooperation with
Putin is more important than looking good to the ridiculous media who would have vilified him
in any way he answered that ridiculous question. Vote republican and make 2018 a victory for
the right
Russia is the 'enemy' only because Russia has thrown off the Jewish Mafia death grip
around its throat ! The Jewish owned media and big finance are picking on Russia because they
can't FLEECE Russia anymore !!!
That was a fantastic interview and both President Trump and President Putin did a great
job. We Americans want PEACE ... But the disgusting MSM that are the enemies of America and
the world do all they can to cause discord and trouble. We 'see' through their bullshit and
despise them. All NORMAL people want to live in PEACE and God Bless President Trump and
President Putin for working together to achieve that!!! #MAGA#TRUMP2020
I was a Democrat for 30ys. Bernie was cheated and I voted for Trump. I didn't expect much
from him. But he has shown himself to be an incredible man from day one, when he ripped up
the TTP. An incredible President... God bless you Mr. President and keep you and your family
safe. #WalkAway
So which country gets to arrest Soros? Didn't HRC break some Russian laws so she can be
extradited and end up in a Russian prison? Will Russia sue the DNC for slander? Was the DNC's
pet Pakistani working for Pakistani intelligence? These are the important questions nobody
asked.
Instead of falling all over yourselves congratulating Putin for
outing the Clinton's you should peruse other mainstream news outlets
ABC, NBC, FOX, CNBC, MSNBC, Yahoo, CNN and others. Except for Hannity
it's 100% condemnation of Trump selling out to the Russians and not a
single mention about the $400 million for the Clinton foundation.
The Washington Examiner printed an article full of the usual lies
about Russian aggression that if true would make the US look like a
saint compared to Russia. I imagine Wapo and the NY Slime were just
as bad.
As I stated the other day unless Trump crushed Putin, which was
never gonna happen even if the Donald wanted too, the knives would
come out and even Republicans would stomp on him.
If you saw Hillary's face you would see she is laughing her ass
off and dreaming of being president in 2020. The calls for
impeachment will come from all over the political spectrum and the
propagandized Americans, sheeple and the "well informed intelligent
people" who read the drivel in Wapo and NY Slime and there fellow
travelers and believe it 100%, will back it.
Those willing to print the truth will be drowned out by the
propaganda and be called Putin's bitches with renewed calls to shut
down the "fake news" that tells the truth.
All the news outlets bashing Trump Putin interview as "disgusting"
which is odd because I liked it because he called out the real
criminals---Comey, the fbi, DNC, Clinton, Strzok, etc.
Pretty much. This other bombshell from the conference, in which
Trump spilled entirely in the open that the whole Syria thing
hinged on Israel at the request of "Bibi" left
me jaw-dropped. Haven't seen a mention anywhere about this one...
It never fucking ends. I am watching all of my Dem friends howl about
Trump being owned by Puty Pute but not a darn mention about HRC sucking
bags of unethical dicks.
He didn't blame them - just said if you have no
specific evidence pointing to Russians, it could just
have easily been Ukranians, or Jews or??? which is
certainly true.
"... Then there's the fact, and I love this one, that the New York Times, in 2008, directly called Brennan a war criminal for openly supporting torture, rendition, and illegal wiretaps under the Bush Jr. administration, in the CIA, yet now he's the MSM's "main" consultant on these matters: ..."
"... Exactly. People simply have to remember 9/11 and that the US intelligence agencies are the most sophisticated and most controlling monsters on the globe. They are masters of disinformation and deception and if they were not trying to fool all of the people all of the time they would simply be out of work. ..."
"... The only sense we the people - the unwashed and constantly deceived masses - can make of the apparent division in the US over Russia, is through history. Historically Russia has been the arch enemy of both the Zionists and the Brits, and that it was the banksters of Wall Street, London and Zurich which did the most to install a communist regime in Russia, with their efforts beginning years before 1917. The plan was mainly to destroy the Russian establishment and religion, which they largely did, but the communist alternative they used had a life of its own. ..."
"... When the USSR folded in the early 1990's, the Western banksters and capitalists couldn't wait to get their hands on Russian resources and economic opportunities and they started gobbling up everything of value at bargain basement prices from the cash-starved Russians. In reaction, the old guard - the highly trained and efficient Russian intelligence community - reacted to the corruption and installed Putin on the throne. He nationalized the oil and gas industry and other interests and kicked the Western carpetbaggers clean out of Russia. They have never and will not forgive him, and his main opposition in Russia is the Zio establishment. ..."
I posted this in another ZH article, but wanted to spread awareness about these matters:
I cracked up when MSNBC kept showing the headline, "Former CIA Director Calls Trump Treasonous", yet they didn't use Brennan's
name. Plus all the "guests" they had on were intel officers who either served under Obama, Mueller, or both. Definitely attempted
CYA going on.
Then there's the fact, and I love this one, that the New York Times, in 2008, directly called Brennan a war criminal for
openly supporting torture, rendition, and illegal wiretaps under the Bush Jr. administration, in the CIA, yet now he's the MSM's
"main" consultant on these matters:
Exactly. People simply have to remember 9/11 and that the US intelligence agencies are the most sophisticated and most
controlling monsters on the globe. They are masters of disinformation and deception and if they were not trying to fool all of
the people all of the time they would simply be out of work.
The only sense we the people - the unwashed and constantly deceived masses - can make of the apparent division in the US
over Russia, is through history. Historically Russia has been the arch enemy of both the Zionists and the Brits, and that it was
the banksters of Wall Street, London and Zurich which did the most to install a communist regime in Russia, with their efforts
beginning years before 1917. The plan was mainly to destroy the Russian establishment and religion, which they largely did, but
the communist alternative they used had a life of its own.
When the USSR folded in the early 1990's, the Western banksters and capitalists couldn't wait to get their hands on Russian
resources and economic opportunities and they started gobbling up everything of value at bargain basement prices from the cash-starved
Russians. In reaction, the old guard - the highly trained and efficient Russian intelligence community - reacted to the corruption
and installed Putin on the throne. He nationalized the oil and gas industry and other interests and kicked the Western carpetbaggers
clean out of Russia. They have never and will not forgive him, and his main opposition in Russia is the Zio establishment.
Remember, how the US-Anglo-Zionist establishment reacted to the ousting of the Shah of Iran in 1979, and the end of Western
control of Iranian oil and gas. That nation has been on the hit list ever since.
Trump is either not sincere in dealing with Putin and the US-led axis will pull something off very shortly, or he is doing
something quite revolutionary and wants rapprochement.
I didn't vote for Trump. His handling of the Iran deal, Palestine and regurgitation of Likudnik talking points, many of his
appointments... these aren't America First positions. They smack of Adelson and Bibi and using the MEK to foment moar regime change
should trouble everyone.
However, I always conceded that he was better than Hillary. I almost voted for GJ but live in MA so why bother.
But he has my vote next time.
This isn't about Trump anymore - it's about the ability of a shadow government to undo elections with fisa and intel abuse
and with the help of a controlled, CIA-minded legacy media.
I also think these 'deep state' types are determined to get major wars going, and determined to keep flooding the country with
debt serfs and cannon fodder all while attacking our sovereignty and promoting endless wars that benefit the banks and MIC.
I think we are in an incredibly dangerous time and that Brennan and Clapper need to be indicted and arrested for sedition ASAP.
Ditto Hillary, and others, including Obama.
In simple terms its the Republic versus the Empire, and if you support the Republic, I don't care if we deeply disagree on
lots of other stuff - I am on your side.
And if the Left marches on Washington as some are calling for, I think patriots need to go out and meet them with a peaceful
show of our numbers.
Within minutes MSM had the theme to broadcast. It was from their puppet masters in the FBI/CIA. They're told what to say. There's
no doubt about that now.
Also, there's no doubt that they are pushing for war with Russia, within months or a few years, depending on what happens to
Trump.
The Russians will know this now. All the post WWII wars were done in the same way: demonizing leaders, "defending democracy",
false flag ops. But this present push is for the end game of killing the host; which is the life strategy of the parasitoid. The
complete destruction of humanity and total ecocide.
The parasitoid corporate fascists are now in full control of the media and their disease vector politicians/bureaucrats, not
just in the US but the EU/NATO as well.
A parasitoid is an organism that lives in close association with its
host and at the host's expense, and which sooner
or later kills it. Parasitoidism is one of six major
evolutionary strategies within
parasitism . Parasitoidism is distinguished by the fatal
prognosis for the host, which makes the strategy close to
predation .
In epidemiology , a disease vector is any agent that
carries and transmits an infectious pathogen into another
living organism; [1] [2]
Local news differs because it is mixed with first-hand experience, as well as second-hand reports from witnesses–neighbors and
friends.
Gossip is one way of regulating this local flow of information. It provides details about who can be believed, and who might
embellish.
Locally, there is an organic structure of information flow. This alone doesn't make it accurate, but it gets closer by triangulating
from where you get your information.
And the further you get from the ability to triangulate from different sources, the faker news gets. I don't mean different sources,
as in, different news outlets. I mean first-hand knowledge mixed with historical context, access to first-hand accounts, information
about the reliability of witnesses and experts, and so on.
The further away the news gets from you, the harder it is to mix the news with other intelligence. At that point, it is easier
to manipulate the truth.
But even if a piece of news about a far-off event is not attempting to misconstrue the truth, it could do so inadvertently. Without
the full context of what is happening, events across the world can give the wrong impression.
The conflict in Syria is the perfect example of fake news. You have a complicated event with many different sides and no clear
good guys. There are few first-hand accounts from people we know personally. There are some entities who wish to purposely distort
the truth and others which want to hide the full extent of their actions.
All I can do to find out is trust various news sources. And that is what I mean when I say everything is fake news. Just picking
which events to report on truthfully can end up presenting a basically fake story.
The Same Old Story
Years ago it was easy to control the spread of information. There were only a handful of television networks and newspapers. All
news passed through the channels of official gatekeepers before making its way to the consumer.
But already the government was creating and disseminating fake news through programs like Project Mockingbird. The
CIA had thousands of journalists on its payroll to disseminate false news and
bury certain real reports.
So the government's problem is not fake news. Governments are concerned that they have lost their monopoly control of fake news.
They were the gatekeepers.
Social media "has made things much worse," because it "offers an easy route for non-journalists to bypass journalism's gatekeepers,
so that anyone can 'publish' anything, however biased, inaccurate or fabricated," says John Huxford, an Illinois State University
journalism professor.
"Journalism's role as the 'gatekeeper' of what is and isn't news has always been controversial, of course. But we're now seeing
just how bad things can get when that function breaks down."
Are we seeing how bad things can get? It seems that there was always fake news, but at one time, everyone believed it. Now there
is fake news, and no one trusts any news. That is a better situation to be in. It is the rejection of manipulation by the elites,
the gatekeepers.
Distrust in unverifiable news is better than blind trust in government propaganda. Better to hold agnostic beliefs about certain
national events, versus believing what the government feeds us.
My default position is distrust of the government. So whatever narrative they seem to be pushing, if not outright false, has a
purpose behind it. They are trying to shape the behavior of the masses and very rarely is this beneficially to individuals.
Huxford said many internet users are not adept at telling fake news from the real thing, making the role of major news organizations
critical.
"This is why Trump falsely labelling the mainstream media as 'fake news' is so toxic," he said.
"It means that, at a time when there is a lot of fabrication and falsehoods swirling through the system, the credibility of
the most reliable sources of news is being undermined."
As someone who believes in a grassroots approach to solving problems, starting with individuals, I am naturally averse to the
idea of controllers from on high making decisions for me.
And that is why I think it is beneficial to have more distrust in news the further it gets from you, and rather use what you can
confirm to live personally as you see fit.
Probably the best example of this is people signing up for the military directly after 9/11 to go kick some al-Qaida ass. They
trusted the national news to deliver accurate facts about what happened, and how to stop it from happening again. And they threw
themselves into the fight without having an accurate picture of why, or how the war they were signing up for would help.
In the end, they may have ended up supporting a worse regime than the one they were fighting.
Never knowing what you can believe is not ideal. But it beats a false sense of security that the news you get is real. It isn't.
And if people are finally waking up to that, perhaps they will stop lining up to fight other people's wars.
You don't have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis
players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black
street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs
with their machetes.
We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but
the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind
every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!
As a personality and politician Trump is infinitely smaller then Putin. So the only trump card he has is "imperial arrogance".
Also Trump is severely constrained by what he do or offer by the Deep State, especially intelligence agencies which have semi-autonomous
power in the USA and are no longer under direct control of the government, representing a shadow government by itself. Brennan attempt
to unseat Trump is just one recent example.
He also has a full of neocons cabinet now. Just Pompeo is very dangerous neocon indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... However, Washington's dominant position has also led to some foreign policy bad habits. Because U.S. leaders have not had to deal with serious peer competitors in a long time, they appear to have lost the art of skillful, nuanced diplomacy. Even before the arrival of the Trump administration, U.S. policy exhibited a growing arrogance and lack of realism about diplomatic objectives. ..."
"... If the hardliners had prevailed, no summit would have taken place. Their demands were multiple poison pills to any feasible negotiations. ..."
"... even more than he did with North Korea, he needs to make major changes in current U.S. policy toward Russia and reject the advice and demands that Russophobic hardliners are pushing. Once again, the president must distinguish between achievable and unachievable goals. And he must be willing to make meaningful concessions to the Russian leader to secure the former. ..."
"... Some of Washington's existing demands are manifestly unrealistic . Russia is not going to reverse its annexation of Crimea and return that territory to Ukraine. The Kremlin's move was at least partly a response to the clumsy and provocative actions that the United States and key European Union powers took to support demonstrators who unseated Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, before the expiration of his term. Moscow was not about to accept that Western power play and watch the region containing Russia's main naval base come under the control of a manifestly hostile Ukrainian regime. ..."
"... With regard to Syria, Trump should inform Putin that the United States is ceasing its efforts to unseat Assad -- a venture that has been a disaster, in any case. To reinforce that pledge, the United States should offer to withdraw all of its forces over the next year. ..."
"... In conducting serious negotiations with Putin, President Trump has an opportunity for a diplomatic (and public relations) success that would exceed his achievement with the Kim summit. To do so, however, he must make a major course correction in how the United States handles delicate and dangerous situations with adversaries. Indeed, he must take an important step in America's willingness to relearn the techniques of achievable diplomacy. ..."
However, Washington's dominant position has also led to some foreign policy bad habits. Because U.S. leaders have not had
to deal with serious peer competitors in a long time, they appear to have lost the art of skillful, nuanced diplomacy. Even before
the arrival of the Trump administration, U.S. policy exhibited a growing arrogance and lack of realism about diplomatic objectives.
The upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin affords an opportunity to relearn the requirements
of effective diplomacy. If handled poorly, though, it will underscore the adverse consequences of Washington's rigid approach to
world affairs.
Too many American politicians, pundits, and foreign policy operatives seem to believe that when dealing with an adversary, diplomacy
should consist of issuing a laundry list of demands, including manifestly unrealistic ones, without offering even a hint of meaningful
concessions. Critics of Trump's summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un epitomized that attitude. Some of them excoriated the president
just for his willingness to accord Kim implicit equal status by approving a bilateral meeting. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
groused
that President Trump "elevated North Korea to the level of the United States while preserving the regime's status quo."
Others grudgingly conceded that the summit theoretically might have been an appropriate move, but argued that Washington should
have demanded major substantive and irreversible North Korean steps toward denuclearization in exchange for such a prestigious meeting.
In other words, they wanted North Korea's capitulation on the central issue before Trump even agreed to a summit. Critics were furious
that such a capitulation was not at least enshrined in the joint statement emerging from the meeting. And if that hardline stance
was not enough, they insisted that Trump should have made North Korea's human rights record a feature of the negotiations. Washington
Post columnist E.J. Dionne
asserted that "our wrongful indifference to human rights in the past should not be used as an excuse to justify apologias for
dictatorships in our time."
The lack of realism such positions exhibit is breathtaking. If the hardliners had prevailed, no summit would have taken place.
Their demands were multiple poison pills to any feasible negotiations. And the consequences flowing from the course they favored
would have been the perpetuation, if not escalation, of alarming tensions on the Korean Peninsula. By spurning their advice, Trump
secured a worthwhile change in the dynamics of the U.S.-North Korean relationship. The rapprochement may yet falter, since there
are still extremely serious disagreements between the two countries, but the summit was a beneficial reset that has reduced the danger
of a catastrophic military confrontation. Because he focused on the achievable, Trump secured a modest, but constructive, gain both
for the United States and the East Asian region.
The president has an opportunity for an even more important success in his upcoming summit with Putin. But even more than he did
with North Korea, he needs to make major changes in current U.S. policy toward Russia and reject the advice and demands that Russophobic
hardliners are pushing. Once again, the president must distinguish between achievable and unachievable goals. And he must be willing
to make meaningful concessions to the Russian leader to secure the former.
Some of Washington's existing demands are
manifestly unrealistic .
Russia is not going to reverse its annexation of Crimea and return that territory to Ukraine. The Kremlin's move was at least partly
a response to the clumsy and provocative
actions that the United States and key European Union powers took to support demonstrators who unseated Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian
president, Viktor Yanukovych, before the expiration of his term. Moscow was not about to accept that Western power play and watch
the region containing Russia's main naval base come under the control of a manifestly hostile Ukrainian regime. Given the stakes
involved, Russia is no more likely to withdraw from Crimea than Israel is likely to return the Golan Heights to Syria or Turkey return
occupied northern Cyprus to the Republic of Cyprus. Persisting in an utterly unattainable demand regarding Crimea before U.S. and
EU sanctions against Russia will be lifted is pointless.
Inducing the Kremlin to reduce and phase out its support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine is more achievable. Indeed,
despite the hysterical allegations
that appear periodically in the Western press, Russia's backing of the insurgents has been quite limited and is far less than constituting
an "invasion." Putin shows little stomach for making Ukraine an arena for a full-fledged confrontation with the West.
A similar situation exists with respect to Syria. The Kremlin clearly wishes to see Bashar al-Assad remain in power, and given
the extreme Islamist orientation of many of Assad's opponents, that is not an outrageous position. Nevertheless, Putin has avoided
establishing a large-scale Russian military, especially ground force, presence in that country. He apparently wishes to confine Moscow's
role to protecting its naval base at Tartus and assisting Assad's military efforts
with Russian air power . There appears to be an
opportunity for Washington to gain assurances from the Kremlin that its involvement in Syria will not escalate and might even recede
gradually.
To secure such goals, though, the U.S. would need to offer some appealing concessions to Putin. In exchange for ending Russian
support of Ukrainian secessionists and confirming Moscow's toleration of the anti-Russian regime in Kiev, Trump should be willing
to sign an agreement pledging that the United States will neither propose not endorse NATO membership for
Ukraine or Georgia . NATO's
previous waves of enlargement right up to Russia's border
were
a key factor in the deterioration of the West's relations with Moscow. It is time to end that provocation. In addition to that
concession, Trump should pledge that NATO military exercises (war games) in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea will come to an end.
In exchange, the United States ought to insist that Russian forces end their provocative deployments in Kaliningrad and along Russia's
frontier with NATO members.
With regard to Syria, Trump should inform Putin that the United States is ceasing its efforts to unseat Assad -- a venture that
has been a disaster, in any case. To reinforce that pledge, the United States should offer to withdraw all of its forces over the
next year. Those moves would tacitly accept Russia as the leading foreign power in terms of influence in Syria. Such a concession
is a simple recognition
of reality . Syria is barely 600 miles from Russia's border; it is 6,000 miles from the American homeland. Moscow's interests
are understandably more central than America's, given that geographic factor alone.
In conducting serious negotiations with Putin, President Trump has an opportunity for a diplomatic (and public relations)
success that would exceed his achievement with the Kim summit. To do so, however, he must make a major course correction in how the
United States handles delicate and dangerous situations with adversaries. Indeed, he must take an important step in America's willingness
to relearn the techniques of achievable diplomacy.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor
at The American Conservative, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles
on international affairs.
My personal opinion: it is exactly "Paris is worth a mass" conversion. It is based on
Putin's actions, which suggest a very pragmatic (you can say cynical) person, who has the
benefits of his country in mind (rather, who believes that benefits for his country are the
best benefits for him). I could be wrong, though.
The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of
the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands
Orthodox Christianity.
No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back
to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the
secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his
least attractive features.
Thankfully that chapter of history is over
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the
Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is -- to
borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song -- is more alive than the living. The Soviet
period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in every
area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.
It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet
standards -- culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would
disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the
Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does -- the Soviet Union will live one.
@Quartermaster While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much
truth out there, some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than
conspiracy theories.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.
Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is possible
that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is likely he
knows what is going on.
While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form iron
Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. Eastern
Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly, that the
extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist appropriate
as well.
Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper
concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished
to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path, he
impoverishes his people even more.
"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most
unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by
virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American)))
advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense
elsewhere.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up
dead.
The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize
Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the
West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and
prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime
example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted
should we be so inclined?
It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats
cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West
organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate
"government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine
is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and
fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did
was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed
for that.
It used to be that the only things one could depend on were "death & taxes." Now of
course we must add to that list the very dependable presence of CIA / State Dept lies
parroted by MSM all over the West. Lies which are endlessly repeated in defiance of all
physical reality and often in direct opposition to actual events in the actual world we live
in.
From the Ukraine coup, to Russia-gate, to the "Assad's gassing his own people" regime
change propaganda, to the totally surreal Alice in Wonderland Skripnal poisoning nonsense in
the U.K, the Western MSM have been as dependable as the rising sun.
They can and do provide
fact-free, evidence-free reporting directly from the bowels of the deep state in support of
the neocolonial West, including unending support for the never ending resort to mass violence
the West relies upon to keep the rest of the planet subjugated -- just as it has for the last
500+ years.
Few issues generate a bipartisan response in Washington. President Donald Trump's upcoming
summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin is one.
Democrats who once pressed for détente with the Soviet Union act as if Trump will be
giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Neoconservatives and other Republican hawks are equally
horrified, having pressed for something close to war with Moscow since the latter's annexation
of Crimea in 2014. Both sides act as if the Soviet Union has been reborn and Cold War has
restarted.
Russia's critics present a long bill of requirements to be met before they would relax
sanctions or otherwise improve relations. Putin could save time by agreeing to be an American
vassal.
Topping everyone's list is Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was outrageous.
Protecting the integrity of our democratic system is a vital interest, even if the American
people sometimes treat candidates with contempt. Before joining the administration National
Security Adviser John Bolton even called Russian meddling "a casus belli , a true act of
war."
Yet Washington has promiscuously meddled in other nations' elections. Carnegie Mellon's Dov
H. Levin figured that between 1946 and 2000 the U.S. government interfered with 81 foreign
contests, including the 1996 Russian poll. Retired U.S. intelligence officers freely admit that
Washington has routinely sought to influence other nations' elections.
Yes, of course, Americans are the good guys and favor politicians and parties that the other
peoples would vote for if only they better understood their own interests -- as we naturally
do. Unfortunately, foreign governments don't see Uncle Sam as a Vestal Virgin acting on behalf
of mankind. Indeed, Washington typically promotes outcomes more advantageous to, well,
Washington. Perhaps Trump and Putin could make a bilateral commitment to stay out of other
nations' elections.
Another reason to shun Russia, argued Senator Rob Portman, is because "Russia still occupies
Crimea and continues to fuel a violent conflict in eastern Ukraine." Moscow annexed Crimea
after a U.S.-backed street putsch ousted the elected but highly corrupt Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych. The territory historically was Russian, turned over to Ukraine most likely
as part of a political bargain in the power struggle following Joseph Stalin's death. A
majority of Crimeans probably wanted to return to Russia. However, the annexation was
lawless.
Rather like America's dismemberment of Serbia, detaching Kosovo after mighty NATO entered
the final civil war growing out of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Naturally, the U.S. again had
right on its side -- it always does! -- which obviously negated any obligations created by
international law. Ever-virtuous Washington even ignored the post-victory ethnic cleansing by
Albanian Kosovars
Still, this makes Washington's complaints about Russia seem just a bit hypocritical: do as
we say, not as we do. In August 2008 John McCain expressed outrage over Russia's war with
Georgia, exclaiming: "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations." Apparently he
forgot that five years before the U.S. invaded Iraq, with McCain's passionate support. Here,
too, the two presidents could agree to mutual forbearance.
Worse is the conflict in the Donbas, in eastern Ukraine, between the Ukrainian army and
separatists backed by Russia. Casualty estimates vary widely, but are in the thousands. Moscow
successfully weakened Kiev and prevented its accession to NATO. However, that offers neither
legal nor moral justification for underwriting armed revolt.
Alas, the U.S. again comes to Russia with unclean hands. Washington is supporting the brutal
war by Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates against Yemen. Area specialists agree that the
conflict started as just another violent episode in a country which has suffered civil strife
and war for decades. The Houthis, a tribal/ethnic/religious militia, joined with their
long-time enemy, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, to oust his successor, Abdrabbuh Mansur
Hadi. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi attacked to reinstall a pliable regime and win economic control. The
U.S. joined the aggressors . At least Russia could claim national security was at stake,
since it feared Ukraine might join NATO.
The "coalition" attack turned the Yemeni conflict into a sectarian fight, forced the Houthis
to seek Iranian aid, and allowed Tehran to bleed its Gulf rivals at little cost. Human rights
groups agree that the vast majority of civilian deaths and bulk of destruction have been caused
by Saudi and Emirati bombing, with Washington's direct assistance. The humanitarian crisis
includes a massive cholera epidemic. The security consequences include empowering al-Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps the U.S. and Russian governments could commit to jointly forgo
supporting war for frivolous causes.
Human carnage and physical destruction are widespread in Syria. It will take years to
rebuild homes and communities; the hundreds of thousands of dead can never be replaced. Yet
Moscow has gone all out to keep Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power. The Heritage
Foundation's Luke Coffey and Alexis Mrachek demand that Moscow end its support for Assad "and
demonstrate a genuine willingness to work with the international community to bring a political
end to the Syrian civil war." The American Enterprise Institute's Leon Aron urged "a true
Russian withdrawal from Syria, specifically ceding control of the Hmeymim airbase and
dismantling recent expansions to the Tartus naval facility."
But the U.S. is in no position to complain. Washington's intervention has been disastrous,
first discouraging a negotiated settlement, then promoting largely non-existent moderate
insurgents, backing radicals, including the al-Qaeda affiliate (remember 9/11!?) against Assad,
simultaneously allying with Kurds and Turks, and taking over the fight against the Islamic
State even though virtually everyone in the Mideast had reason to oppose the group.
At least Russia, invited by the recognized government, had a reason to be there. Moscow's
alliance with Syria dates back to the Cold War and poses no threat to America, which is allied
with Israel, the Gulf States, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt. Washington also possesses military
facilities in Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates. For most Middle Eastern countries Moscow is primarily
a bargaining chip to extort more benefits from America. Trump could propose that both countries
withdraw from Syria.
Coffey and Mracek also express outrage that Moscow "has weaponized its natural gas exports
to Europe, turning off the tap when countries dare go against its wishes." Russia's customers
should not fear coercion via cut-off. Of course, the U.S. never uses its economic power for
political ends. Other than to routinely impose economic sanctions on a variety of nations on
its naughty list. And to penalize not only American firms, but businesses from every other
nation .
Indeed, the Trump administration is insisting that every company in every country stop doing
business with Iran. The U.S. government will bar violators from the U.S. market or impose
ruinous fines on them. The Trump administration plans to sanction even its European allies,
those most vulnerable to Russian energy politics. Which suggests a modus vivendi that
America's friends likely would applaud: both Washington and Moscow could promise not to take
advantage of other nations' economic vulnerabilities for political ends.
Cyberwar is a variant of economic conflict. Heritage's Mracek cited "the calamitous
cyberattack, NotPetya," as "part of Russia's effort to destabilize Ukraine even further than in
the past." Yes, a criminal act. Of course, much the same could be said of Stuxnet, which was
thought to be a joint American-Israeli assault on Iran's nuclear program. And there are reports
of U.S. attempts to similarly hamper North Korean missile development. Some consider such
direct attacks on other governments to be akin to acts of war. Would Washington join Moscow in
a pledge to become a good cyber citizen?
Virtually everyone challenges Russia on human rights. Moscow falls far short, with Putin's
control of the media, manipulation of the electoral process, and violence against those
perceived as regime enemies. In this regard, at least, America is far better.
But many U.S. allies similarly fail this test. For instance, Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan has created an authoritarian state retaining merely the forms of democracy. Egypt's
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has constructed a tyranny more brutal than that of Hosni
Mubarak. Saudi Arabia's monarchy allows neither religious nor political freedom, and has grown
more repressive under Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. It is not just Trump who remains
largely silent about such assaults on people's basic liberties. So do many of the president's
critics, who express horror that he would deal with such a man as Putin.
Moscow will not be an easy partner for the U.S. Explaining that "nobody wanted to listen to
us" before he took over, in March Putin declared: "You hear us now!" Compromise is inevitable,
but requires respect for both nations' interests. A starting point could be returning the two
nations' embassies to full strength and addressing arms control, such as the faltering
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and soon-expiring Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. A
larger understanding based on NATO ending alliance expansion in return for Russia withdrawing
from the conflict in the Donbas would be worth pursuing.
Neither the U.S. nor the Russian Federation can afford to allow their relations to
deteriorate into another Cold War. Russia is too important on too many issues, including acting
as a counterweight to China, the most serious geopolitical challenge to the U.S. Hopefully the
upcoming summit will begin the difficult process of rebuilding a working relationship between
Washington and Moscow.
In this article, we have attempted to identify the most censored stories of modern times in
Britain. We have asked the opinions of one of the most famous and celebrated journalists and
documentary film-makers of our time, a high-profile former Mi5 intelligence officer, an
investigative journalist with one of the most well-known climate-change organisations, a
veteran journalist of the Iraq war, an ex-army officer, along with the head of one of the
worlds largest charities working against injustice.
One comment from our eclectic group of experts said; "the UK has the most legally protected
and least accountable intelligence agencies in the western world so even in just that field
competition is fierce, let alone all the other cover-ups."
So true have we found this statement to be that we've had to split this article into two
categories – military and non-military, with a view that we may well categorise
surveillance and privacy on its own another time.
Without further ado – here are the most non-military censored stories in Britain since
the 1980s, in no particular order. Do bear in mind that for those with inquisitive minds, some
of these stories you will have read something about somewhere – but to the majority of
citizens, these stories will read like conspiracy theories.
Consequences of American corporate influence over British welfare reforms
The demolition of the welfare state was first suggested in 1982 by the Conservative Prime
Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Using neoliberal politics, every UK government since 1982 has
covertly worked towards that goal. It is also the political thinking used as justification for
the welfare reforms of the New Labour government, which introduced the use of the Work
Capability Assessment (WCA) for all out-of-work disability benefit claimants. Neoliberal
politics also justified additional austerity measures introduced by the Coalition government
since 2010, and the Conservative government(s) since 2015, which were destined to cause
preventable harm when disregarding the human consequences. Much of this is known and in the
public domain.
However, what is less known is a story the government have tried
very hard to gag . The American healthcare insurance system of disability denial was
adopted, as was the involvement of a US healthcare company to distance the government from the
preventable harm created by its use. The private sector was introduced on a wide scale in many
areas of welfare and social policy as New Labour adopted American social and labour market
policies – and the gravity of its effects cannot be understated.
The result? In one 11 month study 10,600 deaths were attributed to the government disability
denial system of screening, with 2,200 people dying before the ESA assessment was even
completed. Between May 2010 and February 2014, an astonishing total of
40,680 people died within 12 months of going through a government Work Capability
Assessment. The government department responsible has since refused to publish updated
mortality totals.
This political and social scandal has been censored, with the author of
THIS truly damning report in trouble with the government for publishing it.
Climate Change, what a British oil giant knew all along
For decades, tobacco companies buried evidence that smoking was deadly, the same goes for
the fossil fuel industry. As early as 1981, big oil company Shell was aware of the causes and
catastrophic dangers of climate change. In the 1980s it was acknowledging with its own research
that anthropogenic global warming was a fact. Then, as the scientific consensus became more and
more clear, it started introducing doubt and giving weight to a "significant minority" of
"alternative viewpoints" as the full implications for the company's business model became
clear.
By the mid-90s, the company started talking about "distinguished scientists" that cast
aspersions of the seriousness of climate change.
THIS REPORT provides proof of Shell's documentation including emails of what they knew and
what they were hiding from the public domain. One document in 1988 confirms that: "By the time
the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to
reduce the effects or even stabilise the situation."
It was not until 2007 that scientific research eventually took a grip of the problem and
proved what was known all along. However, as Shell did say – it's probably too late to
take effective countermeasures now anyway. There is still persistent quoting of climate science
deniers by the fossil fuel industries.
Government Surveillance
In 2016, the UK was identified as the most
extreme surveillance state in the Western world. However, legislation really only came
about to legalise its use because of the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. Prior to that, the
British government had created a secret 360-degree mass surveillance architecture that no-one,
including most members of parliament, knew anything about. And much of it has since been deemed
illegal by the highest courts in both Britain and the European Union.
From operation Optic Nerve which took millions of sexually explicit images of an unknowing
public through their devices to a hacking operation called Gemalto – where GCHQ stole the
keys to a global encryption system with 700 million subscribers. The unaccountable spymasters
of the UK have undertaken breathtaking operations of illegality with absolute impunity.
Some other programmes included; Three Smurfs
– an operation to turn on any mobile device so it could listen to or activate the camera
covertly on mobile phones. XKeyScore was basically a Google search engine for spies to find any
data about anyone. Upstream and Tempora hacked into the worlds main cable highway, intercepting
everything and anything globally with a leaked presentation slide from GCHQ on this programme
expressly stating they were intent on "Mastering the Internet". Royal Concierge identified diplomatic
hotel reservations so GCHQ could organise a surveillance operation against dignitaries either
domestic or foreign, in advance.
In truth, Britain is classed as an endemic surveillance state and right now, we only know
what has been uncovered by whistleblowers. This is why people like Julian Assange, Edward
Snowden and others are nothing less than political prisoners of Western governments. They don't
want you to know what they know about you. They also don't want you to know about them, which
is why the architecture is there in the first place. It is not for catching terrorists because
if it was the courts would not deem these surveillance systems as illegal.
Evidence-Based Medical Studies
Over the last few years, medical professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for
many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current
editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected
peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps
half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid
exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for
pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards
darkness."
Across the pond, Dr
Marcia Angell , a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
(NEMJ), which is also considered another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical
journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published
or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no
pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine".
Many newspapers in Britain take the opportunity to indulge in some shameless click baiting
and report completely false stories simply to gain visitor numbers onto their website –
as in this example by the Mail Online HERE
or
HERE.
The Skripal poisoning and Pablo Millar
D-notice's (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) are used by the British state to
censor the publication of potentially damaging news stories. They are issued to the mainstream
media to withhold publication of damaging information. One such case was the widespread use of
D-notices regarding the British ex-spy deeply involved in the Skripal/Novichok poisoning case
in Salisbury.
Mainstream journalists, the press and broadcast media were issued with D-notices in respect
of a former British intelligence officer called Pablo Miller. Miller was an associate of
Christopher Steele, first in espionage operations in Russia and more recently in the activities
of Steele's private intelligence firm,
Orbis Business Intelligence .
Steele was responsible for compiling the Trump–Russia dossier, comprising 17 memos
written in 2016 alleging misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump's presidential campaign
and the Putin administration. The dossier paid for by the Democratic Party, claimed that Trump
was compromised by evidence of his sexual proclivities (golden shower anyone?) in Russia's
possession. Steele was the subject of an earlier D-notice, which unsuccessfully attempted to
keep his identity as the author of the dossier a secret.
Millar is reported to be Skripal's handler in Salisbury and if Miller and by extension,
Skripal himself were involved in Orbis' work on the highly-suspect Steele-Trump dossier, which
is thought to be the case (for all sorts of reasons – including these D-notices)
alongside representatives of British and possibly US intelligence, then the motivations for the
attempted assassination on the ex-Russian double agent was very wide at best. As it turned out,
blame could not be pinned on Russia's intelligence service, the FSB, no matter how hard the
government tried. This particular part of the Skripal poisoning story remains buried by the
mainstream media.
The City of London – A global crime scene
For over a hundred years the Labour party tried in vain to abolish the City of London and
its accompanying financial corruption. In 1917, Labour's new rising star Herbert Morrison, the
grandfather of Peter Mandelson made a stand and failed, calling it the "devilry of modern
finance." And although attempt after attempt was made throughout the following decades, it was
Margaret Thatcher who succeeded by abolishing its opponent, the Greater London Council in
1986.
Tony Blair went about it another way and offered to reform the City of London in what turned
out to be a gift from God. He effectively gave the vote to corporations which swayed the
balance of democratic power away from residents and workers. It was received by its opponents
as the greatest retrograde step since the peace treaty of 1215, Magna Carta. The City won its
rights through debt financing in 1067, when William the Conqueror acceded to it and ever since
governments have allowed the continuation of its ancient rights above all others.
The consequence? It now stands as money
launderer of the world , the capital of global crime scene with Britain referred to by the
global criminal fraternity to be the most corrupt country in the world.
A 'watchman' sits at the high table of parliament and is its official
lobbyist sitting in the seat of power right next to the Speaker of the House who is
"charged with ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded." The job is to seek out
political dissent that might arise against the City.
The City of London has its own private funding and will 'buy-off' any attempt to erode its
powers – any scrutiny of its financial affairs are put beyond external inspection or
audit. It has it's own police force – and laws. Its dark and shadowy client list
includes; terrorists, drug barons, arms dealers, despots, dictators, shady politicians,
corporations, millionaires and billionaires – most with something to hide. The shocking
Panama Papers, Paradise Papers and Lux Leaks barely scratching the surface
even with their almost unbelievable revelations of criminality.
Keith Bristow Director-General of the UK's National Crime Agency
said in June 2015 that the sheer scale of crime and its subsequent money laundering
operations was "a serious strategic threat to Britain." And whilst much of this activity is
indeed published – the scale of it is not. It is now believed by many investigative
journalists that the City of London is managing "trillions in ill-gotten gains" – not
billions as we have all been told.
State propaganda – manipulating minds, controlling the internet
Reading this you would think this was the stuff of a conspiracy theory – sadly, it's
not. The government, through its spying agent GCHQ developed its own set of software tools to
infiltrate the internet to shape what people see, hear and read, with the ability to rig online
polls and psychologically manipulate people on social media. This was what Glenn Greenwald of
The Intercept confirmed through the Snowden files in 2014. It was not about surveillance
but about manipulating public opinion in ever more Orwellian ways.
These 'tools' now constitute some of the most startling methods of propaganda delivery
systems and internet deception programmes known to mankind. What the Snowden files show are
that the government can change the outcome of online polls (codenamed Underpass), send mass
delivery of emails or SMS messages (Warpath) at will, disrupt video-based websites (Silverlord)
and have tools to permanently disable PC accounts. They can amplify a given message to push a
chosen narrative (GESTATOR), increase traffic to any given website" (GATEWAY) and have the
ability to inflate page views on websites (SLIPSTREAM). They can crash any website (PREDATORS
FACE), reduce page views and distort public responses, spoof any email account and telephone
calls they like. Visitors to WikiLeaks are tracked and monitored as if an inquiring mind is now
against the law.
Don't forget, the government has asked no-one for permission to do any of this and none of
this has been debated in parliament where representative democracy is supposed to be taking
place. There is no protective legislation for the general public and no-one is talking about or
debating these illegal programmes that taxpayers have been given no choice to fund –
costing billions. This is government sponsored fake news and public manipulation programmes on
a monumental scale.
Chris Huhne, a former cabinet minister and member of the national security council until
2012 said – "when it comes to the secret world of GCHQ, the depth of my 'privileged
information' has been dwarfed by the information provided by Edward Snowden to The
Guardian."
The Guardian's offices were then visited by MI5 and the Snowden files were ordered to be
destroyed under threats that if they didn't, it would be closed down – a sign of
British heavy-handedness reminiscent of the East-German Stasi.
Censorship – Spycatcher
'Spycatcher' was a truly candid autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer published in
1987. Written by Peter Wright, a former MI5 officer, it was published first in Australia after
being banned by the British government in 1985. Its allegations proved too much for the
authorities to allow it to be in the public domain.
In an interesting twist of irony, the UK government attempted to halt the book's Australian
publication. Malcolm Turnbull, current Prime Minister of Australia, was a lawyer at the time
and represented the publisher that defeated the British government's suppression orders against
Spycatcher in Australia in September 1987, and again on appeal in June 1988. This is the same
man that refuses to assist Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, from his hellhole existence
in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
The book details plans of the MI6 plot to assassinate Egyptian President Nasser during the
Suez Crisis; of joint MI5-CIA plotting against British Prime Minister Harold Wilson and of
MI5's eavesdropping on high-level Commonwealth conferences. Wright also highlights the methods
and ethics of the spying business.
Newspapers printed in England, attempting proper reportage of Spycatcher's principal
allegations were served gag orders. If they continued, they were tried for contempt of court.
However, the book proved so popular many copies were smuggled into England. In 1987, the Law
Lords again barred reportage of Wright's allegations or sale of books.
The ruling was then overturned, but Wright was barred from receiving royalties from the sale
of the book in the United Kingdom. In November 1991, the European Court of Human Rights ruled
that the British government had breached the European Convention of Human Rights in gagging its
own newspapers. The book has sold more than two million copies. In 1995, Wright died a
millionaire from proceeds of his book.
Censorship – The Internet
To the inquisitive and knowledgeable, censorship of the internet by the British government
is not news. In addition, there have been many reports, especially from independent outlets
complaining about search engines and social media platforms censoring oppositional and
dissenting voices.
Already described earlier in this article is the involvement of the authorities in
strategies to manipulate public opinion and disseminate false narratives in their aims for
control of the internet itself.
A few months ago, the government changed the law to block online content deemed as either
pornographic or of an extremist nature to protect those under 16 years of age. It was
anticipated that approximately 50 websites would be banned altogether. What subsequently
happened was that thousands of websites
disappeared from the internet with no court orders, injunctions, notices or justification.
Even finding out which websites are on that list is a secret.
Over time, like many pieces of legislation that has been abused by the state, websites and
online content that the government of the day does not like will have the perfect tool to
simply press the 'delete' button, pretty much as they have already started doing.
Soon after the Second World War, some of America's richest people began setting up
a
network of thinktanks to promote their interests. These purport to offer dispassionate
opinions on public affairs. But they are more like corporate lobbyists, working on behalf of
those who founded and fund them. These are the organisations now running much of the
Trump administration . These same groups are now running much of Britain. Liam Fox and what
was the Atlantic Bridge and the
Adam Smith Institute are good examples.
They have control of the Conservative party and are largely responsible for years of work
that steered Britain through the EU referendum that ended with Brexit. Tens of £millions
have been spent, mostly undisclosed on making this dream to exploit Britain and its people a
reality. In fact, almost everything in this article is about such organisations. Those hugely
powerful individuals that own search engines and social media platforms along with the banking
industry, the pharmaceutical and medical business, the fossil fuel and arms industries –
they have reached a pinnacle of unprecedented corporate power.
Some of those fully censored stories pushed below the radar by these corporations include;
how over 100,000
EU citizens die every year because of lobbying against workplace carcinogens, how
corporate profits and taxes are hidden, the Tory-Trump plan to
kill food safety with Brexit – to name but a few. And don't forget the corporate
media who are complicit. There are a handful of offshore billionaires that have the ability to
decide what millions should read or see.
The Adam Smith Institute referred to earlier is a good example. It is a mouthpiece for
right-wing extreme neoliberal capitalists. With a turnover of over £130 million and an
operating profit of nearly £17 million, it has received millions of pounds in UK
government funding. That is taxpayers money being used against taxpayers because the ASI does
not believe in the likes of the NHS or civil society in general.
Talking of Dark Money – Brexit and the climate deniers
We recently reported about a
transatlantic network of lobbyists pushing against action on climate change and (latterly)
for Brexit? This group are all based out of one building around the corner from the Palace of
Westminster.
What is much less known is that more recently, these
groups have
lobbied for a Hard Brexit , hoping the UK's withdrawal from the EU will lead to a weakening
of those environmental regulations that hinder future profits. These same groups are also
behind the Tory-DUP pact , currently keeping Theresa May in her job while allowing
hard-line Northern Irish social conservatives to dictate significant parts of the UK's
political agenda, themselves climate change deniers. These are just some of Britain's most
censored stories. There are so many of them that we have had to categorise them, which says
something about how democracy, free speech, civil liberty and human rights are performing in
Britain right now. truepublica.org.uk
"... What I notice these days is the incredibly wide divide between Trump/Anti-Trump people which also has the ever growing #Qanon vs. #Resist subgroups. These groups live with radically different perceptions of history and current events, totally different realities. Then toss in S.3274 - Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act which allows the government to fund propaganda pieces by our media, Citizens United, and social media I expect this will only get worse. ..."
What I notice these days is the incredibly wide divide between Trump/Anti-Trump
people which also has the ever growing #Qanon vs. #Resist subgroups. These groups live
with radically different perceptions of history and current events, totally different
realities. Then toss in S.3274 - Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act
which allows the government to fund propaganda pieces by our media, Citizens United, and
social media I expect this will only get worse.
"The center may provide grants to or contract with specified entities to: support
local independent media to refute foreign disinformation and manipulation in their
communities,"
https://www.congress.gov/bi...
NYT has a very slick piece using a virtual crime scene "proving" Assad's chemical
weapon use in Ghouta that cost a pretty penny and they are even paying to have it
promoted as an ad:
On the #resist side many believe we are in a full fledged nazi fascist government
where Trump has taken control using "over 1200 EO's" . When I pointed one person to the
University of California's .edu Presidential Site showing the 77 EO's they called it a
fake news site. I guess I should have pointed them to the Federal Register but then that
probably would be "government controlled". It is difficult to have any kind of fact based
discussion.
This reminds me of the Nika riots in Constantinople between the Blues and the Greens.
I can't imagine how a rural/suburban vs. urban center civil war could play out but I can
imagine a descent into intergroup riots with groups using social media for "flash mobs"
and people adopting symbols like Maga hats/Pussyhats for group identification altho it
would more likely be US flags/patches with a Q on them vs. Antifa flags.
Broadstroking I see is that the one group is far more reason/logic/thinking based
emphasizing the bigger picture, timelines, and patterns with a very broad variety of
beliefs from pragmatic to downright loony and the other is heavily emotion based with a
strong groupthink/conformity, no deeper thinking into policies, complexities, or facts,
and a timeline constrained to the current moment and current reaction.
Those of us that believe in evidence based reasoning are going to have to hunker down
and go along for the ride. It feels like a new dark ages is upon us here in the USA.
As awful an idea as it is I also wonder if the government will someday be forced to
control news in order to create social order as our media is mostly based on drama, fear,
politics, propaganda, and division. My quiet news refuge these days is China's Xinhua
news feed on Twitter. No politics, just news from around the world on a variety of topics
with the occasional feel good story.
I tend to agree but history shows that the future doesn't always go to the best and
brightest of people, ideas, or cultures.
Perhaps AI tutors, imagine every child with the AI equivalent of Aristotle, Plato, and
Socrates in their pocket to be their friend and mentor. If we can get far more people
educated in critical thinking we might get out of this mess someday.
" Putin has invaded Ukraine, stealing the Crimea, and attempting to gain a land bridge by
backing a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment."
Of course Russia has strategic interests in the Ukraine and the the Crimea is virtually
100% Russian speaking. The Russians remember WW2 and the 20 million Russian dead inflicted
upon them by western Europeans.
If Putin's behavior in the near abroad makes him a "thug," what can we say about Bush,
Obama and Trump?
I find it interesting how while the neocons demonize Putin and are trying to start WW3,
Netanyahu and Putin seem to get along fine. This suggests that the neocons really have
something else in mind besides towing the Israeli line. Namely, keeping the American public
in a state of confusion and acquiescence and ensuring the endless flow of weapons to their
favorite ethnostate.
Putin is just another thug that has imperial desires and is willing to steal his people
blind to realize them.
Other than reliable sources like John Brennan, James Clapper, the New York Times
and the Washington Post , I presume you have evidence to share of this
Putin has invaded Ukraine,
and this.
stealing the Crimea
Two referenda are "stealing"?
a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment.
Well, the dead people in Donbas, and their families, would probably disagree it was fake,
particularly since the victim of the US coup d'etat (with its mercenaries) and rightful
President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, was from Donbas. As for the allegations of Russian
troops and equipment, I return to my request for evidence.
Russian troops shot down MH-17. deal with it.
Yup, and Assad gassed his own people, so did Saddam, six kajillion were gassed in a 2 car
garage located next to crematoria at Auschwitz using explosive bug spray, and the Easter
Bunny leaves chocolate eggs at my house every year.
I think it's important to point out that Putin is rather philo-semitic. As evident by his
friendship with Roman Abramovich, Putin is ok with Jewish oligarchs, as long as they play by
his rules ( http://www.unz.com/isteve/israel-admits-a-refugee
). Also, despite being allies with Syria and Iran, Putin has always been on relatively good
terms with Israel and its leaders, especially Avigdor Lieberman.
Ironically, Mark Weber, whose work Mr. Giraldi links to, could be arrested in Putin's
Russia. Thus, the idea that Putin is hostile to Jewish interests is absurd.
First, Putin is a pragmatist and nationalist ..Russia is his only favoritism.
Second, due to Jewish narcissism they think the law was all about them. It wasn't. It
doesn't mention the holocaust. It says :
'Denial of Nazi crimes and "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of
the USSR during the years of World War Two"
This was Putin's "Polish Lite' law ..i.e ..divorcing Russia from any crimes during WWII
and throwing all blame on the Nazis for any war crimes . 'like' killing Jews. Its his
'balancing act' after also condemning anti-Islam attitudes .
Putin is nipping in the bud any and all ethnic attitudes that could cause the same
domestic and political 'unrest' that is now rampant in Europe and the US.
Which is why he also did this: .no 'ethnic ' or 'foreign' agents are going to get a
foothold in Russia .
Russia Deports Israeli Rabbi, Second Deportation of Chabad Rabbi in 2017
For the second time this year, Russian authorities have ordered out of the country a foreign
Chabad rabbi who had lived there for years.
"This week, a Moscow district court ordered Yosef Khersonsky, an Israeli who heads one of
the capital's communities, to leave the Russian Federation in connection with his "setting up
without permission a for-profit foreign entity," the RIA Novosti news agency reported. The
court did not specify the nature of the entity.
In its ruling against Ari Edelkopf, the Krasnodar Court of Appeals accepted the determination
of a Sochi tribunal that Edelkopf, who had been working as Chabad's emissary to the city, was
a threat to national security
Approximately half of the 70 rabbis working for the Chabad-affiliated Federation of Jewish
Communities of Russia are foreign. At least eight of them have been denied permission to work
in Russia over the past decade, Gorin told JTA in March
Under legislation from 2012 that imposed major limitations on the work of groups with foreign
funding, a Jewish charitable group from Ryazan, near Moscow, was flagged in 2015 by the
Justice Ministry as a "foreign agent" over its funding from the American Jewish Joint
Distribution Committee and its reproduction in a newsletter of political op-eds that appeared
in the L'chaim Jewish weekly
Last year, a court in Sverdlovsk convicted a teacher, Semen Tykman, of inciting hatred among
students at his Chabad school against Germans and propagating the idea of Jewish superiority.
Authorities raided his school and another one in 2015, confiscating textbooks, which some
Russian Jews suggested was to create a semblance of equivalence with Russia's crackdown on
radical Islam.
What makes you think Assad is an idiot? He seems more intelligent than most politicians,
journalists, and politicians in Washington, D.C. (I cringe at having to name the place. It's
like speaking Orc-language in Rivendell.)
Millions of Americans, having been raised on TV propaganda, still have a screaming need to
feel superior to everyone – except perhaps the Israelis.
The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the
world is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.
Hey uh, not to torque your cognitive dissonance, I know you have a lot of Democrat Party
revolutionary self-criticism sessions to go through, but when Putinhitlernazi takes over, we
get all our human rights, not just the niggardly hind-tit worthless US Bill of Rights that
DHS revoked. The Putinhitlernazi constitution prohibits the bad-faith phony rights the US
government screws us with. And the Putinhitlernazi constitution lets us go over the head of
the government to the international human rights authorities if we get no satisfaction at
home.
Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says rights and freedoms of person and citizen are
recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles and norms of
international law. Ratified international treaties supersede any domestic legislation
stipulating otherwise. Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person and citizen
are directly applicable. That prohibits bad-faith tricks like the US pulls, declaring
"non-self executing" treaties, making legally-void reservations, declarations,
understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article 46(3) gives citizens a
constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and
freedoms if all available internal means of legal redress are exhausted.
So where can I sign up for the Putinhitlernazi waffle SS commandos? I wanna overthrow this
shitcrap crapshit USA and get my rights.
"... Thank God for the US ruling class. Less acute, less imaginative ruling classes might be tricked by the fact that Russia spends but a tiny fraction of its GDP on "defence" compared to the US/NATO. ..."
"... Who wants to go to an Ivy League college for years & years, only to end up "fighting" a complete grot like Osama ? He was just so -- well, ugly ! ..."
"... So, the Putin/Nazi enemy is just scads better. Putin is a living "Hannibal's at the gates" enemy (And let's face it: even your most blinkered six-pack flag waver was having trouble getting his head around new aircraft carriers, new submarines, new F35′s & new nuclear missiles to defend against the whole motley terrorist thing). ..."
I thank the author for his timely apology. At this critical juncture we must be wise to these
Slavic wiles.
Thank God for the US ruling class. Less acute, less imaginative ruling classes might be
tricked by the fact that Russia spends but a tiny fraction of its GDP on "defence" compared
to the US/NATO.
No, Russia/Putin's guile is at the level of 3D chess. Everyone knows that behind such
obvious inadequacy lies a Cujo- like bear, taunt, ready to spring at an instinctively
guileless US .
And, let's be honest here, the US deserves a better enemy than a bunch of shabby
"terrorists". There's something just so common about these ". "terrorists". Who wants to go
to an Ivy League college for years & years, only to end up "fighting" a complete grot
like Osama ? He was just so -- well, ugly !
Can you imagine Ellen doing an interview with him ? No !
So, the Putin/Nazi enemy is just scads better. Putin is a living "Hannibal's at the gates"
enemy (And let's face it: even your most blinkered six-pack flag waver was having trouble
getting his head around new aircraft carriers, new submarines, new F35′s & new
nuclear missiles to defend against the whole motley terrorist thing).
Only trouble is all this does tend to cast aspersions on such a great German/American as
Mr Hitler, who, 70 years ago did such sterling work combating the Russia/communist Evil .
The current anti-Russian hysteria is the attempt to unite the society which become hostile to neoliberal elite.
Notable quotes:
"... A casual glance at facts and history makes it instantly clear that the United States has no "moral authority" of any kind whatsoever, and is arguably the hub of the most pernicious and dangerous force ever assembled in human history. But the establishment Russia narrative really is that cartoonishly ridiculous: you really do have to believe that the US government is 100 percent pure good and the Russian government is 100 percent pure evil to prevent the whole narrative from falling to pieces. ..."
"... In reality, Russia is nothing other than a rival power structure that the US-centralized empire wants to either collapse or absorb, but they can't just come right out and tell the public that they're dangerously escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower because westerners live in an invisible empire ruled by insatiably greedy plutocrats, so they make up nonsense about Putin being some kind of omnipotent supervillain who has infiltrated the highest levels of US government and is trying to take over the world. ..."
"... All this new cold war hysteria and nuclear brinkmanship has basically been America acting like a bitchy high school drama queen because Russia is saying mean things about it behind its back? How does a guy named "Mad Dog" get to be such a thin-skinned little snowflake? ..."
"... As we've been discussing a lot recently, control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear establishment policy makers babbling about "Russian propaganda" and Putin's attempts to "undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals," all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that. ..."
"... It seems to be that every criticism leveled at Russia, and China even, is a simple reflection of what the USA is doing. Deflection. Classic 'pot calling the kettle black' stuff. ..."
"... You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care. ..."
At a graduation ceremony for the US Naval War College (barf), US Secretary of Defense James Mattis
asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin "aims to diminish the appeal
of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority," and that "his actions are designed not to challenge
our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."
A casual glance at facts and history makes it instantly clear that the United States has no "moral authority" of any kind whatsoever,
and is arguably the hub of the most pernicious and dangerous force ever assembled in human history. But the establishment Russia
narrative really is that cartoonishly ridiculous: you really do have to believe that the US government is 100 percent pure good and
the Russian government is 100 percent pure evil to prevent the whole narrative from falling to pieces. If you accept the idea that
the exchange is anything close to 50/50, with Russia giving back more or less what it's getting and simply protecting its own interests
from the interests of geopolitical rivals, it no longer makes any sense to view Putin as a leader who poses a unique threat to the
world. If you accept the idea that the west is actually being far more aggressive and antagonistic toward Russia than Russia is being
toward the west, it gets even more laughable.
In order to believe that the US has anything resembling "moral authority" you have to shove your head so far into the sand you
get lava burns, but that really is what is needed to keep western anti-Russia hysteria going. None of the things the Russian government
has been accused of doing (let alone the very legitimate questions about whether or not they even did all of them) merit anything
but an indifferent shrug when compared with the unforgivable evils that America's unelected power establishment has been inflicting
upon the world, so they need to weave a narrative about "moral authority" in order to give those accusations meaning and relevance.
And, since the notion of America having moral authority is contradicted by all facts in evidence, that narrative is necessarily woven
of threads of fantasy and denial.
Establishment anti-Russia hysteria is all narrative, no substance. It's sustained by the talking heads of plutocrat-owned western
media making the same unanimous assertions over and over again in authoritative, confident-sounding tones of voice without presenting
any evidence or engaging with the reality of what Russia or its rivals are actually doing. The only reason American liberals believe
that Putin is a dangerous boogieman who has taken over their government, but don't believe for example that America is ruled by a
baby-eating pedophile cabal, is because the Jake Tappers and Rachel Maddows have told them to believe one conspiracy theory and not
the other. They could have employed the exact same strategy with any other wholly unsubstantiated conspiracy narrative and had just
as much success.
In reality, Russia is nothing other than a rival power structure that the US-centralized empire wants to either collapse or
absorb, but they can't just come right out and tell the public that they're dangerously escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower
because westerners live in an invisible empire ruled by insatiably greedy plutocrats, so they make up nonsense about Putin being
some kind of omnipotent supervillain who has infiltrated the highest levels of US government and is trying to take over the world.
Of equal interest to the Defense Secretary's "moral authority" gibberish is his claim that Putin's actions "are designed not to
challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."
I mean, like what? So Russia isn't challenging America militarily and isn't taking any actions to attempt to, but it's trying
to, what, hurt America's feelings? All this new cold war hysteria and nuclear brinkmanship has basically been America acting
like a bitchy high school drama queen because Russia is saying mean things about it behind its back? How does a guy named "Mad Dog"
get to be such a thin-skinned little snowflake?
I'm just playing. Actually, when Mattis says that the Russian government is trying to "undercut and compromise our belief in our
ideals," he is saying that Moscow is interrupting the lies that Americans are being told about their government by the plutocrat-owned
media. As we've
been
discussing a lot recently, control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear
establishment policy makers babbling about "Russian propaganda" and Putin's attempts to "undercut and compromise our belief in our
ideals," all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and
vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that.
More and more, the threads of the establishment narrative are ceasing to be unconsciously absorbed and are being increasingly
consciously examined instead. This development has ultimately nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with our species
moving
out of its old relationship with mental narrative as it approaches evolve-or-die time in our challenging new world. I am greatly
encouraged by what I am seeing.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my
website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish.
My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , checking out my
podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018
This is so right on that it is scary. The only problem, while more are questioning, is the fact that the majority of Americans
actually believe the bullshit that people like Mattis says. And, with a nickname like Mad Dog, it's a wonder that he hasn't been
put down yet.
Even today I had to deal with a typical American – 'swallow-it-hook-line-and-sinker' – idiot.
"The stock market is honest and above board.' 'All immigrants don't belong here.' 'It's fine if the government violates your
civil rights' 'Oh and immigrants don't have any.'
I could go on, but I learned long ago to say my piece and move on. For some people, there is no changing their minds, nor even
opening them up to considering the truth. There are the descendants of those who were protested against in the 1960s. The 'My
country right or wrong' people. Most likely they never had the balls, as children, to speak back to their parents, when those
adults were in the wrong. I always wondered whether intellectual blindness is a learned trait. I'm pretty sure that it must be.
William / June 17, 2018
Much or most of what you write about the American narrative is true. However, you weave it into a narrative that ignores central
historical facts and themes. Examples; Russia's behavior in Poland after WW2, the Hungarian revolution, the Check invasion and
oppression, the take over of Manchuria in the last weeks of WW2.
Stalin killing 20-40 million of his own people, Chechnya, the
Korean war, the Berlin wall. Not to mention recent assassinations of its own citizens. Yes, America has done cruel and horrific
things in many countries, but it pales to what the Russians have done throughout the ages. It would be akin to comparing what
the Nazis did to what the French underground did in response. Both killed, both did things that were horrific, but the French
did it in response and not nearly in the same magnitude. Historical contrast is very important when viewing these issues. It is
very easy to criticize one's own country but balance is called for. Was Russia justified in taking Crimea, perhaps, but then was
Hitler justified in taking the Sudetenland?
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
What Lee Yates just did there is a beautiful example of Advantageous Comparison defense in Bandera's Moral Disengagement Theory.
Yes, the US is morally bankrupt, but so what? The Soviets or Hitler or somebody else was worse. Sorry, that is bullshit.
What did the US overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran have to do with the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? Nothing. And he brings
up Russian Crimea, which voted 95% to rejoin Russia, an example of democracy in action.
william / June 17, 2018
The so what is this: when dealing with monsters one has to stoop as low to defend against it. What happened in Iran was Brittain's
provocation. They approached Eisenhower once previously and he refused to intervene. It was only after they convinced him that
it was a Russian plot to take over the oil fields that he relented. So yes it was wrong and even monstrous but put in the historical
perspective at the time, it made sense. At that time, France was in danger of collapsing and with it the rest of Europe. I am
of Middle Eastern ethnicity so I too am sensitive to Western colonialization of the region. However, things are not always as
simple as we would like them to be.
I really enjoy when people lower themselves to using vulgarities because they disagree with a point of view-most flattering and
intelligent.
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
Just more evasive moral disengagement. So the Dulles boys finally duped Ike into giving the green light to the overthrow of democratically
elected Mossadegh installing a bloodthirsty tyrant that ended up destabilizing the Middle East for the next 50years and running,
based on the pretext of Russia hysteria.
Was it true the Russians were really going to take over the oilfields? I never heard
that story before. I doubt it very much. History teaches a different lesson. Mossadegh had the temerity to want to share oil profits
with the Iranian people who owned it. Thats too much democracy for any country.
Just like Truman was tricked into Korea. Or Johnson was duped into Vietnam.
And so how do you explain why the CIA overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala beginning a reign of terror with genocude lasting 50 years
against unarmed peasant villages? East Timor? Chile? Brazil and Argentina? Greece? Angola?
This is just more Advantageous Comparison to justify moral bankruptcy. Sorry, sometimes things are as simple as they look.
No I respectfully disagree. If these seem like difficult moral choices to you, I pity you.
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
Although I must apologize for not recognizing your rank as a cut above the usual G-7 troll with your knowledge of the advanced
techniques of argument for moral disengagement, defending your country against the indefensible. Tough job that calls for an expert.
You must be one of those G-12 trolls called to fill in for overtime duty on fathers day. I'm sorry your wife and kids are going
to be missing you today. You can make it up to them tomorrow.
William / June 18, 2018
Funny thing, I agree that the overthrow was wrong, and horrible. I also think it was wrong and perhaps criminal when we invaded
both Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of my relatives were killed by tyrants in the Middle East and much of what has happened there
is ugly. But again, I do not stoop to personal disparagement. It has no place in honest debate. Same tactic used by the deplorable
. Trump and McCarthy for that matter, and of course, now you. As for Mossadegh, he was truly a statesman. England owned the oil
fields and he went to the UN to mediate the purchase of the oil fields at market value. The English refused and tried to convince
Eisenhower that it was a Russian plot. He tried again and finally Eisenhower relented, wrongly I might add. But do remember, that
Eisenhower also stopped the English and French when they wanted to invade Egypt to take over the Suez.
Lee Yates / June 17, 2018
Thank You, JRGJRG. I did not know that I knew that much philosophy. What I said was more in light of current events circa the
1990s. Our "bankers" went to Russia and "helped" them get capitalism. Well they got it, and now their gangsters/bankers are just
as wealthy and sophisticated as ours, or more so. Politically, I cannot really blame Putin for holding a grudge about our meddling
in Russia and general promotion of Boris Yeltsin. Still I doubt that he would make it easy for us to install another Yeltsin or
buy all of Russia's resources either, so why would we make it easy for him to meddle in our country, or do what we do overseas?
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
This is what you're doing, even if you don't recognize it. If you understand this you will begin to understand the errors of your
own ways. This is how totalitarianship develops. Read and learn.
Take off the blinders and fully explain how the U.S. genocide of native Americans – and the ongoing horrific treatment of them
– pales in comparison to anything except, possibly, the unnecessary dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan.
Sorry, but your
dissertation of an excuse just doesn't cut the mustard – or maybe your mother never told you that two wrongs don't make a right.
Or in the case of the U.S., dozens of never ending wrongs. Unless you really open your eyes and mind and understand the truth,
you will never come off as anything more than an apologist for the top 1/10th of the top 1%.
Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018
This was a reply to William, but comes off looking as an original comment and criticism of Caity, with whom I am in complete agreement
on todays article.
jrgjrg / June 18, 2018
Not just the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, but remember that Gen. LeMay firebombed every city in Japan before the bombs
were dropped, causing at least another half million deaths. Robert MacNamara said in an interview that if the US had lost the
Second World War they both would have been tried as war criminals, and it would be right. See:
Always impressed by Caitlin driving a bulldozer through lying narratives. We need more Caitlin's; we need an antiwar mass movement
of Caitlin's. But the antiwar movement is very weak and it is divided against itself.
In the 1990's there was a coming together of the Chronicles paleoconservatives and the CounterPunch progressives against the
US/NATO attack on Yugoslavia. But today Thomas Fleming and Chronicles have retreated and those controlling CounterPunch have explicitly
rejected an alliance with the 'right' against the US march to war.
I wish I could share the Caitlin enthusiasm for the future but I am depressed and fearful for the future. The US public is
asleep. The US is gearing up for war in Europe and Asia. Starting with Clinton each president has murdered about a million souls.
They are gearing up for a bigger war in the MENA and even Eastern Europe with Iran as the major target and will likely claim another
million+.
From Jungian psychology I learned that unless the opposites come close together change (a birth out of the tyranny of the status
quo) will not happen. The elites in control of the US use the fake dialectic of the major two parties to keep us apart. Those
in charge of each pole of the fake dialectic derive power from defending it against the 'other' and see alliance with the 'other'
as a diminution of their power (a good example is those in control of CounterPunch arguing against antiwar alliance with the 'right';
that they are captured by their power drive is plain to see).
Liberals (neolibs) and many progressives have walked straight into a trap set by the CIA that engineered a Cold War v2. They
knew the neocons would come along. The CIA, Wall Street, military, NSA are marching to war. They thirst for their holy war. They
are the supremacist 'exceptional and indispensable' while the rest of the world is unexceptional and dispensable.
If the left and right do not come together in an antiwar alliance then how can the warmongering trajectory of the US change?
geoffreyskoll / June 17, 2018
It's just like you, Caitlin, to bring up such quibbles as genocide, slavery, torture, and a few others too minor to even mention.
We're talking IDEALS here. You know like complete global domination, slavish catering to the most exploitive class in human history–the
stuff that makes America great!
Lee Yates / June 17, 2018
I agree that the U.S. is Imperialist and has been for a long time. However, it is false that Russia opposes the US kleptocracy
or represents anything other than the same bankster/gangsters that run the West. They came into the fold after the end of the
Soviet Union, and there they remain, probably not too happy about it, but neither are we right. The elites from all over launder
money, hide wealth enjoy power and luxury beyond our imagination. A small spat between them is death sentence for the rest of
us, but they will make up and enjoy their stolen wealth again.
The moral authority that the West or USA enjoys is a hollow thing,
much like Christianity at the height of the Church's power. But the words are still there maybe some day a true believer will
come along and do something about them.
Forgive me, I could not get beyond the 'undermine America's moral authority'. I take it, Mattis means the 'moral authority' to
starve the Yemenis to death and deny them medicine while they are dying . aided by our French Poodle and a mad woman from the
Isles! Or maybe the 'moral authority' of Albright when she said killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children 'was worth it'.
Or maybe it was 'moral authority' of Clinton, giggling over the sadist murder of Kaddafi. Some how, as an American I don't feel
'moral authority' , all I feel is the pain of inhumanity.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
No, no, no, you're still not getting it. Let me explain it to you. It means the authority of the autocrats to determine what's
moral for you. They themselves are above morality, like Nietzsche taught, remember? Authoritarianism.
Now do you understand?
elkojohn / June 17, 2018
As was hinted at by the FBI-IG report, neither political party in the criminal U.S. government is complying with law (domestic
nor international). The U.S. government system is an organized crime syndicate of liars, thieves and murders. The ruling class
and the inside players of the secret government consider the common folk to be deplorable, trailer-park trash.
That's the mind-set of the "holier-than-thou" professionals working inside the U.S. government. Whatever trust, loyalty and
respect citizens had for this government has been completely squandered – and voters (not Putin) gave the FU finger to the status
quo by electing Trump.
The treasonous, seditious, murdering 2-party dictatorship has absolutely NO ONE to blame but themselves. The time has come
to eliminate and defund the secret espionage agencies that run our government, – and which have morphed into crime syndicates.
Ditto the two political parties. Until we see all the top level law-breakers in jail (i.e., Clinton, Bush, Obama), until we witness
2/3's of the House and the Senate being purged and replaced, until we witness the complete dismantling of the FED, until we witness
ALL military bases around the world being closed and our troops brought home, until we witness the M-I-C's budget cut down to
1/4th and used ONLY for national protection, until we witness a purge of the CIA/FBI cartel, until we witness manufacturing being
restored to this country, until we witness the USA cutting all special interest lobbying (in particular, Israel and Saudi Arabia),
until we witness the break-up of the death grip that Wall St. and the banking monopoly has on our economy, until we witness the
full restoration of the "rule of law" in our government, – until then, it will be the absolute, open, in-your-face, tyrannical,
24/7, lawlessness of the U.S. government that destroys this nation.
So I disagree with James Mattis, that the U.S. holds the moral high ground.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological
defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. They're playing the "I'm rubber and you're
glue" game. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't
care.
WillD / June 17, 2018
Mattis didn't realise how well he described Trump. When you look at what Trump's regime has done since taking office last year,
it 'trumps' [pun intended] Putin's efforts, such as they are, by a mile. Putin could never hope to achieve so much in such a short
time, if that's what he wanted to do.
It seems to be that every criticism leveled at Russia, and China even, is a simple reflection of what the USA is doing.
Deflection. Classic 'pot calling the kettle black' stuff.
All one has to do is change a few names in the narrative – replace Putin with Trump, Russia / China with USA. That's it. Easy.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological
defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. It's not like the assholes don't know they
are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care.
WillD / June 17, 2018
No, you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying he/they use it as a defense, but that they don't realize how close it
is to what it (the USA) is doing.
Believe me, I have no respect for Mattis & that mob, nor Putin for that matter. None of them deserve respect.
I agree with you on the dirty rotten lying, too. They do know they are lying, but don't know how close to the truth it is when
applied to them.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
No worries. We are in the "post-truth era." That sounds crazy, I know. The plutocrats are discussing this exact topic this year
at the Bilderberg Conference.
As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of
international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be
suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing
publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that
sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership
for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other,
territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on
historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.
Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic
criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting
a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these
guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.
As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of
above, he must somehow understand (Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior
to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian
nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political
tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese
consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible
actors as Putin, Trump, Xi (affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war
cannot be anything more then policing.
To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse,
after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior).
No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into
quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China
dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in
International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.
Honest writing of Saker.
How good are these supranational, corporatacracy (another commenter), "globally organized
elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way
above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular
dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough.
Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in
itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies
on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve
this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better
tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods.
It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual
fate.
War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be
seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity,
migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of
humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans.
Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the
only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub,
that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plague if
not.
I'm not sure how far up the military-industrial complex's ass one's head needs to be to
think that one single step toward peace is a gigantic take-all-the-chips win for the
impoverished North Korea, but many of Trump's political enemies are taking it even further.
Senate Democrats have
introduced a bill to make it more difficult for Trump to withdraw US troops from South
Korea, because while you can always count on Capitol Hill to make it incredibly easy for a
president to deploy military personnel around the globe, giving that same office the power to
bring troops home is a completely different matter.
Surprising no one, MSNBC's cartoon children's program The Rachel Maddow Show took
home the trophy for jaw-dropping, shark-jumping ridiculousness with an eighteen-minute Alex Jones impression
claiming that the chief architect of the Korean negotiations was none other than (and if you
can't guess whose name I'm going to write once we get out of these parentheses I deeply envy
your ignorance on this matter) Vladimir Putin.
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
"... Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm. ..."
"... And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :). ..."
"... On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade. ..."
... EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without
interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed
by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because
that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany,
Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and
contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been
added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push.
Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German
world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement
between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such
an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases,
nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in
Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.
My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always
backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change
that.
Thanks. Current trends strengthen Euro-asia (and thus China and Russia), so West will have to do something, otherwise they
get weaker over time.
There has been a maximalist group in the West who believe that ' anything is possible ', that even with nukes it is
possible to defeat and dismember Russia. The key factor would be internal instability inside Russia. Maidan, Saaksavilli's mad
dash in 2008, and the support for Caucas separatists were all done with that in mind. It has mostly failed with Russia becoming
more united in the process.
Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty
of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm.
And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether
this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :).
On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that
they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then
Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate.
Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade.
It is completely unnecessary and foolish to bring up and try to argue about
the faith of another man, especially by superimposing one's own views onto the matter. It's
clear that you believe it is impossible or highly unlikely to have high intelligence and be a
true believer, but to me that is neither here nor there.
The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the
Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands
Orthodox Christianity. Yes! Russia's history and the levers of power were wrenched away from
its traditional Orthodox roots by those intent on revenge, those with a mad desire to unite the
world under the banner of international communism, bringing about (so they hoped and continue
to hope) the birth of their messiah. Thankfully that chapter of history is over, but it's not
over for the chosen: intent on revenge on Russia, just as they are forever intent on their
innocence in all historical matters, they have moved on and rooted themselves into another
host: the USA. They will be smacked down and put in their place again, but I hesitate to
estimate the scheduling. The main question is how many human lives will they end through their
machinations before the smack down.
The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of
the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands
Orthodox Christianity.
No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back
to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the
secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his
least attractive features.
Thankfully that chapter of history is over
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the
Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is –
to borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song – is more alive than the living. The
Soviet period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in
every area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.
It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet
standards – culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would
disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the
Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does – the Soviet Union will live
one.
An interesting point about refugees and emigration of Ukrainians to Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president. ..."
"... During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem less legit than the American revolutionaries. ..."
"... Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia. ..."
"... Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton. ..."
"... the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance. ..."
Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to
task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his
encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda
against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English
language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy
establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's
challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and
should be said in reply to Peter's comments.
Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn't made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In
one of his more accurate moments, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down
of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia's war against ISIS.
You've to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed
ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with
roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.
Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the
years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to
those killed by US and Israeli military actions.
Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills
journalists. There're numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country
does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early
1970′s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn't blamed for the pro-Sanders person who
attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.
Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out
hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for
the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These
individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the
overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.
During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be
colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received
significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem
less legit than the American revolutionaries.
Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of
Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in
Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of
the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to
Russia.
Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more
anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin
views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters
isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11.
The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties
(even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has
appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.
Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the
Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true.
However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many
Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively
more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians
questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.
I suppose many of us saw the Tucker with Max Boot. Boot seemed unhinged, really
emotionally overwrought by Tucker raising commonsensical challenges to his neocon orthodoxy.
Sad, angry man.
The "collective West" clearly pursued its own goals in Ukraine, and the last thing they were concerned was well being of
Ukraine people. Russia also viewed Ukraine mainly from the position of its own interests, although being isolated they provided
somewhat better terms for economic cooperation, just to counter influence of the EU and the USA.
The USA wanted the Ukraine to became yet another Baltic republic as a part of its geopolitical efforts of encircling Russia
and, if possible, installing another Yeltsin-style comprador government. EU wanted a market for its good and to exclude
Russia from using Ukrainian resources as well as the leverage to get better prices for Russian natural resources.
So the Ukrainian people got on the receiving end of those efforts and paid a huge price. Was it unavoidable or not is
difficult to say. May be less bloodshed was possible but economic decimation of Ukraine and conversion it into a debt slave was in
the cards, and probably was not avoidable. It just occurred faster and the drop of the standard of living went deeper that
in other circumstance.
For all his corruption and thugishness Yanukovich tried to play Russia against the West and get some concession from both. Now
such a policy is impossible as the country de-facto lost independence as happens with any debt-slave.
So the conflict in Donbass became important for Poroshenko government as the mean of uniting people, who became disillusioned
in the results of EuroMaydan and pointing to Russia as a scapegoat for all their difficulties. In a way Poroshenko now needs
Donbass conflict to survive politically.
While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there,
some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.
Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is
possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is
likely he knows what is going on.
While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form
iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly,
that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist
appropriate as well.
Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper
concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished
to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path,
he impoverishes his people even more.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up
dead.
The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize
Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the
West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and
prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime
example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted
should we be so inclined?
It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats
cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West
organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate
"government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine
is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and
fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did
was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed
for that.
"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most
unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by
virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American)))
advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense
elsewhere.
When the media is controlled by people responsible for false flag operation chances to use investigation to
discredit this false flag operation, no matter how many evidence they have is close to zero
In other word false flag operation is perfect weapon for the "sole superpower" and due to this status entail very little
risks.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. ..."
"... Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful. ..."
"... The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime. ..."
"... The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. ..."
"... Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA. ..."
"... The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. ..."
False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries. It was considered to be a legitimate ploy
by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close to
an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation
just before launching an attack. In the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain,
France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse the opponent was
considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one
reverted to one's own flag before engaging in combat.
Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and
non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if
the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable about them as
their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been
a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the internet fingerprints of
other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports
that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major
corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look
like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable
speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016
national elections in the United States.
False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major
alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald
Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations
carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time.
The most recent reported attack on April 7th might not have occurred at all
according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma. Because the rebels
succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the
attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.
The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to
avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the
evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring
instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation
of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will
apologize for having committed a war crime.
The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and
his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4th. Russia had no credible
motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The allegations
made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely"
Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical
weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful
enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared
to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in
London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included
the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe
that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion
suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the
CIA.
The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like
it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit
of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate
and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.
Nowhere in the Western world is truth respected. Even universities are imposing censorship
and speech control. Governments are shutting down, and will eventually criminalize, all
explanations that differ from official ones. The Western world no longer has a print and TV
media. In its place there is a propaganda ministry for the ruling elite.
Whistleblowers are prosecuted and imprisoned despite their protection by federal statue. The
US Department of Justice is a Department of Injustice. It has been a long time since any
justice flowed from the DOJ.
The total corruption of the print and TV media led to the rise of Intermet media such as
Wikileaks, led by Julian Assange, a prisoner since 2012.
Assange is an Australian and Ecuadorian citizen. He is not an American citizen. Yet US
politicians and media claim that he is guilty of treason because he published official
documents leaked to Wikileaks that prove the duplicity and criminality of the US
government.
It is strictly impossible for a non-citizen to be guilty of treason. It is strickly
impossible under the US Constitution for the reporting of facts to be spying. The function of
the media is to expose and to hold accountable the government. This function is no longer
performed by the Western print and TV media.
Washington wants revenge and is determined to get it. If Assange were as corrupt at the New
York Times, Washington Post, CNN, National Public Radio, MSNBC, etc., he would have reported
the leaker to Washington, not published the information, and retired as a multi-millionaire
with Washington's thanks. However, unfortunately for Assange, he had integrity.
Integrity today in the Western world has no value. You cannot find integrity in the
government, in the global corporations, in the universities and schools, and most certainly not
in the media.
After leaving Assange, an Australian citizen, to Washington's mercy since 2012, belated
pro-Assange protests in Australia forced the US vassal state to come to Assange's aid before
the new corrupt president of Ecuador sells him to Washington for muilti-millons of dollars by
revoking his asylum.
When the story was printed in the Sydney Morning Herald, the incompetent or brainwashed, or
bought-and-paid-for journalist, Nick Miller, wrote:
"Assange entered the embassy on June 19, 2012, after he had exhausted his appeals against an
extradition order to go to Sweden to face rape and sexual assault allegations.
Nick Miller has committed libel, whether from his ignorance or from pay.
There was no extradition order from Sweden for Assange to be returned to Sweden "to face
rape and sexual assault allegations." No such charges were issued by the Swedish prosecutorial
office, and no such charges were made by the women involved.
The case had already been closed by the Swedish prosecutorial office, and the two women who
willingly shared their beds with Assange did not press any charges. The Swedish female
prosecutor, who many suspect reopened the closed case at the urging of Washington, wrote in the
extradition request that she only wanted Assange for questioning.
Normally, extraditions are not granted for questioning. There has to be actual criminal
charges, and there were no such charges against Assange. However, under pressure from
Washington, a corrupt UK court granted, perhaps for the first time in history, extradition for
questioning.
Assange's attorneys understood that if Assange left his embassy refuge and travelled to
Sweden to be questioned, there was nothing to prevent Sweden from turning him over to
Washington to be tortured, as Washington does, into confession of some crime.
Consequently, Assange's attorneys told the Swedish female prosecutor, a person who seems
shortchanged on integrity, that Assange would be available for questioning in his place of
refuge. The prosecutor, showing her hand, refused to question Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy
in London. After refusing for many months while the presstitutes blackened Assange's repution
as a "rapist who was escaping justice," the sort of ignorant nonsense that Nick Miller writes,
the prosecutor consented to go to London to interview Assange.
As nothing incriminating emerged from the questioning and as neither of the women claimed
that they were raped, the female prosecutorclosed the case for the second time. But the corrupt
British would not release Assange. They claimed that he was wanted for jumping bail, an
argument that made no sense as the charge for his arrest had been dismissed. But Washington
insisted, and British "justice" again served Washington instead of justice.
The basis of the political assault on Assange came from the concern of one of his willing
sex partners that he had not used a condum. With everyone worried crazy about HIV and Aids, the
woman inquired at a Swedish public office if Assange could be required to take a HIV/Aids test.
Assange, not realizing his vulnerability, apparently refused the test, and thus opened himself
to a controversy that Washington immediately took advantage of.
It is safe for rock stars to have groupies, but not for truth-tellers.
If you understand the extreme extent to which the US government has gone, riding roughshod
over many laws and traditions, to destroy Assange, perhaps you can understand the threats that
the very few of us who have the education, experience, and integrity to tell you the truth live
under.
When I write an article, it does not inform me. I already know. When I inform you, I am
doing so at my risk. I am not going to take this risk if readers do not support this website. I
do this for you. If it is not important to you, I have no need to do it.
You need to support truth-tellers as we are a disappearing breed under constant assault.
Marine Le Pen says Putin is liberating Europe, and she's right. Le Pen, says she sees signs of what in her opinion is the beginning
of Europe's liberation. Soaring popularity of right-of-center forces in several European nations, coupled with Putin's meeting with
Austrian Chancellor Kurz during his visit to Vienna. "The world today is making a choice different from that made over the past 30
years. It is going to be a genuine peaceful and democratic revolution, a turn away from savage globalization, universal free exchange
and immigration. It will be a turn towards protection," she stated. "Italy, Hungary, Austria - we are witnesses to the beginning
of the liberation of Europe!" In her opinion, in Europe there should be no place for supra-national entities whose decisions would
outweigh those made by national governments.
Five-Star party supporters gather for a rally in Piazza del Popolo two days before the March 4 elections in downtown Rome. Italian
voters delivered a shock to Europe not felt since the UK's Brexit vote in June 2016. Two populist parties came out on top: The NATO/EU-skeptic
Five-Star Movement took home over 32 percent, of the vote while the right-wing Lega party garnered a surprising 17 percent. The fact
that both parties have called for better relations with Russia led immediately to the seemingly inevitable accusation that it was
the Kremlin, not Italian voters, who was ultimately responsible for the outcome. Two populist parties won big time in Italy, favoring
Putin.
What's Putin's secret?
Putin turned towards the most unlikely of sources, an American think tank based in Oakland, the Independent Institute -- whose
founding member of their Board of Advisors, is Lawrence Kudlow (who now serves as Director of the National Economic Council under
President Trump), had detailed how the tax cut policies of Democratic Party President John Kennedy, and Republican Party President
Ronald Reagan saved the American economy during some of its most dangerous economic times, that Mr. Kudlow described about in his
2016 book entitled "JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity".
Putin has restored Russia's economic health using Kennedy/Reagan tax cut policies. In 2001, a mere 18 months after Putin assumed
the mantle of pulling Russia out of the toilet that the Globalist had tried to create, Putin pushed through the Duma an American
style flat tax rate giving the Russian citizenry and businesses the lowest tax rates in the world. Such a move by Putin has been
hailed by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D, and whose Russia's
Christian leadership has declared as a miracle of God.
Russia's economy today:
National Debit -- a mere $200 Billion
National Wealth Fund -- over $66 Billion
Gold stockpiles of 223 tons valued over $76 Billion
International Reserves -- over $456 Billion
Russia's national resources valued at over $75 Trillion
Thanks to Putin's level-headed economic thinking, Russia's 143 Million Citizens can expect a life time of prosperity.
Where as the Borg/Globalist/Deep State has levied upon the U.S. Citizens a debt collar of:
U.S. National Debt -- over $21 Trillion
Unfunded Debt -- over $113 Trillion
When you combine the two, this means that every man, woman, and child in the U.S. now owes $933,000 each. Thanks to the Borg,
POTUS Trump has a mighty job to reverse their economic lunacy.
Putin has put Russia's flag firmly planted in Traditional Christianity, which is what POTUS Trump is restoring in the U.S. the
Christian principles of Home, Family, and Love of Nation. The vile Borg/Globalist/Deep State have tried to use identity politics
in hopes of dividing Russia's citizens against each other and their nation -- and has failed thanks to Putin. POTUS Trump has followed
in Putin's footsteps returning the power of the government and economic prosperity back to the people where it rightfully belongs.
That is why the Borg/Globalist/Deep State are in such a tizzy, they have been shown for what they really are, enemies of both the
U.S. and Russia, and mankind.
The Borg/Globalist/Deep State need to understand that their old order is over, that is what was shown at the G7. The populist
wave first ignited by Putin, and now championed by Trump, is sweeping across the Western World capturing the attention of freedom-seeking
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Slovenia.
I wouldn't give the credit to Putin: he may present an example, but I don't see any of this as being his doing. It's the failure
of the old system that's doing it. In short, the West (like the USSR in the Brezhnev time) just doesn't work. People are coming
to realise it.
"The populist wave first ignited by Putin, and now championed by Trump, is sweeping across the Western World capturing the attention
of freedom-seeking Greece, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Slovenia. "
With great respect, I believe it is not the case that Putin ignited a populist wave. In England I don't think that can be said.
That is also so in the US. I find it difficult to believe that what Marine Le Pen said can be taken as evidence that Putin ignited
a populist wave in France. In Germany - well, the Colonel's German correspondents could speak on that. I believe it is true most
"populist" movements have a more realistic outlook on Russia and many would welcome good relations, but that is common sense rather
than an ideological or political stance that owes anything to Putin.
The consciousness that we in the West have lost a good deal by rejecting "Traditional Values" is as far as I can see on the
rise. But there's a lot of nonsense talked about traditional values, as if they constituted some rarified value system that we
have to painfully re-discover. It is rather the assault on our values by doctrinaire ideologues that is abnormal. Remove that
assault and normality returns of itself. It cannot be imposed by the politicians, and in fact in such matters the politicians
would do well to simply get out of the way. It's a novel concept today, but in the cases where there are matters of Faith, values,
and morality that need a communal approach, we should tell the politicians what we want, rather than allowing politicians, progressive
or "populist" or traditional or of any other stripe, to tell us what we ought to want.
It should also be remembered that Faith, values and morality are continually evolving and that that evolution is best kept
as far as possible away from the politicians. I think Putin's got the sense to realise that. Most Western politicians haven't.
Speaking figuratively, we don't need to import a Putin to run such matters for us. We simply need to get ourselves some half-way
decent politicians and thereby run matters for ourselves.
On ecclesiastical matters, the relationship between the Russian establishment and the Orthodox Church is sui generis and can
have little relevance to us in the West.
On foreign policy it is true that Putin's approach to foreign policy is very different from the current Western approach. We
don't know whether that's merely because he's in a weak defensive position or whether his statements on foreign policy are genuine.
But it they're genuine (as I personally believe they are) so what? We shouldn't need a foreign statesman, no matter how personable,
to tell us that in the modern world wholesale murder and destabilisation should not be used as a means of pursuing our interests.
J - all this sounds a little hostile to Putin but I can assure you it's not. Putin is a great statesman and the Russians are
lucky he came along. To go further than that and to suggest he offers us or ever offered us a solution to our own problems is
I believe unrealistic. Our problems can only be solved by us.
I strongly disagree. Look what GB has become, and it will only grow worse. Inequality like in the US, homeless and jobless to
match, people relying on food banks to get by, and zero hour contracts, healthcare system crumbling and worst of all: inept ,
arrogant useless politicians, all very wealthy.
Naked unabated capitalism and deregulation at its worst.
The populist parties here on the continent appeals to the lowest denominator, they all need an enemy :immigrants!
Herman Göring explained it well at his trial (Read his comments from the trial)
The Populist have done the same.
"The populist parties here on the continent appeals to the lowest denominator, they all need an enemy :immigrants!"
1. We already have a common enemy. By "we" I mean all of us, immigrants, non-immigrants, and those who don't know who they
are. That common enemy is the interest group loosely called the "crony classes" that runs our politics and that is currently engaged
in running our respective economies into the ground.
If we squabble among ourselves, as your comment implies we do, then it's divide et impera and we lose.
2. It is a serious mistake to believe that concern over mass immigration implies hostility to immigrants themselves. In fact
mass immigration is just as disadvantageous for the immigrants and for the countries they come from as it is for non-immigrants.
Would you really like to be a Ukrainian immigrant in Poland? Wouldn't you prefer it if the Ukraine were still a fit place to live
in and you could prosper at home? Even more is that the case for the Syrians.
3. It is cant to assert that we must promote mass immigration for humanitarian reasons. The argument does not stand up to a
moment's inspection. Such cant aside, you'll find the arguments advanced for mass immigration are economic arguments. We need
more health workers and the like. The talk in the most successful of the large Western economies, Germany, is always "We have
a declining population. Who will look after us when we're old if we don't import more care workers?"
The use of cheap imported labour to solve problems wealthy Western countries should be able to solve for themselves is not
a humanitarian project. As I have been permitted to argue before in these pages, it is simply a modern adaptation of the previous
indentured labour system. It is profitable for some in the crony classes. It is not profitable in any sense for the rest of us.
4. If we are truly concerned for the welfare of those who do not live in our countries - and we certainly ought to be - then
let's put our hands in our pockets and give them some genuine help! Not fake help that benefits neither them nor us.
In short, DenLilleAbe, we've been sold a pup on mass immigration. One doesn't have to be a "populist" to see through the scam.
Even we Deplorables can.
EO, as it is local to you I am curious what your thoughts are about Tommy Robinson and the #FreeTommyRobinson movement. I just
learned about him recently and am trying to understand the background. How serious a problem are these immigrant "grooming gangs"
and is it true that the UK gov't is downplaying the rape issue out of PC concerns? I was shocked by the media gag on the Robinson
story. Seemed like overkill if there is no truth to his allegations against the gov't.
The enemy of the European populists isn't "immigrants". At best, it would be "immigration" - the deregulated chaotic phenomenon.
That's what people are against, and rightly so.
But, in fact, wherever populist have actually won elections, the main points of the campaign have been social and economic
- see Hungary or Italy. It's the EU and the Brussels-doctrine that have won them the elections. Same for Brexit.
As far I know, the only populist to have put immigration and identitarianism forth was Marine Le Pen, and she failed miserably
in the second turn, especially the debate against Macron.
It's, unsurprisingly, the bread and butter that people care most about. The strawman of xenophobia is put forth by the Borg,
especially the morally libertine wing, aka the left, to cover for their abandonment of any labour, social or economic difference
with the economically liberal wing, aka the right.
I think European are quite familiar with the history of earlier episodes of Barbarian Invasions in Europe - that many historians
blame for the demise of the Roman Empire - and wish to avoid its repetition.
Babak
The Borg will certainly do everything in its power to stop the disintegration of the Eurozone, but I'm not sure that the Italians
will be willing to live with youth unemployment of 40% forever. If either Greece, Italy, or Spain leave the EMU I am confident
that they will see an economic upturn within 16 months - then the EMU is doomed.
I do not think they have it in them to leave, specially Spain. They would be leaving America, the highest exponent of their civilization.
Neither the Flesh nor the Spirit would be so willing.
Comfort is one thing. But I think mentally they are not prepared to say "No" to the United States; US enjoys great prestige in
Europe and they won't abandon their anchor.
I mean, if they reject US and what she stands for, then what is left in Europe but Christianity?
Putin has restored Russia's economic health using Kennedy/Reagan tax cut policies.
Sorry to disagree in such a dramatic fashion but it was nothing like Kennedy, let alone Reagan. It also had very little to
do with taxation it did, however, have everything to do with stopping "privatization" (or robbery) and the start of nationalization
of strategic industries. Russia IS NOT the United States in any cultural-economic sense. Not even close.
I love the Kendedy Reagan Tax Cuts and how wonderful they were. I kinda remember the Reagan era as that was when my sweet, kind,
gentle and very intelligent wife passed all 4 sections of the CPA exam in one sitting and achieved an award for her high score.
I also remember how Bill Clinton's tax increase destroyed the American economy. Then came G.W.Bush's tax cuts that saved America.
Then that Obama guy raised taxes again and drove America into a Deep Recession. Thank God for Mr. Trump's tax cuts.
If the trends described are accurate, a big if, then the causes ascribed are only among a set of possible causes. Certainly, you
will admit there are others. If the ship of state founders, it may well be because other causes were not sought out diligently
enough.
Trump assumes the mantle of Saint Ronald? Thank God.
I personally find Russia's relapse into Orthodox Christianity and the US rise of fundamentalist Christianity to be appalling.
Religion is one of humanity's worst curses.
The only "religions" - more properly described as :"spiritual philosophies" - which I recommend are Chinese Taoism and Zen
Buddhism (as opposed to "orthodox" Buddhism.)
Also, I wouldn't be celebrating the "end of the old order" until it actually has ended without destroying everyone in the process.
How debased the message of the Prophets must have become that we should look to Taoist Thought and Zen Budhism for moral and spiritual
guidence and succor!
Neither Taoist Thought, nor Budhism in all its forms, nor any of the multitudes of sects and schools of Hinduism ever showed
a concern for any thing other than the "salvation" of one single individual. Concern for the other man, actual physical material
charity is non existent in them. Billions and billions of Bodhisattvas always supply worthless spiritual charity while neglecting
feeding or clothing the wretched human being that needs actual physical help.
Every evil that has afflicted East Asians in historical times may be traced back to this absence of the Prophetc Tradition
that began in Western Asia 8600 years ago by the Great Zoroaster.
Your own political position, discernible through your comments, critically is informed by the 3 and a half year long ministry
of Jesus, the Blessed Son of Mary.
Not only that, but in rational terms there is simply no comparison.
To mention but Scholastic thought, that's thousands and thousands of years of philosophy going back to Plato and Aristotle.
That's a level of rational thought that goes far beyond pretty much anything produced today and eclipses the platitudes and quizzes
of the Zen sayings.
This allure of the exotic religion or spirituality is probably is akin to the phenomenon of telescopic philanthropy described
by Dickens.
While I don't necessarily agree with every point of either Taoism or Zen, your comment clearly shows a complete lack of comprehension
of what Zen "quizzes" are actually about.
Also, Plato lived around 2,400 years ago which is not "thousands and thousands".
I was thinking the other day that we are now in possession of the technology to destroy, once and for all, the Wheel of Samsara
- just explode a few dozen hydrogen bombs in the oceans and the atmosphere of the Earth to make it sterile for ever and ever.
Once all life is extinguished on Earth, surely those souls cannot get reincarnated and the Wheel of Samsara would no longer
operate.
The creation of hydrogen bomb, therefore, is of greatest spiritual significance to Hinduism and Buddhism.
I wonder when they will start putting effigies of Edward Teller in Kali Temples - or in Shin-Tao shrines.
Sorry Babak, that won't do it. The departed still have physical bodies - although a much more rarified material (think along the
lines of photons are still material to help understand). They are also still very much attached to the physical dimensions because
physical matter is merely a form of thought in the universal mind of God and the souls he created and those souls are bound to
the physical realm until such time that they have transcended the karma and mentality that brought them into the physical in the
first place; which can take many lifetimes and dedication to truth and knowledge. So we can blow up the earth and its inhabitants,
toxify it or damage it in other ways and the souls will just build a new earth to inhabit and work through the thoughts and energies
that created it. Yes. I have consulted God on this several times.
I consulted with me, who is the only person I consult on such matters (although I do read a fair amount about such matters.)
For example, I know that Saul of Tarsus was a Roman double agent who founded the Christian doctrine and that he was denounced
by Jesus' own brother and run out of town under Roman escort to avoid being killed by Jesus' followers.
Jesus (assuming he actually lived) was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion, still less one that would
persecute his own people for two thousand years.
Kind of makes Christianity a bit of a fraud from the get-go.
Any Believer could easily discern in your account that God works in mysterious ways, causing a cynical double agent to become
His Instrumentality to alter History and create a new religion.
Russia didn't "relapse" into Orthodox Christianity since majority of Russians are either agnostics, atheists or Orthodox mostly
in form. Tradition also plays huge role and that is why manifestations of Russian Orthodox aesthetics are so prevalent--it is
normal for a nation which grew out of Orthodoxy and minded that even in Soviet times, however unofficially. This is not to mention
a major pagan element in Russian culture which is also present. In general, Russian spirituality is much more complex than religiosity
as one may observe things during mammoth Immortal Regiment marches.
Science shows that humans are adept at copying and rely on a massive transfer of cultural traditions to define ideas, values,
and actions and this shapes the capacity for logic, thought process, and various behaviors. These capacities vary tremendously
between cultural traditions. People will faithfully copy errors or obviously unnecessary actions when taught. Given the low iq
of the majority, "innovations" introduced are usually wrong or of low quality but again are faithfully copied. Chimps have been
shown to be more creative and with better short term memory whereas humans have sacrificed some of that to be able to rapidly
copy. Most have little incentive or ability to think about what they have copied and are more robotic than fully human.
I think the case is clear that much of western progress and science has roots in the deep self reflection, critical examination,
and mysticism of religious thought about how the world works - cosmologies, theologies, and attempts to understand the workings
of nature. Even our self concepts, soul, mind, spirit, self/other as separate from the tribes or natural forces, egoism, etc originate
from religious thought and people working to understand the relationship between God and mankind.
But then, of course, it all gets packaged for cultural transmission, doctrines get introduced, and original thinkers need to
break through all that. My point is though that some cultural transmissions create a rich soil for thought and innovation, and
some make it very difficult.
I believe that ground zero for the west isn't the Greeks. The Greeks copied much from the Persians but like most people claim
it as their own, and much of the culture they copied originated in the thought of Zoroaster. He defined a world view of right/wrong,
good/evil, where good thoughts, deeds, and actions are important vs. a world in which people are subject to the whim of the gods.
Dualism formed a basis that evolved into the objective observation, the dualism of observer/ objective universe of science.
Russia's preservation of Orthodox Christianity, which has a beautiful mystic core, keeps alive the foundation on which the
west, and science was built. I can see no way of comparing the Orthodox to fundamental christianity which is shamanistic, and
isn't even a relapse - it is the re-emergence of a more primitive and animistic worldview. It is like lumping the stone age and
21st century together and saying they are the same.
Humanism and the enlightenment sprang from a deeply religious society. Unfortunately our culture has devolved away from the
enlightenment towards a mushy sentimentalism that elevates and values "feelings" over everything else and debases the rational
mind. Liberal new age or fundamentalism - both are tribal and animistic and anti-science as they are at the core anti-religion
and both are busy chopping away the very roots that created greatness and neither can sustain it. As a minor example - Russia
has as many stem students as the US with half the population
Thank you for your kind words about Ancient Persians as well as Zoroaster.
In my opinion, the Zoroastrian religion is the only one extant in which the extinction of Human Race would actually be a disaster
for God himself and not just one consequence of his inscrutable will.
ok, maybe we should link Putin's interview with Austria's public channnel ORF too?
Soaring popularity of right-of-center
forces in several European nations, coupled with Putin's meeting with
Austrian Chancellor Kurz during his visit to Vienna.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events...
The very moment post 1945 Europe chose to embrace the so-called "liberal democracy" as the only viable form of rule it
turned into self-perpetuating elitist regime. Logic was impeccable – if the Liberalism as the ideology is the best thing that
happened to the Humanity, therefore it must be maintained at all costs. Democratic process presents a danger to the liberalism,
because gives a chance for non-liberal political forces to get to the power. Therefore, democracy must be eliminated. In the bourgeois
democracies of the West it is ludicrously easy to accomplish – as could be gleamed from the name, only people with money are your
lucky ticket into the politics. They are "the people" who rule. And international capital is the biggest Man of them all.
The "so-called liberal democracy" is usually termed neo-liberalism, if used as fighting term. What's the idea behind the we-are-the-people
takeover from the right? A more sunny future?
Great quote, LeaNder. You come up with some lovely stuff. But what's all this about a "we-are-the-people takeover from the right?".
Left and right have virtually no meaning any more. As for a more sunny future, that's in the lap of the gods. But if we bestir
ourselves we might just avoid a more dismal one.
Yes, I may have taken David Habakkuk's advice that there is often more wisdom in the comment section beneath the article then
in the article itself one step to far? ...
But yes, considering Lyttenbourg, who surfaced here too. ... We seem to be able to cross national frontiers via the arts, or
the history of culture, but beyond that for me he had the initial instinctive feel and touch of national pride. You would need
to go back to one of TTG's heavily contested contributions to Russia Gate to understand. My struggles should still show there.
"... Charles is the founder and editor of Russia Insider . He can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter and on Steemit . ..."
"... We will gradually be updating this post to include several collages representing about 15 publications. This one includes NEWSWEEK, TIME and THE ECONOMIST. Scroll down to see them all. ..."
We will gradually be updating this post to include several collages representing about
15 publications. This one includes NEWSWEEK, TIME and THE ECONOMIST. Scroll down to see them
all.
UPDATE 2 , June 7: Newsweek is one of most shameful spreaders of vitriolic Putin hatred. It
is a magazine which has gone from ownership by Katherine Graham's (Jewish) Washington Post
Group, where it went bust, losing out to its long-time rival TIME, and has since been passed
around by a string of shady owners. A Jewish electronics billionaire bought if from The
Washington Post for $1.
Meanwhile, its anti-Russian rhetoric has steadily ratcheted up, to the point where it really
does seem like it has just become a mouthpiece for US government agencies and / or Neocon
zealots who enjoy working themselves into a frenzy over how evil Putin and Russia are.
It is the worst kind of trash journalism, epitomized by truly psychotic Putin haters Anna
Nemtsova and Owen Matthews, both Jewish (Nemtsova is married to NY Times correspondent Andrew
Higgins, another great spreader of deception about Russia). It's main reason for existence
seems to be to churn out a relentless series of hit pieces against the Russian president. It is
closely connected with the Daily Beast .
UPDATE 1 , June 2: Here is The Economist , which I personally think is the worst of the lot,
because it has successfully cemented a reputation for excellent business coverage, inspiring a
lot of trust from people in business who don't follow politics too closely and pretty much
believe what they hear from trusted sources. It is definitely Jewish-owned, controlled by the
Rothschild family. It's editors and writers are also largely Jewish. Their completely
irresponsible and relentless demonization of Putin has been off the charts over the past 15
years.
We know. We watch who is saying what.
ORIGINAL POST , May 18, 2018:
A reader sent in cover collages for a whole bunch of magazines, and we will be publishing
them as a series, updated in this post. The first is Time Magazine , a big-time liar when it
comes to Russia.
Can Time be described as 'Jewish', in ownership or staff? Let's throw that one out to the
comments section. Maybe someone can do some quick research and figure that out. I will update
this article if any compelling info materializes, one way or the other.
In my article, It's Time to Drop the Jew
Taboo , I argued that the relentless demonization of Putin and Russia is largely a Jewish
phenomenon, pushed very hard in Jewish-owned media, and most obsessively by Jewish journalists,
and that this peculiarity warrants a balanced, public discussion. I think this reader sought to
provide evidence backing up that assertion.
If we, as a society, want to unpack this endemic lying about Russia, we have to be able to
discuss who is behind it, and why. This is not a complaint against Jews in general, just the
small group of them who dominate our media, and mislead us so outrageously about Russia, and a
lot of other things.
Stay tuned for more. We'll gradually update this post until they are all here.
When you see them all in one go, you realize something extraordinary is going on.
NEWSWEEK:
* *
THE ECONOMIST:
* *
TIME MAGAZINE
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the
images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon
it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider .
It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons
You may be right! But I am optimistic about this change of paradigm,
because now it appears that the 3 biggest World powers are collaborating in
this planet-wide "draining of the swamp". We will soon know if the Trump
military gov has been able to do its part, because Q Anon says that US
interventionism will be over, and their troops back home by November 2018
I'm also optimistic and btw I truly admire how well Putin is implementing
principles of conceptual power. But Putin along can't change the world. It is
a question of individual and collective awareness and that's where in this
dangerous times of global changes and humanity on the verge of next
technological stage/level there's a window of opportunity opening for us -
people of this planet. An opportunity to escape that tunnel scenario that was
imposed on humanity by current (centuries old) paradigm. Everyone knows what
that scenario is. Not many are realizing it yet.
But that is changing.
"... Orlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia and all sorts of other things. He moved to the US as a child, and lives in the Boston area. ..."
"... He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with James Howard Kunstler, another regular contributor to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. ..."
"... He is best known for his 2011 book comparing Soviet and American collapse (he thinks America's will be worse). He is a prolific author on a wide array of subjects, and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon. ..."
"... He has a large following on the web, and on Patreon, and we urge you to support him there , as Russia Insider does. ..."
"... His current project is organizing the production of affordable house boats for living on. He lives on a boat himself. ..."
"... If you haven't discovered his work yet, please take a look at his archive of articles on RI . They are a real treasure, full of invaluable insight into both the US and Russia and how they are related. ..."
Russia's Maddening Patience - Why Doesn't She Strike Back When Attacked? Russian behavior often mystifies Westerners -
this is an excellent explanation from one of the best analysts out there. Highly recommended.
Dmitry OrlovFri, Jun 1, 2018 | 14,484
368MORE:
PoliticsOrlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia
and all sorts of other things. He moved to the US as a child, and lives in the Boston area.
He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in
an excellent 2009 profile , along with
James Howard Kunstler, another regular contributor
to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up.
He is best known for his
2011 book comparing Soviet and American collapse (he thinks America's will be worse). He is a prolific author on a wide array
of subjects, and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon.
If you haven't discovered his work yet, please take a look at
his archive of articles on RI . They are a real treasure,
full of invaluable insight into both the US and Russia and how they are related.
A lot of commentators noticed a curious fact: during the May 9 parade in the Red Square in Moscow, Putin appeared in the presence
of Israeli prime minister Netanyahu. Around that same time, Israeli air force was firing rockets at Syrian and Iranian targets in
Syria (lots of which the Syrian air defenses shot down) and the Syrians were firing back at Israeli positions on the Golan Heights
(which are occupied Syrian territory, so it didn't count as an attack on Israel proper).
Why didn't Russia rise to the defense of its ally Syria? Moreover, there was talk of selling Russia's very powerful S-300 air
defense system to Syria, and that offer was subsequently withdrawn. Is this really how an ally behaves?
Or take another example: relations between Russia and the Ukraine has been in a downward spiral ever since the 2014 Kiev putsch
which overthrew the constitutional government. There is a festering sore of a military standoff in the Donbass region in eastern
Ukraine, a constant drumbeat of Ukrainian provocations against Russia, and Russia has been saddled with economic and political sanctions
by the US and the EU supposedly in response to the annexation of Crimea and the unsettled conflict in the Donbass that has claimed
some ten thousand lives.
And yet the Ukraine's largest trading partner remains Russia. Not only does Russia continue to trade with the Ukraine, but it
has also absorbed an exodus of economic refugees from the collapsed Ukrainian economy which numbers in the millions. Russia has resettled
these refugees, allowed them to find work, and is allowing them to send money back to their relatives in the Ukraine. Also, Russia
has declined to give political recognition to the two separatist republics in eastern Ukraine.
The only real stand Russia has taken with regard to the Ukraine is in claiming Crimea as its own. But this is more or less cut
and dried: Crimea was part of Russia ever since 1783, and the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which
occurred under Nikita Khrushchev in 1954, violated the constitution of the USSR that was in effect at the time.
Yet another example: the US, with the European Union acting as its obedient servant, have been imposing various kinds of sanctions
on Russia ever since the Magnitsky Act in 2012 which was pushed through by the fantastically corrupt oligarch William Browder. These
sanctions have been sometimes somewhat damaging, sometimes helpful (stimulating import replacement within Russia) and sometimes simply
annoying. Russia is too big, too important and too powerful for anyone, even an entity as large as the US and the EU combined, to
isolate it or to bend it to its will by imposing sanctions.
In some cases, there is a powerful boomerang effect that causes more pain for the sanctioners than the sanctioned. But Russia
really hasn't done much in response -- other than working on import replacement and establishing trade relationships with other,
friendlier nations. It could have actually hurt the US, for instance, by blocking the sale of titanium parts without which Boeing
wouldn't be able to build its planes.
Or it could prohibit the sale of rocket engines to the US, and the US would then be unable to launch satellites. But Russia hasn't
done any of that; instead, it just kept repeating that these sanctions are unproductive and unhelpful.
One more: in violation of agreements that Russia and the NATO nations have entered into, NATO has expanded all the way to the
Russian border and has recently turned the tiny Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into a sort of militaristic playpen,
holding military exercises right next to the Russian border, stationing thousands of troops there and training them to attack Russia.
Russia has complained about this, but has continued to trade with all of the countries involved. In particular, it has continued
to supply the Baltic states with electricity and to use Baltic ports to ship out its products.
When recently Latvia banned the use of Russian in schools (a third of Latvia's population is Russian) and started violating the
rights of Lithuanian Russians who tried fighting back against this affront, the Russians took even this blatant act of anti-Russian
discrimination in stride. In Latvia, the lights are still on and the loaded Russian freight trains are still rolling in across the
border.
"Why is that?" you might ask. "Why such a passive attitude against these numerous sleights, offenses and injuries?" It can't be
said that Russia is too big to hurt. The sanctions in 2012 were a piffle, but in 2014 the Russian economy did take a hit (though
mostly from lower energy prices, not from sanctions). The ruble lost half its value and Russia's poverty rate crept up. What's going
on, then?
To understand that, you have to take a step back and look at the overall context.
• Russia is the largest country in the world in size, but certainly not in population. Its borders are very well defended, but
they stretch over 61 thousand kilometers.
• The Russian Federation is Russian in name, but it includes over a hundred different nations, with ethnic Russians making up
just over 80%, and with six other nations that are each over a million strong.
• It borders 16 sovereign states -- more than any other country -- including two maritime boundaries (with Japan and the US),
and two more internationally unrecognized states (Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
• It has the largest diaspora in the world, with between 20 and 40 million Russians (depending on how you count them) living outside
of Russia proper. The largest Russian community overseas is in the US at around 3 million.
• Russian peacekeeping troops have served in numerous countries around Russia itself and across the world -- Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
Armenia, Transnistria, Tadjikistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Angola, Chad, Sierra Leone, Sudan -- and remain instrumental in keeping latent
conflicts from escalating to war.
• Russia's huge landmass and enormous wealth in natural resources make it one of the main purveyors of economically essential
products to the world, especially oil, gas, uranium and coal, which keep the lights on and the pipes from freezing in dozens of countries.
No matter what goes wrong in international relations, it must remain a stable and reliable supplier.
In this environment, countering hostile (and mostly futile) gestures emanating from across the ocean with hostile (and mostly
futile) gestures of one's own would be counterproductive: some people would get hurt, and there is some likelihood that they would
be Russian.
Thus, part of the winning approach is to just muddle through, maintaining the best relations achievable with as many countries
as possible, the neighbors especially, talking to every side in every conflict and trying to defuse it and carefully balancing the
disparate interests of all involved. Russia has good relations with both Iran and Saudi Arabia, who are sworn enemies, and with both
Syria and Israel, who are shooting at each other.
The other part of the winning approach to confronting an increasingly hostile outside world is to move in the direction of limited
autarky; not closing itself off to the world, but taking measured steps to become relatively invulnerable to its vicissitudes. Russia
is already self-sufficient in energy, making strides in becoming self-sufficient in food, and the next challenge is to reach self-sufficiency
in technology and finance.
Viewed in this context, Russia's seeming failures to act forcefully turn out to be parts of a careful balancing act:
• Israelis bomb Syria while Netanyahu sits at a place of honor during the parade in Moscow. Syria strikes back by bombing its
own territory in the Golan Heights. Then Russia decides not to sell the S-300 system to Syria. What just happened? Well, Israel just
recognized Victory Day -- May 9th -- as its own national holiday. A third of Israelis are in fact Russian, and a lot of them felt
very proud to be Russian that day, and took part in big parades that were broadcast on Russian television. In the face of a rising
wave of antisemitism in Europe and with neo-Nazis running amok in the Ukraine, Russia and Israel stand united.
Then there is the fact that Israel doesn't like the fact that there are Iranians in Syria. It certainly has the right to feel
that way, given the fact that the Iranians keep talking about how Israel should be destroyed. But Iranian presence in Syria is by
invitation, so that's not Russia's concern. Having Israel bomb Syria isn't helpful to Russia, but this wasn't the first time and
won't be the last.
Syria successfully shooting down Israeli missiles and then firing on Israelis in the Golan Heights was a new development, and
an escalation, and escalations are always bad. Selling the S-300 system to the Syrians would have enabled Syria to shoot down anything
in the air over all of Israel, and since they had just escalated, giving them the ability to escalate even further would seem to
be wrong.
• The Ukraine continuously provokes Russia and violates the rights of the eight million Russians living there, and yet Russia
remains the Ukraine's largest trading partner. What gives? Well, there is the unpleasant fact that the Ukraine is currently ruled
by people who are, to use a very specific Russian term, "inadequate." It is an illegal, immensely corrupt regime that is supported
by another regime that's across the ocean, which is, by the way, also rather "inadequate" -- headed by a ridiculous buffoon who is
in turn being thwarted at every turn by an immensely corrupt "deep state."
But these are temporary facts, and in no way do they override the permanent fact that the Russians and the Ukrainians are essentially
the same people (with the exception of a few tribes that mainly inhabit the west of the country that was for centuries a Central
European no man's land -- next door to Transylvania, where the vampires come from).
The Russians and the Ukrainians are genetically indistinguishable, and there are numerous nations within Russia that are far more
culturally different from the Russians than the Ukrainians. The winning strategy in this case is to avoid hurting the Ukraine, because
it is already hurting itself quite enough, and because doing so would in essence just hurt some Russians.
Instead, it makes more sense to simply be patient and wait things out. Eventually, the people in the Ukraine will have had enough
and will take matters into their own hands, throw the bums out together with their overseas handlers, and the relationship will eventually
become more normal.
• On the Western sanctions , Russia has imposed some counter-sanctions, and they were clever ones. Russia banned various categories
of food imports from the EU. This made it possible to ramp up food production within Russia and to move Russia toward self-sufficiency
in food. Since within the EU farmers are politically quite powerful, this made US sanctions unpopular in Europe.
Add to this the fact that the US now wants to sanction Russian energy imports in Europe, forcing the Europeans to buy from the
US, whose supplies are much more expensive and far less reliable, and you can see why the Europeans have by now had enough of Washington's
meddling. Of course, having surrendered much of their sovereignty a long time ago, the Europeans face fantastic difficulties in trying
to claw it back, but at least they are starting to think about it.
This is already a win for Russia: it needs independent, sovereign nations for neighbors, not a bunch of Washington's feckless
vassals. As far as imposing countersanctions on the US itself, that would just cause some more economic damage without securing any
political advantages.
• On NATO encroachment on Russian borders , anti-Russian slights by the Baltic midgets and NATO troops training to "attack Russia"
-- well, frankly, the Russians are a little bit insulted, but they are not exactly afraid. Everybody knows that NATO is part of the
American defense establishment racket. Its purpose is to steal boatloads of money, not to make weapons that work or to train armies
that can fight. There is now quite a bit of NATO armor and manpower prepositioned in the Baltics, but not enough to actually invade
Russia in any meaningful way.
And if they ever do, they will get lonely very quickly. You see, NATO armor doesn't fit under most bridges and can't move large
distances over rough terrain like Russian armor can. It has to be transported to the field of battle by train or on flatbed trucks
over federal highways. Or it has to be shipped in via deepwater ports.
So, all that Russia has to do is take out some bridges and some port facilities by launching rockets from pretty much anywhere,
then kettle and destroy the relatively small contingent of invaders, and it will be game over. NATO knows this, and so all of this
activity in the Baltics is just a way to funnel some money to the economically anemic and rapidly depopulating Baltic states.
They are suffering already; why hurt them more? As for the rights of the Russians in Latvia, one might think that they don't really
mind having them violated -- or they'd be moving to Russia where there is plenty of room for them. They deserve lots of moral support,
of course, but it's really their battle, not Russia's.
This doesn't make the most exciting reading in the world, but so be it. People search the internet for stories about dramatic
turns of events, mostly because they are bored. It often happens that the most important developments fail to thrill, but this doesn't
make them any less important. For example, Russia is reducing its defense spending, because it will soon be fully rearmed.
Can the US and NATO do the same? No! If they ever tried, the American defense establishment would get a new set of congressmen
and senators voted in, and the profligate spending would resume forthwith. And so the Russians can just sit calmly, arms folded,
and watch the US bankrupt itself.
That will certainly be a dramatic turn of events; you'll just have to wait for it.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format,
with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia
Insider . It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons
The part about ' Israel and Russia ' stand together is wrong.
Putin is just displaying cold, hard, diplomacy, by hosting Netanyahu.
Netanyahu has been to Moscow 8 times in 3 years, obviously pleading and begging, sometimes demanding and shouting matches happen
at the Kremlin, with Israeli officials losing it. Putin on the other hand has not visited Israel. So, its a total one-way street.
Its Israel that needs , not Russia.
Israel offers Russia nothing at all. Even though a million Israeli's are of Russian origin, Russia has 20 million Muslim citizens.
Iran and Russia, on the other hand, have very large trade agreements, in many fields, with Iran being a critical, integral, and
indispensable part of the Chinese OR-OB initiative that Russia is also heavily into.
Iran is to become a full member in the many trade and financial organizations of Eurasia/Asia.
Israel, is a tiny apartheid state/outpost that is a warmonger hiding behind the U.S., Britain and France. While being in direct
, blatant violation of 70 U.N. Resolutions, far too many conventions and civilized norms. Not exactly the country/outpost that
Russia see's a mutually beneficial relationship with.
On the other hand, Russia, along with China and Iran are going to re-build Syria, and also Iraq. Russia stands to gain enormously
from this. Russia is slated to build more nuclear reactors for Iran, while rail links and cultural exchanges are growing by leaps
and bounds.
Israel offers Russia nothing. Israel shields criminal Russian Jews who looted the Russian people during the 1990's and refuses
to hand them over to Russia for justice, or even return the money.
So, I'm afraid your wrong. Putin, his administration and the astute Russian people know who the global troublemakers are. They
are the ones pushing for more and more sanctions, war talk and out-right lies and smear against Russia, Putin etc. They are international
Jews, who operate from ' think tanks ' , columnists , moguls, government officials etc. Victoria Nuland, the author of the Ukraine
debacle is Jewish. The Kiev junta is mostly Jewish.
And I firmly believe that Russians have not forgot about the bloody 20th century they had at the hands of Bolshevik Jews, and
then the criminal Jewish vultures who descended on it when it was weak in the 90's.
I am reminded of a press conference between Putin and Nuttygetpoo, and Putin quickly said ( As Nutty was having a mental seizure
about ancient Persian and Judea)
that happened thousands of years ago it's our job to solve problems of the here and now
"... One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is a phenomenon that everyone can notice: the total absence of a second opinion. When a commentator voices the official line on an event, does anyone express an alternative version? Is there a debate between the official spokesman and a contrary commentator? In the democratic media, that would be commonplace. Here it is very, very rare. ..."
"... What can be done to counter such brainwashing? Not much. ..."
"... First of all: there is a vital need for a second voice. Brainwashing can be efficient only when the official voice enjoys a complete monopoly. That was one of the aims of Haolam Hazeh, the weekly which I edited for 40 years. It met every untrue government version with a contrary version. Although our voice was weak, compared to the powerful government machine (even in those days), the very fact that there are two voices, however unequal, prevents a total brainwashing. The citizen hears two versions and wonders "who is right?" ..."
"... The power of the truth against a brainwashing machine is always limited. But in the end, even if it takes time, truth will prevail. It needs courage. ..."
It's
frightening. Unprincipled psychologists, in the service of a malignant regime, use
sophisticated techniques in order to control the mind of a person from afar.
The term "brainwashing" was born in 1950. It is a Chinese word ("xinao", literally wash
brain). Originally it served to describe a technique used – so it was claimed – by
Chinese masterminds to manipulate the minds of American prisoners in the Korean War. They
changed their unconscious mental processes and turned them into agents of sinister forces.
Many books and movies purported to show how this works. For example, the classic film "The
Manchurian Candidate" shows how the communists take an American prisoner-of-war in the Korean
war, an officer, manipulate his mind and give him an order to kill the US presidential
candidate. The American officer does not know that he has been turned unconsciously into a
communist agent. He does not remember the order given him under hypnosis and does not know that
he acts accordingly.
This pilot is ridiculous, like most of the pseudo-scientific descriptions. In practice, it
is much easier to manipulate the minds of people, individuals and collectives.
For example, the Nazi "propaganda". It was invented by Adolf Hitler himself. In his book,
Mein Kampf , he describes how, as a soldier on the Western front in WWI, he witnessed
the extremely successful British propaganda. The British dropped leaflets over the German
trenches and shattered the soldiers' confidence in their leadership.
When Hitler came to power in Germany, he entrusted one of his faithful henchmen, Joseph
Goebbels, with the creation of a Ministry of Propaganda. Goebbels turned propaganda into an art
form. Among other means he turned all the German media – newspapers and the radio –
into government agencies. In German that was called "Gleichschaltung" – connecting all
components to one electric line. Thanks to this, Nazi Germany continued fighting long after it
was clear that it had lost WWII.
One of the means was the disconnection of the German public from any other source of
information. The official propaganda was blared from every medium. Listening to a foreign
broadcast was a major crime, punished severely.
Thus it happened that the Germans still believed in their final victory – the Endsieg
– even after the Soviets in the East and the Anglo-Saxons in the West had already crossed
the borders into Germany.
Does it take a dictatorial regime – Nazi or Communist – to turn the media into a
brainwashing machine? Common sense says that this is impossible in a democracy. Common sense is
wrong.
It will be remembered that Hitler attained power by democratic means. Even now, fanatical
nationalists are winning democratic elections in many countries. All their leaders are busy
destroying the courts, stuffing the parliaments with useful idiots and – especially
– turning the media into brainwashing instruments. In our country, too.
How is this done? It's quite simple, really: one has to suppress all other voices. One has
to make sure that the citizen hears only one voice. One that repeats a few messages over and
over, endlessly. This way the lie becomes truth.
In such a situation, the ordinary citizen becomes convinced that the official line is really
their own personal opinion. This is an unconscious process. When one tells a citizen that they
are brainwashed, they are deeply insulted.
This has been happening in Israel over the last few years. The citizen is not conscious that
it is happening. He or she absorbs diverse newspapers, TV programs and radio broadcasts, and
sees that all these media are freely arguing with each other and even quarreling with each
other. The citizen is not conscious of the fact that on the one critical subject of our life
– war and peace – all the media are "connected" to one singular line of
brainwashing.
During the last few weeks we have been seeing a perfect example of this mechanism. The
events on the Gaza Strip border have activated a mechanism of brainwashing that dictatorial
regimes in the world can only envy.
Let's examine ourselves: what have we heard over the radio? What have we seen on TV? What
did we read in the papers?
Within a few weeks more than a hundred human beings were shot dead, and many thousands were
wounded by live fire. Why?
"We were forced to fire at them because they were storming the border fence". And indeed,
did the Gazans themselves not proclaim their will to "return home" – meaning, to return
to Israeli territory?
But on May 14, "Black Monday", 63 unarmed demonstrators were shot dead and over 1500 wounded
by live fire. Every Israeli knows that this was necessary because the demonstrators stormed the
fence and were about to swarm into Israel. Nobody paid attention to the simple fact that there
was not a single photo showing such an occurrence. Not even one. In spite of the fact that on
both sides of the fence there were hundreds of photographers, including Israeli army
photographers, who filmed every single detail. Tens of thousands stormed, and not a single
picture?
One should notice the use of the word "terror". It has turned into an adjective attached to
everything. There are not just tunnels – they are all always "terror-tunnels". There are
"terror-activists". There is "the Hamas terror-regime" and there are "terror-bases". Now there
are "terror-kites".
Notice: not just "incendiary kites", or "destruction-kites", only "terror-kites". The same
every day in all media. Someone has made the terminology decision. Of course, everyone who has
the word "terror" attached to his name is "a son of death", as you say in biblical Hebrew.
Another proud term of the brainwashing.
The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are "terrorists". (In Hebrew, a special term has been
invented: "Mekhablim"). All of them? Of course, no question. Especially Hamas members. But
Hamas is a political party, which has won democratic elections in all of Palestine. A civilian
party which has indeed a military wing. But in our media all party members and supporters are
"terrorists", sons of death. Of course.
The use of these terms, hundreds of times every day, clearly constitute brainwashing,
without the citizens noticing it. They are getting used to the fact that all Gazans are
terrorists, mekhablim. This is a process of dehumanization, the creation of Untermenschen in
the Nazi lexicon. Their killing is allowed, even desirable.
In such an atmosphere, even abominable sentences pass unnoticed. For example, this week I
heard on one of the TV news programs this sentence from the mouth of a military correspondent,
speaking about the coming Gaza demonstration: "Iran wants dead demonstrators, and it seems that
they will get them." One has to read this sentence twice to realize what it says: that the
Israeli sharpshooters serve Iranian interests.
Or a sentence that is repeated again and again, even by respected commentators: "Iran wants
to destroy the State of Israel". I don't know what 80 million Iranians want, nor does the
writer. But the sentence itself is ridiculous. Israel is a nuclear power. How does one
annihilate a nuclear power (with submarines that can launch nuclear devices in the hour of
need). Are the Iranians ready to turn their country – one of the cradles of human
civilization – into a graveyard and a desert?
Or a forecast "Friday another violent demonstration will take place". "Violent"? "Another"?
There is no argument about the fact that all the demonstrations along the Gaza fence were
completely nonviolent. The demonstrators did not shoot one single shot, when thousands of them
were wounded by live fire, and more than a hundred killed. Yet the lie passes without
comment.
Not a single one of the hundreds of TV news program presenters ever corrects such statements
by correspondents. Because the directors, presenters, commentators and correspondents are
themselves thoroughly brainwashed. The army spokesman knows the truth, of course, but he is a
central cog in the brainwashing machine.
Events reached a climax with the murder of the 21-year-old female paramedic Razan Ashraf
al-Najjar, when she was trying to save the life of a wounded demonstrator. The sharpshooter who
shot her in the chest saw that she was a medic treating a wounded person. It was a clear war
crime.
Was there a public outcry? Did the media demand an investigation? Did the media report this
event in their page one headline? Did the Knesset observe a minute of silence? Nothing of the
sort. A minor news item in some papers (by no means all). An excellent
article by the admirable Amira Hass in Haaretz . And that's that.
A few days passed, and abroad there were outcries. The Argentine soccer team, with the
admired Messi, canceled a friendly game against the Israeli team in Jerusalem.
The brainwashers realized that it was impossible not to react. So the army spokesman
published a statement saying that an investigation had taken place. What did it discover? Ah,
well. It was clearly established that nobody had shot Razan. She was hit by the ricochet of a
bullet that had hit the ground far from her. That is such a blatant lie that even the army liar
should be ashamed of producing it. It was accepted by the brainwashed public.
One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is a phenomenon that everyone can notice: the total
absence of a second opinion. When a commentator voices the official line on an event, does
anyone express an alternative version? Is there a debate between the official spokesman and a
contrary commentator? In the democratic media, that would be commonplace. Here it is very, very
rare.
What can be done to counter such brainwashing? Not much.
First of all: there is a vital need for a second voice. Brainwashing can be efficient
only when the official voice enjoys a complete monopoly. That was one of the aims of Haolam
Hazeh, the weekly which I edited for 40 years. It met every untrue government version with a
contrary version. Although our voice was weak, compared to the powerful government machine
(even in those days), the very fact that there are two voices, however unequal, prevents a
total brainwashing. The citizen hears two versions and wonders "who is right?"
If all the peace and human rights groups in Israel set up a joint center for information,
which will be heard, perhaps the monopoly of official propaganda can be broken. Perhaps.
There is in the country a tiny band of commentators who are not afraid to tell the truth,
even when this is considered treason. Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, and a few others. We must ensure
that their voice is heard. They must be encouraged.
All the media must be pressured to present a variation of views on matters of war and peace,
to let the "internal enemy" be heard, so that the citizen is able to form an opinion of their
own.
The foreign media must be allowed free access to the sources of information, even when the
foreign media are critical, "hostile" and "anti-Semitic". Friends of Israeli-Palestinian peace
abroad must be encouraged to pressure the media in their homelands to publish the truth about
what is happening here.
I don't like the word "must". But in this context, no other will do. The power of the
truth against a brainwashing machine is always limited. But in the end, even if it takes time,
truth will prevail. It needs courage.
The movie The Manchurian Candidate has a surprise ending: in the last minute, instead
of killing the presidential candidate, the brainwashed man shoots the communist agent who was
supposed to take his place.
Uri Avnery is a peace activist, journalist, writer, and former member of the Israeli
Knesset. Read other articles by Uri , or visit
Uri's website
.
Neoliberals are a flavor of Trotskyites and they will reach any depths to hang on to power.
Notable quotes:
"... Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their enemies and giving money to their friends. ..."
"... Nothing short of a grass roots campaign (such as that waged by GetUp!) will get rid for us of these modern let-them-eat-cake parasites who consider their divine duty to lord over us. ..."
Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows powerful
groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their enemies and giving
money to their friends.
And when the conservative "Christians" form a neoliberal government, the results are toxic for all, except themselves and their
coterie.
Nothing short of a grass roots campaign (such as that waged by GetUp!) will get rid for us of these modern let-them-eat-cake
parasites who consider their divine duty to lord over us.
From comments: "Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for
national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate
authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other
countries." But the problem with this statement is the dynamics of American Imperialism, which would not tolerate any
government which is not a vassal.
Notable quotes:
"... Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality. Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example, the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but dangerous. ..."
"... When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs. ..."
"... For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is indispensable in analyzing world events. ..."
"... However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in Westphalian terms. ..."
"... Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive, idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of their own nations but that of the others. ..."
"... Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American companies and capitalists. ..."
"... The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood, from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions (Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard, too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence of the Emirs of Kuwait). ..."
"... An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank. ..."
"... What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for it to protect the nation. ..."
"... Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other countries. ..."
"... Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other, leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914. ..."
"... There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables). ..."
"... Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just and moral", which is an idealistic a notion. ..."
Great power competition is everywhere these days -- in Syria, Ukraine, the South China Sea,
North Korea. With the rise of China and the rejuvenation of Russian military power, realist
thinking is suddenly back in vogue, as it should be.
Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better
world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality.
Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example,
the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably
progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but
dangerous. The liberal idea that the UN can foster world order through international
institutions is likewise naïve and perilous. Fantasy lands in art and literature can be
wonderful divertissements , but using them as the basis for great nation's foreign
policy can produce nightmares.
George W. Bush created a dream world in his mind where it seemed plausible for American
military power to end "tyranny in our world." Tyranny, as anyone who has not slipped the bonds
of reality knows, is rooted in the human soul and cannot be "ended." Tyranny can be checked and
mitigated, but only through extraordinary effort and with the help of a rich tradition.
But it is always easier to assign oneself virtue based on self-applauding and unrealistic
notions about world peace. When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the
bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and
bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs.
Yet for all their sagacity, realist thinkers are not without their problems either. They
tend to deny the moral nature of human beings and the role that this may play in world events.
Because they have seen the great danger of moralistic idealism in foreign policy, they
sometimes don't think morality should be considered at all. Realist theory has a cold, inhumane
quality that makes it inattentive to the moral dimension of human existence.
The failure of realists to incorporate moral considerations into their thinking has made
realism unpopular with the American people, who historically believe that their nation's
foreign policy should have at least some moral content. They, after all, send their own boys
and girls to war, and they would like to think that those sacrifices are not made for some
mechanistic balance of power. They know that statesmen must often make cold calculations in the
national interest, but surely somewhere in there must be right and wrong, as in all human
endeavors.
Because some realists have adopted the philosophically untenable position that morality has
no role in world affairs, many Americans have signed on with the moralists' disastrous crusades
instead. The realists have the stronger policy case, but they have ceded the moral ground to
the idealists.
Ironically, it may be the work of Henry Kissinger that can show realists an intellectual
path toward restoring a sense of morality in foreign policy.
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from
interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a
general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of
Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is
indispensable in analyzing world events.
However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to
create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is
required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in
itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will
break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in
Westphalian terms.
Kissinger also says that enlightened leaders must not only recognize the realities of power
politics and the hard Machiavellian truths of international competition, but possess a certain
moral quality that he calls "restraint." Without a willingness to restrain themselves and to
act dispassionately, world leaders will be incapable of building an international order. When
facing difficult challenges, enlightened diplomats and statesmen must have the moral courage to
accept certain "limits of permissible action." Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that
morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a
certain temperament and moral character can support the Westphalian model.
Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior
for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive,
idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under
complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure
self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of
their own nations but that of the others. Such a policy cannot be sketched out in the
abstract in advance; it can emerge only through the moral leadership of genuine statesmen who
act to find a specific solution in a set of complex, concrete circumstances. This is one of the
great lessons of classical political philosophy: justice is not an abstraction but found
concretely in the soul of the just man.
The answer to the question of what a just and moral foreign policy might look like is that
it's the kind that truly just and moral, but also supremely realistic, statesmen will adopt.
That such statesmen are rare is what has caused the great philosophers to lament that only the
dead have seen the end of war.
William S. Smith is managing director and research fellow at the Center for the Study of
Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.
Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential
in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a certain temperament and moral character can support
the Westphalian model.
1) In 1971, the government of Pakistan carried out a genocide of its Hindu minority in
what is now Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). Somewhere between 1 and 3 million Hindus were
killed, and many thousands of Bengali Muslim leaders and intellectuals were murdered by the
Pakistani regime.
Kissinger and Nixon supported Yahya Khan's government, and even shipped weapons to
Pakistan while the genocide was going on.
From Gary Bass's article in the New Yorker:
While the slaughter in what would soon become an independent Bangladesh was underway,
the C.I.A. and State Department conservatively estimated that roughly two hundred thousand
people had died (the official Bangladeshi death toll is three million). Some ten million
Bengali refugees fled to India, where untold numbers died in miserable conditions in refugee
camps. Pakistan was a Cold War ally of the United States, and Richard Nixon and his
national-security advisor, Henry Kissinger, resolutely supported its military dictatorship;
they refused to impose pressure on Pakistan's generals to forestall further
atrocities.
2) Kissinger was one of key organizers of the 1973 coup against the democratically elected
Allende government in Chile. When Allende was elected, this moral stalwart told his staff "I
don't see any reason why we should stand around and do nothing when a country goes communist
because of the irresponsibility of its own people."
In the first months after the coup d'état, the military killed thousands of
Chilean leftists, both real and suspected, or forced their "disappearance". The military
imprisoned 40,000 political enemies in the National Stadium of Chile In October 1973, the
Chilean songwriter Víctor Jara, and 70 other political killings were perpetrated by
the death squad, Caravan of Death (Caravana de la Muerte).
The government arrested some 130,000 people in a three-year period; the dead and
disappeared numbered thousands.
****************
Tom Lehrer once said that satire died when Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Fortunately William Smith's article about Kissinger's "morality" shows that comedy is not yet
dead, even if the comic relief is inadvertent.
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of MAJOR POWERS refraining from interference in
each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general
equilibrium of power."
Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the
affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United
States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American
companies and capitalists.
The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood,
from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention
Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions
(Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard,
too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have
been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence
of the Emirs of Kuwait).
Would the realists have responded to the 2009 coup in Honduras with any more morality than
Hilary Clinton did? Would the economic war upon Venezuela be any less damaging than it has
been under Bush II, Obama or Trump? Yes, some of the realists would not have launched the
invasion of Iraq, but would they have lifted the sanctions regime on Iraq? Would they have
restrained the Saudis in Yemen?
An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and
woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist
making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank.
Dr. Smith apparently has a misunderstanding about Machiavelli's realism being devoid of
morality.
What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality
as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency
they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for
it to protect the nation.
Example: Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan;
Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in WW II
because to warn them would have revealed that the Brits had cracked the German secret codes;
and Pres. Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the
Contras in Nicaragua.
This is in sharp contrast to statesmen (women) such as Hillary Clinton
who used evil gratuitously by taking bribes from foreign nations to fund her foundation; or
Pres. Bill Clinton who "wagged the dog" by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to divert
attention away from a sex scandal.
Machiavelli was not anti-religious or anti-morality,
contrary to pop explanations by liberal media, novels and academics (read Erica Benner's book
Machiavelli's Ethics).
Henry Kissinger as a moral man? I really wish you had a better example to prove your valid
point. The man who was responsible for the murder of millions in Indo China including the
bombing of non combatant countries like Laos is hardly qualified to talk about morality of
anything.
Im not sure morality is even possible. I wonder if it ever was possible.
Everyone in the west is taught the values of multicultural and diversity while the rest of
the world is still tribal. It is those tribes who we (US) considers allies which are
controlling much of our foreign policy. The other constituency is just as old and its the
monied class or the corporations whose only goal is to maintain and grow revenue.
Thank god we have domestic and international law which constrains our foreign policy to
moral issues.
These terms get murky.
Neocons are idealists but most definitely believe in great power competition and dominance.
U.S. interests can only be protected if authoritarian regimes are replaced by pro-U.S.
Democratic govts which is why we were so aggressive in expanding our influence in Eastern
Europe, often through covert means and by force in the M.E. I never had much use for the term 'realism'.
Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for
national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate
authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other
countries.
We have been brainwashed to consider him an offender in this model because of Ukraine but
his response was a minimalist response to a crisis on his border. We go on crusades and
experiment on other countries thousands of miles away from our shores.
Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in
relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The
balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers
wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the
balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other,
leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914.
Westphalia
was a slightly different situation. A 30-year, on again–off again, triangular German
"civil war" between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, with much foreign interference, had
reached a stalemate, which, in practice, amounted to a Catholic defeat. The only way out was
to let everybody keep what they had and agree not to try to take more. It was forced
forbearance rather than balance.
In Europe, at least, peace certainly depends upon "a system of independent states refraining
from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions
through a general equilibrium of power". The European Union is the modern expression of that
principle.
That's why Putin's interferences in Ukraine's domestic affairs and his undisguised
attempts to destroy the EU have set off alarm bells all across Europe and why US
unwillingness to check his ambitions is making the EU the only viable option to ensure peace
in Europe.
Kissinger is an extremely bad person to cite on the subject of morality in a realist foreign
policy. John Quincey Adam's would be better. Coincidentally, TAC printed him on this very
subject --
"Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better
world"
It need not be that. The "vision thing" that Bush I famously did not do could well be a
part of our national interest, one of the things coldly evaluated, and contributing to our
strength when done correctly.
Of Wayne Lusvardi's examples of "existential" emergencies for which evil can be done to
"protect the nation," "Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan" is at best
debatable given the evidence that the Japanese were willing to surrender as long as they
could keep their emperor, and especially to keep the Soviets from declaring war on them,
while "Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in
WW II" is legitimate, in my opinion.
But "Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the
Contras in Nicaragua" is laughable. American pride may have needed protection from the
hostage "crisis," but the American nation certainly did not, as it was not threatened in any
way. American foreign policy continued on its way, funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan,
backing the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese Stalinists who drove them from power in
Cambodia, and buying off Egypt, so you can't even say that America's "standing in the world"
particularly suffered from the hostage "crisis."
And as for "Pres. Bill Clinton who 'wagged the dog' by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to
divert attention away from a sex scandal," I'll trump that shameful episode with Pres. Ronald
Reagan invading Grenada two days after the Beirut barracks bombing.
Our D.I. In basic training in his frustration to turn raw recruits into soldiers would raise
his arms to the sky imploring the aid of the Commander-in-Chief in the heavens and holler,
"Dear Lord, give'em books and all they do is eat'em!" That's the way I viewed William Smith's
essay on the need for an infusion of a reconstituted morality in our foreign policy.
After
basic training, I then served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam, where I was confronted with
the grim and brutal reality of that quagmire and learned that the road to hell is paved with
good intentions. LBJ would come to regret calling South Vietnam President Ndo Dinh Diem the
"Churchill of Asia." There lies the dilemma when idealism confronts reality.
More generally,
I disagree with the centrality of the Westphalian concept of what constitutes a nation in the
post-modern world. Smith mentions the influence of non-actors such as jihadists to alter our
foreign policy goals but overlooks how corporations have also altered that concept with their
doctrine of globalization for profits which undercuts national sovereignty established in
Westphalia. Smith seems to be wandering between two worlds, "one dead / The other peerless to
be born" as Mathew Arnold lamented in his poem "Stanzas from the Grande Chartreuse."
Smith is
trying to promote a revisionist history of the last fifty years just as Niall Ferguson did in
the first volume of his authorized biography of Henry Kissinger as an idealist. Ferguson
notes even Kissinger obviously knew the war was a lost cause after he did two fact-finding
tours in South Vietnam early in the war but thought the war was still necessary to prosecute
to save a vestige of our credibility as policeman to the world. Ken Burns also attempts a
revisionist coup of the Vietnam War when he editorialized in his documentary that our
fearless leaders prosecuted that war with the best intentions. So unfortunately, I view this
essay as a current trend to to promote revisionism in our history of the last fifty years
despite the contrary conclusions of the historical facts.
But as John Adams, a foundering
father, once observed "facts are stubborn things."
I agree-Putin's response to our actions is often not even considered: The biggest flaw with realism that it's like a multivariate experiment
-- with everyone
having different variables they think to be relevant. For instance, Kissinger thought Vietnam would fall under Chinese influence under Communist
NVA, yet he ignored the variable of ethnic rivalries between Chinese and Vietnamese. GWB ignored the variables of Iran -- how it would swoop in and nurture newly Shia Iraq..
There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables).
Vietnam: perhaps the only conflict fought on half of another of but minor, if any real
benefit to the US. That with or without Sec. Kissinger is clear as day. As for quagmires --
it seems that all ward have them. Vietnam was a quagmire because our policy was one of
protect and hold as opposed to invade and conquer -- an unfortunate choice. In the world of a
realist, we should have killed any and all Vietcong, raced up to Hanoi and ended the matter.
'nough said.
I am not sure many here are reading the same article, because my take is that the author
is claiming that Sec Kissinger was a realist -- practical – what needed to be done to
accomplish task A -- morality doesn't enter into it. That explains why he found Pres Nixon's
faith amusing. So all of the comments bemoaning the Sec lack of moral attend, only confirms
the realists perspective.
Nonetheless,
I disagree with your version of the last seventeen years. it has not been orchestrated or
led by realists. Quite the opposite. The rhetoric may be couched in all manner of idealism ,
but so was their application of force.
A realist would not give a lick aboy religious affiliation to the aims of regime chang,
cpital market or democracy creation. The onlu factor that would have mattered is who was on
board, or not in the way -- all challengers regardless of their faith, political agendas,
personality, or concerned about symbols as nonsensical historical artifacts would moved aside
by any means necessary. A realist so engaging such large opposition would decided the matter
-- to utter destruction to complete compliance – period.
In fact, I will contend that these pseudo realists, were thwarted by their own bouts if
idealist moral relativity and were the worst sort for the job at hand.
What a joke of an article, Kissinger as a moralist. He is one of the major war criminals of
the second half of the 20th Century. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands if not
millions on his hands, as others above have details. And not all foreigners. Lest we forget
the part he played in Nixon's great lies about Vietnam that delayed a peace settlement to
help Nixon get elected. 30,000 dead Americans later we got pretty much the same settlement.
The author of this article has entered into the realm of the absurd.
Wow, I thought I wasn't ever going to read anything on economic war on Venezuela! Finally,
even if it is from the comments.
There is an article about not to support/encourage a cup here, but obviously, when it is
about the bad economic situation, only the leftish govenrments are blamed, as if Venezuela
wasn't thoroughly dependet on debt.
Besides of that, even if that mention weren't thre, I agree and thanks most of the
comments in this article.
Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their
hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to
reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to
only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his
Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or
religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists
who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just
and moral", which is an idealistic a notion.
If, as Samuel Johnson is reputed to have said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
then using Kissinger as an example of realism is the last refuge of a fantasist.
Russian president Vladimir Putin gave a tense interview to Austria's ORF television channel which
at times got so heated, he spoke in German to ask host Armin Wolf to let him finish his answers.
The interview was held ahead of Putin's Tuesday meeting with Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and
Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache during a trip to Vienna, the first since Putin's March
inauguration to his second consecutive term (and fourth term in total).
After several interruptions by Wolf, Putin asked the host to "be patient," before switching to
Wolf's mother tongue of German to ask him to put a cork in it. "Seien Sie so nett, lassen Sie mich
etwas sagen (Please be so kind as to let me say something)," said Putin.
When the topic of troll farms came up, Putin said that Moscow "has nothing to do" with them,
adding that claims by Western media that a single Russian businessman, Yevgeny Prigozhin, was able
to influence the US election.
Prigozhin and Putin are associates, however Putin said he has no knowledge of his online
activities. The Russian president then brought up George Soros as an example of the double
standards being applied to those accused of meddling in foreign affairs.
"
There are rumors circulating now that Mr. Soros is planning to make the Euro highly
volatile,
" Putin said
quoted by RT.
"Experts are already discussing this. Ask the [US] State Department why he is
doing this.
The State Department will say that it has nothing to do with them - rather it
is Mr. Soros' private affair. With us, it is Mr. Prigozhin's private affair. This is my answer
.
Are you satisfied with it?"
* * *
MH17
Putin said that Russia has been blocked from participating in the ongoing international
investigation into the 2014 downing of flight MH17, which Russia has been recently blamed for.
Russian experts "have been denied access to the investigation," said Putin, while Russia's
arguments are "not taken into consideration" because nobody "is interested in hearing us out."
Ukraine, meanwhile, has been given access to the probe.
* * *
North Korea
On North Korea, Putin says that the prospect of a full-scale military conflict with Pyonyang
would be "dreadful," considering that the two nations are neighbors - and some North Korean nuclear
test sites are located near the Russian border.
Although Russia "pins great hopes on the personal meeting between [US] President
Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un," the path to the denuclearization of the Korean
peninsula is a "two-way road,"
Putin explained. "
If the North Korean leader is
backing up his intentions with practical actions, for example, giving up new tests of ballistic
missiles, new nuclear tests, the other side should reciprocate in a tangible manner
,"
he said, calling regular US military drills in the area "counterproductive." -
RT
* * *
Crimea
During perhaps the most heated moment in the interview, Putin was asked under what conditions
Russia would hand Crimea back to Ukraine, to which the Russian president firmy stated: "There are
no such conditions and there can never be."
Crimeans overwhelmingly voted to rejoin Russia in a hotly contested 2014 vote that the West
considers illegitimate and rigged. Putin stressed that the annexation happened after an
"unconstitutional armed coup" in Kiev, and it was the Crimeans who decided their own fate.
"Crimea gained independence through the free will of the Crimeans, expressed in an open
referendum, not as a result of an invasion by Russian forces." -Vladimir Putin
Following the annexation, Putin said "the first thing we did was increase our contingent to
guard our Armed Forces, our military facilities, because we immediately saw that they were being
threatened," adding that the mostly Russian population in Crimea "
sensed danger, when
trains started bringing aggressive nationalists there, when buses and personal vehicles were
blocked, people naturally wanted to protect themselves.
"
"The first thing that occurred was to restore the rights that Ukraine itself had issued by
granting Crimea autonomy."
watching the full interview. i have noticed that Putin
always shifts his posture when he wants to call
someone a fucking idiot but restrains himself with
more appropriate words. He never gets nervous or
rattled...
I watched it too. If you compare his patient,
methodical answers, based on fact (IMO) to those of
every US/EU NATO leader, then you see why he is
demonized by the parasitoid corporate fascists and
their media. They covet Russia's resources and are
desperate to control them, having brought us to the
brink of nuclear war in threatening Russian with
troops, weapons, war games and missiles on its
border. Imagine what would have happened if the
geography were the borders of the US and Canada and
Mexico.
It is possible that Putin's patience will
be taken as weakness, especially in Syria and
Ukraine. At some point he will have to give an
order to respond militarily, if he doesn't respond,
then the parasitoid corporate fascists will commit
a full scale military assault in an area of
conflict of their choice.
Lord Jacob Rothchild HATES Putin. Just look at the
Yukos Oil case in the London courts. Try to find
(keeps getting scrubbed) online
The Sunday
Times article from November 2, 2003 "Rothschild is the
New Power Behind Yukos"
for a rare
glimpse behind the curtain.
Vladimir
Vladimirovich took back for the state £8,000,000,000
of shares, thought to be the property of Mikhail
Khodorkovsky, but actually it emerged were controlled
by Lord Rothschild.
This is just one
Rothchild-1990s-theft-repatriated that we know of.
There would be more i suspect.
The beauty of your comments shows that you are becoming a minority by
the day. So many people are waking up to the idiocy of the propaganda
spewed by you and your "highly educated" ilk - as I suppose you view
yourself.
"America" is an Israeli colony "controlled" by mostly
Jewish Zionists
Russian ads did not have anything to do with the election results. It
was a minuscule number of ads, compared to what both of the campaigns
ran. We all comment on foreign elections, and I am sure the people in
those countries take it with a grain of salt, thinking we do not know
what we are talking about.
We have a bunch of people in the USA who take quite an interest in
saving the global people, while their own country is full of major
underemployment, with another housing crisis of an even worse type
than the one in 2008 mounting. Despite all of that, these Anericans sink
all kinds of money into trying to control what happens in foreign
countries. They think they can take on famines and dictators in
countries with very different social structures, 8,000 miles away.
Some of it is likely naively sincere and arising from a natural
interest. It is also a common PR maneuver with money-motivated
people, with everyone from rock stars to politicians getting pretty
absorbed in what goes on in other countries for whatever reason.
It is not without plausibility that a businessperson launched that ad
campaign on his own.
No wonder all US official assets are fully engaged to discourage Americans
from listening to what foreign leaders actually say. We are to rely on
our apparatchiks -- and their clerical assistants in the ever-trusty US press
corp -- to tell us what they are "really" saying and doing.
The key
word Putin uttered in this interview is that they do what is
pragmatic
.
His political party specifically eschews any particular ideological basis for
policy. That's rather novel, when you think about it. If that attitude were to
sweep the world, it seems likely diplomacy would achieve a lot more tangible
progress and require a lot less frequent fallback on primitive kinetic
"negotiations".
I don't trust Putin on much of anything but I LOVE the way he was handling
himself during that interview. Cool as a cucumber. The man deserves credit
for being that smooth. He is a master of the art of being interviewed.
The handful of other
Russian elites present at Davos-among them the oligarchs Boris Berezovsky,
VladimirGusinsky, and MikhailKhodorkovsky, and the politician
Anatoly Chubais-watched in dismay, fearing a Communist takeover,
The American billionaire George Soros feared it too and reportedly tol
the bankers and businessmen over coffee, "Boys, your time is over,"
Chubais recalled, "I saw many of my good friends, presidents of maj
American companies, European companies, who were simply dancing
around Zyuganov, trying to catch his eye, peering at him. These were
the world's most powerful businessmen, with world-famous' names.
who with their entire appearance demonstrated that they were seeking
support of the future president of Russia, because it was clear to everyone
that Zyuganov was going to be the future president of Russia, an
now they needed to build a relationship with him. So, this shook me up!"
It
was at this moment, according to Hoffman, that Chubais and the
Russian tycoons "decided on the spot to try and save Boris Yeltsin."
Chubais phoned Moscow to alert others to the situation. He then heI,
a press conference in which he denounced Zyuganov's "classic Cornmunist
lie" and warned that his election would "lead to bloodshed and
civil war." The oligarchs set aside differences and held several private
meetings in Davos hotel rooms, where they strategized over how to
defeat the Zyuganov threat. The result was the "Davos Pact": an agreement
between Chubais and the oligarchs that he would lead the anti-
Communist campaign and they would fund it-and him-generously.
The subsequent months saw a massive media offensive as "money
poured into advertising campaigns, into regional tours, into bribing
journalists"-all supported by the oligarchs (who owned the major TV
stations and newspapers) and orchestrated by Chubais. Yeltsin's subsequent
victory over Zyuganov later that summer changed the course of
Russia and can be traced back in part to the events that took place in
an otherwise sleepy alpine village that February.
Excerpted from "Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are
Making"
At last some one with
BALLS
to take on the
Mother
Fucker SOROS
, if the Sicilians do not finish the Italian job,
Soros mother fucker already has pissed off the Italians.
"... These and other nefarious plans, such as fomenting color revolutions in Russia's near abroad (one recently came to fruition in tiny Armenia), can be all the more easily pursued that the public associates international money laundering and bank fraud with 'Russian oligarchs close to Putin." ..."
"... A comparison of the Russian population's standard of living then and now, as well as the country's defense capabilities compared with eighteen years ago should make clear that Vladimir Putin has been fulfilling his promises to the Russian people, who recently returned him to power for the fourth time. ..."
"... But while it is the largest country in the world, with eleven time zones, its population is relatively small, as is the number of movers and shakers in Moscow. Inevitably, the oligarchs may move in proximity to the Kremlin, making it easy for the US to link Putin with their criminal activities. ..."
"... Deena Stryker is an international expert, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of international politics for over thirty years, exlusively for the online journal " New Eastern Outlook ". https://journal-neo.org/2018/06/01/russiagate-manipulating-globalization/ ..."
Russiagate has revealed the ease with which globalization's rules can be exploited,
overshadowing the world's real political and economic problems. And as long as audiences --
especially in the US -- are obsessed with the pursuit of political 'crimes', war crimes will
continue unabated. I'm not saying that this situation was created deliberately, however it is
impossible to deny that it has pushed the Iran Nuclear Treaty into a background where National
Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo can ensure that it is never
revived, making way for eventual 'regime change' in Teheran, and making it less likely that
North Korea's young leader will give up the weapons that forced the US to talk to him.
These and other nefarious plans, such as fomenting color revolutions in Russia's near
abroad (one recently came to fruition in tiny Armenia), can be all the more easily pursued that
the public associates international money laundering and bank fraud with 'Russian oligarchs
close to Putin." Americans have never been told that when he came to power in 2000 on the
back of state pilfering under 'our man in the Kremlin' Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin made a
deal with those who had become 'oligarchs' via those privatizations: "You will be free to
continue your games as long as you leave politics up to me."
Vladimir Putin has kept his part of the bargain, bringing Russia up to speed economically
and militarily, but here's the thing: while it is the largest country in the world, with eleven
time zones, its population is relatively small, as is the ruling coterie. Inevitably, the
oligarchs' business may bring them in proximity to the Kremlin, making it easy for the US to
link Putin with their criminal activities. A comparison of the Russian population's
standard of living then and now, as well as the country's defense capabilities compared with
eighteen years ago should make clear that Vladimir Putin has been fulfilling his promises to
the Russian people, who recently returned him to power for the fourth time. (After being
asked to take over the leadership of the country by an ailing Yeltsin in 1999, he was elected
for the first time in 2000.) But while it is the largest country in the world, with eleven
time zones, its population is relatively small, as is the number of movers and shakers in
Moscow. Inevitably, the oligarchs may move in proximity to the Kremlin, making it easy for the
US to link Putin with their criminal activities.
All those Russian names that are (with difficulty) coming out of the mouths of English-only
American anchors have nothing to do with the war in Syria or the rebellion in eastern Ukraine,
let alone the impending reunification of the Koreas after 65 years of a barbed-wire truce. They
have to do with bank fraud and money laundering, which were once the realm of gangsters. What
the Muller investigation has revealed is an international 'crime syndicate' whose claim to fame
is its association with the President of the United States (and suggestions that is associated
with the President of Russia).
But rather than being a strongman who uses his power for personal enrichment, such as for
example Panama's President Noriega, Putin's relations with shady oligarchs are probably more
like those of the Kennedy brothers, Jack and Robert, with Meyer Lansky and his cohorts based in
pre-Castro Havana. (When, fifty years later, I read about the mob's 'interest' in the Cuban
revolution, I realized with a shudder that they were lurking in Havana when I arrived there a
week after the Kennedy assassination.)
Russiagate shows how far the US has regressed since the days of Camelot.
"... The panel showcased the institute's first "Distinguished Visitor," Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to 2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in the 1990s. ..."
"... obe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government: its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the "threat from the Islamic world, it's the southern belly and it's very vulnerable;" and finally, potential conflict with China over access to natural resources. "They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty that could spell trouble down the line," Talbott said. ..."
"... Read also: Is (or can be) the western Far (Hard) Right a friend of Russia? The Ukrainian Test ..."
"... To the question, "Do we have another Cold War?" Talbott answered, "Yes, we've got a Cold War. It's the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it's a Cold War." ..."
"... Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel's official State Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, "The Russians, I think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn't need to show up in Kiev. There was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice, deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American intervention in Ukrainian politics. ..."
"... Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, "There really is no succession plan. And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man, do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of management of the transition that we had in '91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear weapons and chaos." ..."
"... The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern -- with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of billionaire Warren Buffett -- was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military strategy. ..."
The Northwestern University Buffett Institute for Global Studies hosted a roundtable event
in the Chicago area on May 23 titled, "The Kremlin's Global Reach," moderated by Medill
journalism professor and Washington Post veteran Peter Slevin. The panel showcased
the institute's first "Distinguished Visitor," Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state
in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to
2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in
the 1990s.
Also present were political science professor Jordan Gans-Morse, public opinion pollster
Dina Smeltz, lecturer and former US ambassador to Georgia Ian Kelly and historian John
Bushnell.
The event took place amid a steady escalation of US militarism against Syria, Iran and
Russia. Just two days earlier, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an ultimatum to Iran
demanding a capitulation to the US in the face of additional sanctions. This followed on the
heels of the Trump administration's scrapping of a nuclear agreement reached in 2015 between
Iran and the P5+1 group, the US, UK, France, Germany, China and Russia. Earlier this month, the
US relaunched a naval force, the Second Fleet, in the North Atlantic in preparation for
military confrontation with Russia.
The political perspective of the event was clear from Slevin's opening questions: "What is
to be done? How do you solve a problem like Vladimir Putin?"
Str obe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government:
its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the "threat from the Islamic
world, it's the southern belly and it's very vulnerable;" and finally, potential conflict with
China over access to natural resources. "They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty
that could spell trouble down the line," Talbott said.
To the question, "Do we have another Cold War?" Talbott answered, "Yes, we've got a Cold
War. It's the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it's a
Cold War."
In line with this reactionary narrative, Talbott presented the conflict between the US and
Russia as one between "democracy" and "tyranny," while some of the other panelists admitted
that is not the way the conflict is viewed in Russia and Europe.
Later, Talbott emphasized the challenge to US hegemony posed by the Balkans, particularly
Serbia, citing their cultural and religious affinities with Russia. In 2015, Montenegro entered
NATO.
Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel's official State
Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, "The Russians, I
think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn't need to show up in Kiev. There
was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice,
deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American
intervention in Ukrainian politics. "
A number of the panelists interrupted at this point, some laughing nervously, others
strongly protesting.
Slevin, in concluding the discussion, posed the question of regime change in Russia,
stating, "How does this end? How does Putin fall? Retire? Get replaced? What is the fate of
Vladimir Putin?"
The main obstacle to regime change in Russia was, according to the panelists, the chaos it
would inevitably unleash. Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there
is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, "There really is no succession plan.
And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man,
do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their
regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of
management of the transition that we had in '91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear
weapons and chaos."
However, expressing the position of significant sections of the Democratic Party, aligned
with the US state-military-intelligence apparatus, Talbott concluded, "Putin has presided over
Russia in a way that is very, very much like the Soviet Union. That didn't work. This won't
work. He will be an aberration. It would also help if we had a different president in the
United States."
A notable feature of the event was its casual militarism. In introducing himself, Kelly
noted that the US has recently provided both Georgia and Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank
weaponry.
In line with the propaganda pumped out about the US media and political establishment, the
panel speakers presented a picture of reality turned upside down: Russia was presented as an
aggressive, expansionist power, and a growing threat to the American way of life. In fact, it
is the US government and its imperialist allies which have increasingly encircled Russia via
NATO expansion, crippled its economy with sanctions and sought to provoke a military
conflict.
As US Defense Secretary James Mattis noted in releasing the Pentagon's new National Security
Strategy, "Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national
security."
Before the audience assembled by this national security institute, which appeared to include
only a handful of undergraduate students, these leading political figures spoke more bluntly
about imperialist foreign policy than they would normally do on national television or in
supposedly democratic arenas like the US Congress.
The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern
-- with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of
billionaire Warren Buffett -- was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to
transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military
strategy.
At the time of the Buffett Institute's founding, university students and faculty protested
the appointment as its head of former the US commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl
Eikenberry, whose qualifications were based on military rank and bellicose politics, rather
than any academic credentials. Northwestern faculty members charged that he "advocates
instrumentalizing the humanities and social sciences research to advance US soft power."
The International Youth and Students for Social Equality are leading the opposition
internationally to the transformation of colleges and universities into think tanks for
imperialism and militarism. Contact the Socialist Equality
Party to start an IYSSE chapter on your campus.
"... Could it be that Mueller is there for some other reason? we know there are special interests that the democrats represent and since the US federal system doesn't really lend itself to any sort of coalition govt of any form, that the investigation is cover for the those interests being represented in some fashion the form doesn't allow for. ..."
"... Presumably the op would have allowed HRC to undertake just the sort of actions against Russia that, after Trump's election, have been undertaken in any case. The difference being that there is at least some reason to bet that HRC along with Obama knew something of the operation, and that in conjunction with UK/Ukrainian interests was planning her early foreign policy directives. The election of Trump on this reading was accidental to the op as originally designed. Is this right? ..."
Could it be that Mueller is there for some other reason? we know there are special interests
that the democrats represent and since the US federal system doesn't really lend itself to any
sort of coalition govt of any form, that the investigation is cover for the those interests
being represented in some fashion the form doesn't allow for.
That's what I'm thinking. It is apparent the "The Mueller Investigation" is - firstly - a
major distraction. It is also apparent that it doesn't make any headway, lead to any
conclusions or indictments of any big fish.
Re: Mueller. If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was
undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you
never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA
coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump.
Presumably the op would have allowed HRC
to undertake just the sort of actions against Russia that, after Trump's election, have been
undertaken in any case. The difference being that there is at least some reason to bet that
HRC along with Obama knew something of the operation, and that in conjunction with
UK/Ukrainian interests was planning her early foreign policy directives. The election of
Trump on this reading was accidental to the op as originally designed. Is this right?
The other possibility being that the operation was demanded by Trump winning the Republican
primary, as a kind of insurance policy. He being the only candidate who could not be
predictably counted on to follow the anti-Putin hard liners in the Military-intelligence
community, something needed to be done to ensure that, on the off chance that he won, the
anti-Russian measures already being planned for would not be affected.
So it is perhaps
unlikely that this op would have been necessary had, say, Jeb Bush or Rubio won the primary.
What made it necessary was the unknown quantity that Trump represented. This would mean,
again, that the op was not so much partisan (Dem v Rep) as it was about ensuring continuity
of military-intelligence decisions in face of relatively unknown entity. Had Bush won the R
nomination, there would have been no op because the Bush family like the Clintons are down
for whatever.
Looks like Putin does not see alternative to neoliberalism... Also he need to provide for
Russia a time to get from knees it was put by yeltzin regime. Russia is still very week
economically in comparison with the alliance of US and EU. It does not have China advantage of
hosting manufacturing of many high tech products.
Notable quotes:
"... to me this does strongly suggest that Putin is on the retreat, that he has made a major mistake and that the Empire has scored a major victory. ..."
Meh. I am personally unconvinced. How can Putin say that he wants serious reforms while
keeping the exact same type of people in command? If indeed the Medvedev government did such a
great job, then why is there any need for such major reforms? If Putin's power base is indeed,
as I believe it to be, in the people, then why is he trying to appease the financial elites by
catering to their interests and agenda? Most crucially, how can Russia free herself from the
financial and economic grip of the Empire when the Empire's 5 th column agents are
(re-)appointed to key positions? And in all of Russia was there really nobody more qualified
than Mutko or Kudrin to appoint to these positions?
Of course, there always this "Putin knows something you don't" but I have always had a
problem with that kind of logic which is essentially an open-ended universal cop-out. I hope
that I am wrong, but to me this does strongly suggest that Putin is on the retreat, that he
has made a major mistake and that the Empire has scored a major victory. And I will gladly
admit that I have yet to hear an explanation which would explain this, never mind offer one of
my own.
On the external front, has Russia caved in to Israeli pressure? Ruslan Ostashko offers a
very good analysis of why this is hardly the case: (I don't necessarily agree with his every
conclusion, but he does make a very good case:
Yes, Netanyahu *did* with his repeated strikes on Syria, thumb his nose at Putin (that
famous Israeli chutzpah at work for you!), and yes, Putin wining and dining Netanyahu
was a painful sight and a PR-disaster. But on substance, did Israel get Russia to "betray
Iran"? No, and not because the Russians are so heroically principled, but because Israel really
has nothing to offer Russia. All Israel has is a powerful pro-Israel lobby inside Russia, that
is true. But the more they use that lobby the more visible it becomes, the more questions at
least Eurasian Sovereignists will ask.
The Israelis sure don't want to give the impression that the run Russia the way they run the
US, and Netanyahu's reception in the Kremlin recently has already raised a lot of eyebrows and
the impression that Putin caved in to the demands of this arrogant bastard are not helping
Putin, to put it mildly. A lot of Russian analysts (Viktor Baranets, Maksim Shevchenko, Leonid
Ivashev) wonder what kind of arguments Netanyahu used with Putin, and the list of possibilities
is an outright uninspiring one.
Part five – another truism: there is a difference between excellent, good, average,
bad and terrible
Even if the situation in Russia has changed for the worse, this is hardly a reason to engage
in the usual "Putin sold out" hysteria or to declare that "Russia caved in". Even when things
are bad, there is still a huge difference between bad and worse. As of right now, Putin is not
only the best possible person to be the President of Russia, Russia also continues to be the
objective leader of the resistance to the Empire. Again, the black-and-white "Hollywood" type
of mindset entirely misses the dynamic nature of what is going on. For example, it is quite
clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed,
really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and
who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that
Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the
voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin
(again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western
liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist
politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension.
For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported
Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension
around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might
witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It
will be interesting to see if Putin's personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will
have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition.
Much will depend on how the Russian economy will perform. If, courtesy of Trump's
megalomaniacal policies towards Iran and the EU, Russia's economy receives a massive injection
of funds (via high energy prices), then things will probably stabilize. But if the European
leaders meekly cave in and join the sanctions against Iran and if the US succeeds in imposing
even further sanctions on Russia, then the Medvedev government will face a serious crisis and
the revival of the Russian economy promised by Putin will end up in an embarrassing failure and
things could also go from bad to even worse.
... ... ...
For Hezbollah, Iran or Russia to defeat Israel, the US or the entire Empire, there is no
need to plant a flag on the enemy's main symbolic building like what Soviet soldiers did in
Germany. All they need to do to win is simply to survive because the other's sides survival is
predicated upon their elimination, it's really that simple. Israel cannot claim victory as long
as Hezbollah exists, the US cannot claim world Hegemony if Iran openly defies it, and the
AngloZionist Empire cannot clain world hegemony over the our planet as long as the Russian
civilizational realm openly challenges it. So while all the talk about the Iranians wanting to
"
wipe Israel off the map " is just a typical ziomedia invention, it is true that by
their very existence Hezbollah, Iran and Russia do represent an existential threat to Israel,
the US and the Empire .
This is the biggest and the fatal weakness of the AngloZionist Empire: its survival depends
on the colonization or destruction of every other country out there. Every independent country,
whether big and powerful, or small and weak, represents an unacceptable challenge to the
hegemony of the "indispensable nation" and the "chosen people", which now try to rule over us
all. This might well be the ultimate example of Hegelian dialectics at work in geopolitics: an
Empire whose power generates it's own demise. Many empires have come and gone in history, but
the globalized world we live in, this dialectical contradiction is tremendously potentialized
by the finite conditions in which empires have to operate.
... ... ...
Right now Putin still has a lot of "credibility capital" left in spite of his recent
mistakes. However, Putin recent decisions have raised a lot of unpleasant questions which must
be answered and will so in time. In the meantime, as they say in the US, " hope for the
best, prepare for the worst, and settle for anything in the middle ". The Scripture also
warns us not to make idols of leaders: " Trust not in princes, nor in the children of men,
in whom there is no safety " (Ps 145:3 LXX). The worldly evil we are fighting, today in the
shape of the AngloZionist Empire, is but a manifestation of a much deeper, spiritual evil: "
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places " (Eph. 6:12). The young men and women from the Shia movement Amal got it right when
they chose the name "Party of God" for their movement when they created Hezbollah in 1985. And
Iran was right when it became an Islamic Republic: if we want to defeat the Empire we need to
always let spiritual matters and moral crieria remain above any of our "pragmatic" worldly
political considerations or national/ethnic loyalties: that is how we can defeat those who
place a dollar value on absolutely everything they see in their narrow materialistic
worldview.
A truly amazing article and the most amazing thing of all is the total lack of even
one paragraph of the existence of China. This article could have been written, word for word,
by a defender of the Empire and the China omission would have been identical.
The Key player on the world scene manages to wear the clock of invisibility like
the Shadow of old time radio and movies. Quite a feat!
robertmagill.wordpress.com
Second, each process carries within itself the seeds of its own contradiction. This is
what makes processes dynamic.
"what makes processes dynamic", could it be "more then just linear"? Referring to changes
of direction regardless of interaction(group dynamics) with other processes. Example: the
Roman Empire process, growing then imploding?
Even the Pantsir which was recently destroyed by the Israelis (with the usual
pro-Israeli PR campaign) was not even on combat alert: the unit was not even camouflaged
and its crew was standing around and smoking. The Israelis are masters at making this look
all very impressive and heroic, but in military terms, this is nonsense: they clearly hit a
unit which was not even part of the action (whatever that "action" was).
Not sure how an AD unit can be "not part of the action" anywhere in any meaningful sense
in the midst of an ongoing surge of strikes within a strategic campaign of air attacks such
as Israel is waging against Syria.
Without knowing the context (how long had it been stationary and out of ammo/action, as it
reportedly was at the time of the strike, and what was the context for the Israelis getting a
missile through to it when it should have been covered by other operational defences), it's
hard to know how much its loss should be put down to Syrian fault, and how much to Israeli/US
technical competence or just to the vagaries of war.
But it certainly doesn't look good and that's of course why the Israelis are so keen to
publicise it.
As for the Saker piece, as usual lots of good points and some not so good, but that's
about all one can expect on such complex topics. Imo he's rather over-stating the case in
excusing the Russian failure to halt the ongoing Israeli assault on Syria. Yes, Russia has no
formal alliance with Syria or Iran committing it to defend them (and by the way these are
attacks on Syria not just Iran, though occasionally they hit Iranian forces within Syria and
allied with Syria – the claims of targeting just Iranian forces are Israeli propaganda
to create a seeming pretext good enough for the pro-Israeli media in the US sphere). But to
say there is no moral onus on Russia whatsoever to do so is simply overstating it –
Iranians, Syrians and Russians are fighting side by side in Syria and that in itself creates
some moral pressure not to stand by and watch your allies get butchered with impunity when
you can do something about it.
But from a purely pragmatic point of view, failing to halt the Israeli attacks is damaging
to Russia, on at least two counts. First, it unavoidably creates a perception of weakness
and/or betrayal, and of unreliability and two-facedness. In a more concrete sense, though,
the simple fact is that Iranian, Syrian and Russian interests are in fact fundamentally
aligned in Syria and diametrically opposed to the Israeli objective, on the core issue, which
is the survival and stabilisation of the Syrian state. Israeli impunity and the level of
attacks it is now carrying out are incompatible with the goal of stabilising Syria, and will
have to be stopped at some time if that goal is to be achieved.
If the Russian government thinks that by appeasing the Israelis it can somehow hope that
they might be persuaded to slow down or halt the attacks, perhaps if the Iranians pull out,
then the Russian government is profoundly naïve. Claims that the strikes are motivated
by Iranian presence are pretexts, not reasons. If that pretext goes, another will be found.
The Israeli goal remains to destroy the Syrian state, destroy Hezbollah and destroy Iran as a
regional rival. Israel does not need to do these things – claims that it is
under serious threat are outright propaganda lies. It wants to do them, in order to
gain in regional power over its rivals and increase further its impunity to continue and
escalate its ongoing settler colonisation programs enabled by the US.
Those objectives are important enough that it isn't going to halt in pursuing them as a
favour to Russia, no matter how meek and submissive the Russian government acts, but they are
not important enough for Israel to face open conflict with a major power for them. Israel
does these things because it can. When it is forcefully told that it can no longer do them,
it will stop doing them.
One can certainly argue (and I have done so in the past) that the time isn't right for
Russia to put a halt to Israeli attempts to destabilise the Syria government, though that
argument grows increasingly threadbare. One cannot argue credibly, I think, that it will not
be necessary to do so at some point soon.
This is a very good interpretation of the recent events which have confused us all.
Personally I think any and, all deals Putin has made with the Western Zionists have a short
shelf life as, there seems to be no contract the West will honor short of complete
capitulation.
Patience is a good thing here and,, Putin knows in the end Russia is the prize. So, I
believe right now he is smart to play short ball with Washington and, Tel Aviv. There's a
level of immaturity in guys like Netanyahu and, Trump. Let me just say, they have their egos
to protect.
Saker, what do you know about AI as it relates to Tyler, anything? Is this a topic which can
excite from you an article or, two?
"the "New Russia" (as I like to call it) is not based on anything other than a Constitution
written mostly by US advisors"
That's a bit harsh. Judging by what the Russian command structure has been seen to say and
do, they are evidently based on rights and rule of law, not on the perverted US model but on
black-letter customary and conventional international law. Russia dominates US performance in
terms of human rights,
They took over from France as the world's most articulate advocate of rule of law, and did
it better. In Syria they stressed pacific resolution of disputes, notably by brokering Syrian
chemical weapons disarmament through OPCW. They also press-ganged a military staff committee
and enforced UN Charter Article 47 at gunpoint, using all the megatonnage needed. Now they're
the world's policeman, and they're not USA-style asshole cops. They're taking the role of
international civil servants in the UN Charter's sense. That may be one reason why they're
not consistently kicking US ass, as we would wish: Peace is the law. Friendly relations
– it's the law, A/RES/25/2625.
Not that they're perfect examples of rights or law – the indicators show that in the
specific respect of invitations to special procedures, they're about as bad as the USA, and
that's pretty bad. And your point about double standards on Israeli impunity is very
important. But their opposition to the West is not general, but meticulously grounded in law.
Recall that they justified even a vital interest, Crimean accession, in terms of the Kosovo
precedent set out by the ICJ.
the pantsir was being reloaded.. no rockets in the tubes, maybe that is how it was not
part of the action;)
weapons without ammo cant do their intended operations as far as i know,,
Being out of ammo doesn't mean being "not part of the action". It means you should be
either be being reloaded or getting under cover to reload, or be covered by other systems, or
both.
Were the autocannons out of ammo as well? If it was running low on ammo shortly before,
why wasn't it already on the move towards cover, since the S1 can reportedly fire on the
move? If it was under such rapid and sustained attack that its ammo was exhausted in a
saturation attack (and that of its covering systems as well, bearing in mind it was
reportedly located at a major airbase), and it had no time to move or be reloaded before it
was hit, then it absolutely was not "not part of the action".
I take no joy in pointing it out, but this was a clear defeat for the Syrian AD systems,
however you explain it. It's not the end of the world – losses are inevitable in
combat. Lessons can be learned. But it can't be airily dismissed as "not part of the
action".
What "cancellation" of which promise to supply the S-300?? There never was any promise to do
so to start with. There were only certain questions asked by the JMSM in certain time before
the long-planned visit of Netanyahu on May, 9. The Russian generals had to give some sort of
replies. An ambiguous ones. But the JMSM of course made a conclusion that Russia indeed is
planning the sale. Fast-forward to 9th of May, Bibi comes/Bibi leaves, and the same JMSM
would ask the new questions. To which Moscow obviously had to voice a denial. As a result
– Bibi is a hero at home, while Putin was made look weak. http://www.ancreport.com/report/the-phantom-s-300/
The photos I've seen indicate that the system (if really the same one) had indeed fired
off its missiles and was ready to move as its hydraulic stabilizers had been retracted, and
its radar panel folded. If the crew left the system uncamouflaged and were "standing around
smoking", that can suggest a number of different possibilities. It may indicate a breakdown
in discipline, but they may have been awaiting orders, or even had a mechanical breakdown en
route to a new location. Likely a combination. Who knows?
So, maybe not "part of the action" in the sense that it was actively targeting/firing at
incoming missiles, but definitely "part of the action" in the sense that it had been
obviously doing just that moments before. If its missiles and auto-cannon had seen some
successes, it may even be seen to have "won" rather than been part of a "clear defeat".
In any case, it seems that surprisingly little damage was done. The system was hit in the
front cab area and looked eminently repairable in the photos.
The SAA has seen some discipline problems in the field, and since a number of the the
general staff defected early in the war, a disjointed command & control system. Under
Russian tutelage, they're vastly better today than they were 2 years ago, but perhaps not
quite there yet. If the reports from late 2015 are to be believed, the Russians were very
frustrated with how the SAA operated, and basically had to impose discipline by threatening,
and then actually leaving.
My guess is that that's a large part of why the Russians are reluctant to provide potent
weapons such as the S300. The political implications of using them can outweigh their
military utility, and so must remain under strict control. If somebody starts shooting down
US or IL jets at stand-off distances, things can get uncomfortably complex very quickly. The
Russians don't need that to worry about along with everything else.
Russia and Russians will have to come to terms with the fact they are disliked in large parts
of Eastern Europe, with the possible exception of Serbia.
There are reasons for this, whether just or unjust.
The reaction to comment #1 which might be seen as sarcastic seems a case in point.
I am certain that unfortunate accidents like the coup in Ukraine might in the future be
avoided by a bit more self-awareness and awareness of massive prejudices inherited from an
often less than glorious past.
One has to see, however, that in the Ukrainian case, like in the Georgian case before,
Russia acted swiftly and decisively to reach a position which might be considered better than
the status quo ante before the Free West™ started its sheganigans. So perhaps the
awareness exists and the contingency planning is in place?
That is why I still have more than a little hope for Syria and by extension christendom in
Syria and Lebanon. All to often it is forgotten that these wars in Arabia are also wars
against the christion minorities in Arabia.
The Israeli goal remains to destroy the Syrian state, destroy Hezbollah and destroy Iran
as a regional rival. Israel does not need to do these things – claims that it
is under serious threat are outright propaganda lies. It wants to do them, in order
to gain in regional power over its rivals and increase further its impunity to continue and
escalate its ongoing settler colonization programs enabled by the US.
In fact it seems to go further. Planned Greater Israel expands territorially to include
Jordan, Lebanon, most of Syria, western Iraq (oil producing regions), all the Gulf States,
all northern Saudi Arabia (oil producing regions) and the Sinai and other parts of Egypt.
It's the Israeli Imperial dream of becoming a World Power and also controlling the world's
oil supply, somewhat analogous to Hitler's dream of a German World Empire based on
colonization of the East and a Greater Germany extending to the Urals.
Both are/were racist-Imperialist projects with the difference that the Germans tried to
realize the dream using their own military (insufficient) while the Israelis are trying to do
it using US forces.
How long the US plays along (or rather is intimidated into playing along) with this one
sided project is an open question – and there's clearly the issue of how Israel is
going to win these wars without troops on the ground. At least Hitler had most of his army in
Russia and detailed plans for post-war ethnic German settlement.
The Americans aren't going to fight more large scale ground wars in the Middle East and
Israeli/US proxy forces have failed – so that leaves the destruction of the Middle East
from the air – which doesn't really further the Greater Israel project. Political
control on the ground stays the same – generating even greater
anti-Israeli/anti-American sentiment (if that is possible).
Russia correctly opts to keep clear of this mess, and there is only negative blowback for
Israel and the United States – actually serving to isolate internally destabilize these
countries.
At the moment the Russians look either two-faced or weak (and perhaps they are both) in
the face of Israel. That's not a look Russia can afford to have come to be their
characterising feature, in the long run.
Yes, from certain perspectives it does indeed look like that, but I doubt many of us here
are very aware of the calculi being used at the state level, and especially of Russia's.
"Losing face" may be the equivalent of sacrificing a pawn.
There are some complex processes underway, involving a bewildering number of moving parts.
"Russiagate" is imploding in the US at an accelerating rate, heading for a constitutional
crisis. The 2 Koreas are cooking up a scheme between them (w/ support) to end the US'
domination of the W. Pacific. More critical than all, in my view, is Trump's abrogation of
the JCPOA. This has put the US on a trajectory at odds with its allies, and played directly
into the hands of its adversaries. As evidence of the latter, Merkel and Putin have met 2x in
May, and Germany's new foreign minister has also visited with Lavrov. It may well be the
geo-political tipping point.
Remembering Obama's & Kerry's words at the the time the JCPOA was agreed
Obama in Aug '15: "Instead of strengthening our position as some have suggested, Congress's rejection would
almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling We'd have to cut off countries
like China from the American financial system trigger(ing) severe disruptions in our own
economy and, by the way, rais(ing) questions internationally about the dollar's role as
the world's reserve currency. "
John Kerry, a few days later: "If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them, 'you're going to have to obey our
rules and sanctions anyway,' that is a recipe, very quickly, for the American dollar to
cease to be the reserve currency of the world. "
With the EU now agreeing to transact with Iran in EURs, Obama's & Kerry's words look
to have been much more than hyperbole, "Losing face", in these circumstances may be nothing
more than what you do as you play rope-a-dope while the big guy punches himself out.
We shall see what happens after the World Cup.
I think that's colouring current events more than we give it credit for. It's an opportune
time for rogue nations to play games and throw tantrums, but I think a new set of rules will
be introduced after the show is over.
{Maybe it would have been better if the Germans had defeated and occupied Russia and
killed all the commies.}
Maybe it would have been much better for Nazis to have occupied whatever putrid swamp you
are from and killed off pond scum like you.
Nazis invaded Soviet Union in order to exterminate the Slavic peoples, the supposed
Untermenschen , take their fast, fertile lands, and populate them with the alleged
"Master Race".
Except they turned out to be somewhat less than "Master", because those
Untermenschen chased the pitiful remainders of the Nazi invaders all the way back to
Berlin, and those Untermenschen Red Army soldiers pissed on the ashes of the supposed
"Master Race" leader.
(Hitler's bloviations about Bolsheviks and all that was just a convenient excuse and to
snow his military who might be less than enthusiastic about murdering civilians of SU.)
btw: it is not too late for youse and your buddies to put on your uniforms, polish up your
jack-boots, grab your weapons .and invade Russia. Who know maybe youse will get lucky and
will get a gift wrapped Sarmat express -delivered right to your address.
Until recently I haven't been closely following the controversy between Wikipedia and
popular anti-imperialist activists like John Pilger, George Galloway, Craig Murray, Neil Clark,
Media Lens, Tim Hayward and Piers Robinson.
Wikipedia has always been biased in favor of
mainstream CNN/CIA narratives, but until recently I hadn't seen much evidence that this was due to
anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is a crowdsourced project and most people believe
establishment-friendly narratives. That all changed when I
read
this article by Craig Murra
y, which is primarily what I'm interested in directing people's
attention to here.
The article, and
this one which
prompted it by
Five Filters
, are definitely worth reading in their entirety, because
their contents are jaw-dropping. In short there is an account which has been making edits to
Wikipedia entries for many nears called Philip Cross. In the last five years this account's
operator has not taken a single day off–no weekends, holidays, nothing–and according to their time
log they work extremely long hours adhering to a very strict, clockwork schedule of edits
throughout the day as an ostensibly unpaid volunteer.
This is bizarre enough, but the fact that this account is undeniably focusing with
malicious intent on anti-imperialist activists who question establishment narratives and the fact
that its behavior is being aggressively defended by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales means that
there's some serious fuckery afoot.
"Philip Cross", whoever or whatever that is, is absolutely head-over-heels for depraved Blairite
war whore Oliver Kamm, whom Cross mentioned as a voice of authority
no
fewer than
twelve times
in an entry about the media analysis duo known collectively as
Media Lens. Cross harbors a special hatred for British politician and broadcaster George Galloway,
who opposed the Iraq invasion as aggressively as Oliver Kamm cheered for it, and on whose Wikipedia
entry Cross has made an astonishing 1,800 edits.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of constant malicious editing, as well as outright admissions
of bias by the Twitter account linked to Philip Cross, Jimmy Wales has been extremely and
conspicuously defensive of the account's legitimacy while ignoring evidence provided to him.
"Or, just maybe, you're wrong,"
Wales
said
to a Twitter user inquiring about the controversy the other day. "Show me the diffs or
any evidence of any kind. The whole claim appears so far to be completely ludicrous."
"Riiiiight,"
said
the
totally not-triggered Wales in another response. "You are really very very far from the facts of
reality here. You might start with even one tiny shred of some kind of evidence, rather than
just making up allegations out of thin air. But you won't because trolling."
"You clearly have very very little idea how it works,"
Wales
tweeted
in another response. "If your worldview is shaped by idiotic conspiracy sites, you
will have a hard time grasping reality."
As outlined in the articles by Murray and
Five Filters
, the evidence is there
in abundance.
Five Filters
lays out "diffs" (editing changes) in black and white
showing clear bias by the Philip Cross account, a very slanted perspective is clearly and
undeniably documented, and yet Wales denies and aggressively ridicules any suggestion that
something shady could be afoot. This likely means that Wales is in on whatever game the Philip
Cross account is playing.
Which means the entire site is likely involved in some sort of
psyop by a party which stands to benefit from keeping the dominant narrative slanted in a
pro-establishment direction.
A 2016 Pew Research Center report found that Wikipedia was getting some
18
billion page views per month
. Billion with a 'b'. Youtube
recently
announced
that it's going to be showing text from Wikipedia articles on videos about conspiracy
theories to help "curb fake news". Plainly the site is extremely important in the battle for
control of the narrative about what's going on in the world. Plainly its leadership fights on one
side of that battle, which happens to be the side that favors western oligarchs and intelligence
agencies.
How many other "Philip Cross"-like accounts are there on Wikipedia?
Has the site always functioned an establishment psyop designed to manipulate public perception of
existing power structures, or did that start later? I don't know.
Right now all I know
is that an agenda very beneficial to the intelligence agencies, war profiteers and plutocrats of
the western empire is clearly and undeniably being advanced on the site, and its founder is telling
us it's nothing. He is lying. Watch him closely.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is
to get on the mailing list for my
website
,
so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely
reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking
me on
Facebook
,
following my antics on
Twitter
, checking
out my
podcast
, throwing some
money into my hat on
Patreon
or
Paypal
,
or
buying my new book
Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers
.
Vote up!
13
Vote down!
0
reading the "talk" tab page background on ANY wiki page is ALWAYS
recommended - it shows the content war by different editors. - Anything on
Israel / Palestine for example.
Post or edit anything on that shit site that goes against the
ziomaster's narrative and you will be blocked. Wikipedia just rehashes
all the bullshit from the corporate media on Television.
Metabunk and Rationalwiki are the exact same thing too.
Does the pope shit in the woods after playing with little boys?
95% of things placed in top 3 of
Google search
are PSYOP. The remaining 5% are those pesky old
school blackhat SEO guys that know how to game the search engine.
Wikipedia is as fake as WWE is. But at least WWE has some juicy
stuff:
The Zionist side is ALWAYS the side that is
presented.
Eustace Mullins was a
truly kind individual. His only crime was to not
swallow the hogwash Koolaid of the ZioNAZI. For that
he was followed by the FBI for 30 years.
But of course all the standard tropes are
trotted out on Wikipedia. I suspect that Wiki / Wales
gets a lot of funding from YOU KNOW WHO. Same people
who has the Germans put people in jail for thought
crimes.
You are only safe when you are looking at a
page regarding theoretical mathematics. But not
mathematics about global warming.
among scientists, wiki is well known for utility
and accuracy of boring stuff like the thermal
conductivity of copper. any controversy involved,
and it is worthless.
Wikipedia is completely unreliable. Especially when it comes
to politics.
You can find LIES GALORE. You can edit the Lies out,
document them and backup with sourced justification; but within
an hour they will have reset the Lie.
Aaaand finally: James Corbett of Corbettreport.com, a prolific documentary
filmmaker--whose docs are always top rated on topdocumentaryfilms.com, doesn't
have a wikipedia page, despite MANY people trying to create one for him. Why is
that, you ask? Because they are extremely subversive to the CIA and the
established globalist order, and therefore that fact of suppression of Corbett
suggests coordination between Wikipedia and the globalist thalassocracy of the
empire of the city
How much 'filtering' is being done, and through what channels do filtering
requests arrive? (if any)
Lots of news outlets have changed over the last few years. Formerly respected
papers have been reduced to tabloids. The Washington Post is now the Bezos Blog,
for example. Twitter is popping up 'warnings' about 'fake news'. All the radio
and TV channels run identical bullshit war stories within minutes of each other.
And Wikipedia has been going downhill for years.
So, is ZH immune to the effluvia from the ministry of truth?
Nice article, but there is a much better way of proving that Wikipedia=CIA. It's
true, everybody can edit Wikipedia, but not everyone gets to keep their edits.
Here is an experiment that everyone can carry out
:
If
you edit well or create a new informative page on something of no interest to the
FBI or CIA, say astronomy or physics, no problem, your contribution stays. But
try to provide evidence--and there is plenty--that the government was involved in
the assassinations of MLK, JFK, RFK or the demolitions of 9/11, and you'll be
"reverted" (their term) within FIVE minutes. Try to quote Russia's version of
the Crimeans' overwhelming vote to join Russia, and you'll be "reverted" lickety
split. Provide evidence that Winston Churchill--lionized by our rulers--was an
imperialist, a racist, a champion of inequality, and the contribution will
disappear while you pause your honest labors for a cup of tea! Our rulers are
masters of propaganda, and Wikipedia is just one of their brilliantly vicious
outlets--created, controlled, and edited to brainwash us!
The reason we are not given a straight answer as to why we're meant to want our institutions
fighting an information war on our behalf (instead of allowing us to sort out fact from fiction
on our own like adults) is because the answer is ugly.
As
we discussed last time , the only real power in this world is the ability to control the
dominant narrative about what's going on. The only reason government works the way it works,
money operates the way it operates, and authority rests where it rests is because everyone has
agreed to pretend that that's how things are. In actuality, government, money and authority are
all man-made conceptual constructs and the collective can choose to change them whenever it
wants. The only reason this hasn't happened in our deeply dysfunctional society yet is because
the plutocrats who rule us have been successful in controlling the narrative.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. This has always been the case. In many
societies throughout history a guy who made alliances with the biggest, baddest group of armed
thugs could take control of the narrative by killing people until the dominant narrative was
switched to "That guy is our leader now; whatever he says goes." In modern western society, the
real leaders are less obvious, and the narrative is controlled by propaganda.
Propaganda is what keeps Americans accepting things like the fake two-party system, growing
wealth inequality, medicine money being spent on bombs to be dropped on strangers in stupid
immoral wars, and a government which simultaneously creates steadily increasing secrecy
privileges for itself and steadily decreasing privacy rights for its citizenry. It's also what
keeps people accepting that a dollar is worth what it's worth, that personal property works the
way it works, that the people on Capitol Hill write the rules, and that you need to behave a
certain way around a police officer or he can legally kill you.
And therein lies the answer to the question. You are not being protected from
"disinformation" by a compassionate government who is deeply troubled to see you believing
erroneous beliefs, you are being herded back toward the official narrative by a power
establishment which understands that losing control of the narrative means losing power. It has
nothing to do with Russia, and it has nothing to do with truth. It's about power, and the
unexpected trouble that existing power structures are having dealing with the public's newfound
ability to network and share information about what is going on in the world.
That's strange to here this from form State Department head who wobble the truth on daily
basis ;-) But the quotes are really good, while the man definitly is not...
He put extremely high standard for a human life: "Absent a life of integrity, no human being can live a life that is complete
and whole," he said. "Living a life of integrity, perhaps we have a chance."
Compare with cynical Oscar Wilde quote "
As for truth, when neocons get to power, filth starts to flower downhill. The lies became "business as usual" and starts to
overpower truth. Much like in the USSR. So, in a way, the truth is the first victim of the neoliberalism. The neoliberal ruling
class succumbs to and supports all perversions. These kind of dirt-bags democracy have no aversion
Notable quotes:
"... If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom. ..."
"... "A responsibility of every American citizen to each other is to preserve and protect our freedom by recognizing what truth is and is not, what a fact is and is not and begin by holding ourselves accountable to truthfulness and demand our pursuit of America's future be fact-based -- not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes made in shallow promises, but with a clear-eyed view of the facts as they are, and guided by the truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges." ..."
Tillerson was the country's top diplomat until March, when he was fired by Donald Trump and
replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo. NBC News reports that Tillerson called on the graduates
to maintain a "fierce defense of the truth."
"As I reflect upon the state of our American democracy, I observe a growing crisis in ethics
and integrity," Tillerson said in his speech. " If our leaders seek to conceal the truth,
or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts,
then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom. "
He added, "When we as people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth, even on what may seem
the most trivial of matters, we go wobbly on America."
"A responsibility of every American citizen to each other is to preserve and protect our
freedom by recognizing what truth is and is not, what a fact is and is not and begin by holding
ourselves accountable to truthfulness and demand our pursuit of America's future be fact-based
-- not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes made in shallow promises, but with a
clear-eyed view of the facts as they are, and guided by the truth that will set us free to seek
solutions to our most daunting challenges."
This diary may
be on the absurd side, but I know that this issue's bothered any number of us (including many
tankies on Twitter), but this comment thread posits some opinions and offers many links to
buttress arguments. Of course there were disagreements I haven't included, but not wanting to
risk a wider war with Israel at this point, with so many dangers on Russia's borders makes sense
to me. Can't say I've checked out more than a couple links
It really was disgusting it was to see Bibi with Putin at the V-day celebration in Moscow
while the IDF was striking 'Iranian' (not so much) installations in Syria. Some say having Bibi
there was by way of an object lesson: 'See what we've got?' I'm agnostic on that point, but I've
grabbed these comments for your consideration and have just pasted them in raw with no quotations
marks. Happy digging; dunno what a comment might on this PSA might include, but let's just see
how it goes. They're out of time order, as I'd forgotten to Save the ones I'd grabbed early on,
and have had to go back to copy more.
From Moon of Alabama's '
open thread' (2
pages of comments) on May 11:
..
Also not a good sign that President Putin re-nominated
Medvedev (not the URL)
as Prime Minister. The Saker lays out the rationale for this view.
Posted by: Trisha Driscoll | May 11, 2018
With regard to Medvedev. Let's just end this now.
Vesti news has a 10-minute clip showing the Duma in session to approve or disapprove Medvedev
as Prime Minister. It's a great glimpse into the parliamentary side of things that we rarely see.
Putin states that the social reforms he has called for and intends to carry out have been planned
and examined with a fine tooth comb for a year and a half – by a team led by Medvedev. It
makes sense to him, he says, that this same team would now carry these plans forward.
Can we not get beyond our own particular preferences of policy flavor and understand that
Medvedev long ago ago gave up the Atlanticist affiliation – when, indeed, that option
politically receded from his country's shores – and is simply a team player now,
subservient to Russia and to Putin? And what he thinks in his own mind is nobody's business but
his? He has no power outside of being a Prime Minister who effectuates Putin's vision.
And personally, I suspect he takes some satisfaction from doing this well. I don't care what
transforms or redeems a man. I just care what fits the need of the moment. The hour produces the
man, be he ever so tainted from former allegiances.
pa..Vesti is cranking out so much Russian news and news shows now, in short clips with English
subtitles – often half a dozen per day – that I've added it to my daily news scan. I
reccomend the YouTube channel: Vesti News
Putin has done more to stop, blunt or block US military aggression than any other country.
He picked Syria to put Russian military up against US military. If he had not not done so, the
Syrians that are still dying due to the terrorists and their sponsors would, along with hundreds
of thousands of others have been dead in the jihadist takeover in 2015.
the Palestinians? What is the rest of the world doing about this? How many other countries
deal with Israel. What is you country doing for the Palestinians.
There have been many proposed resolutions against Syria in the UN but US has vetoed them all.
Israel can be brought into line only when US power is destroyed.
Many of the worlds conflicts that exist today can never be resolved until US power is
destroyed as it is the US that keeps those conflicts as open wounds.
For Russia putting all their efforts into say Palestine or Yemen and the many other conflicts
is like running around putting out spot fires rather than catching the arsonist.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | May 11, 2018 9:02:14 PM |
..
Korybko interprets Russian signals as message to Assad to "compromise," which I don't agree
with at all as such a "demand" backwalks numerous previous statements about Syria by Russia,
which isn't normal Kremlin behavior. In essence, Korybko's arguing that the relationship between
Zionists and Russia is more important than Russia's relations with Syria, Iraq, and Iran–a
huge misread on his part, IMO.
"The reckless, reprehensible behavior of the US towards international law, multilateralism and
diplomacy – all of which it falsely projects onto Russia, China and others – is, or
should be, a watershed moment for all of the world to recognize that such rogue conduct is
intolerable and unacceptable.
"Either there is multilateral accord or there is not. Either there is a multipolar world as
envisaged by a democracy of nations, or there is brutish hegemony of unipolar ambitions. The
latter is not law-abiding. It is predicated on the brutish principle of "might is right". The
world cannot afford such a hegemon for the sake of peace and survival."
It certainly echoes much of what's written by b and us Barflies.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 11, 2018
Russia's catching a lot of blogger-flak regarding its failure to go to war with Israel. That's
not smart.
Here's the probable scenario as I see it, keeping in mind that the #1 priority for Russia is
its own political interests and its own security, which is true of every country.
There are three allies concerned with Syria led by Russia, and including Turkey and Iran.
Three unlkely allies, actually. But they are trying to get along, with Russia's objective a
return of Syria to full sovereignty of all its territory, and a cessation of hostilities, with a
Russian military presence. It's not been easy but there has been progress and it looks like
Russia and its allies will be successful.
Iran has that objective too, but also has a strong interest in aiding Hezbollah as a powerful
anti-Israel force. That includes provisioning Hezbollah in Syria with ballistic missiles.
Russia (in my probable scenario) said to Iran don't do that. It endangers our chief interest
in Syria which is to win the war against US/Israel and end the warfare. Don't do anything that
endangers that. But Iran did it anyhow, and has paid a price which Syria shares. And as a part of
that, Russia has taken no action against Israel because it expected this might happen, that's why
Iran was cautioned. Iran thought it could do whatever it wanted in Syria and it got burned.
So I say to anti-Russia bloggers, wake up and smell the coffee.
"Naturally, we will use your visit today to discuss bilateral relations and problems in the
region. Unfortunately, the situation is very acute. I would like to express hope that you and I
will not only manage to discuss, but also find solutions which will lead to a shift in the
situation, and which will also allow us to find ways to resolve heated conflicts."
Putin's clearly aiming at de-escalation, while Nutty's all about escalating.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 11, 2018
I used to admire Korybko enormously, and I thought him a brilliant talent. I don't know what's
happened in the last few months. Every one of his articles seems to be a mis-read. He's chosen a
view of reality that I think is wrong, and everything he extrapolates from that is
off-kilter.
We all choose at what level down the rabbit hole we want to go, but whatever it is, our
predictions should accord with subsequent events, or we can know it's an inaccurate ledge to
perch on. Korybko keeps saying there's a hidden agenda and a secret union between Israel and
Russia that makes all the rest of the Syria campaign a sham. He's become as unreliable as Paul
Craig Roberts at reading the true balances, and as unreliable, it pains me to say, as the Saker
appears at times lately. They all call for the sky to fall tomorrow, or else say that it already
has and the fix is in, and resistance is futile.
Miracles abound. But everyone is so damn gloomy. Is it a new CIA manic-depression drug? Radio
waves? Crazy.
Posted by: Grieved | May 11, 2018
.
Too many cast Putin as Tsar; he is not. National security issues are discussed and solved by a
council of same name through consensus. Same with Foreign Relations. One aspect of Russia that
differs greatly from almost every Western nation is the Russian government acts in the best
interest of all Russians , not just a select nomenclatura as in Outlaw US Empire and UK.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 11, 2018
During the course of the Ukraine war I, and I imagine many others, went through some of the
feelings about Vladimir Putin that many people are expressing now. We grew impatient. We wanted
Russia to go in and kick Porky's ass into the high heavens. We wanted the Chocolate King toasted.
But Putin carried on with his minimalist strategy, his control over emotion and ego, his resource
stinginess, providing just enough to the Donbas warriors, just enough. It was nail-biting and
frustrating at times, but If Russia had gone into Ukraine, guns blazing (as Russia's enemies
wanted) it would probably be bankrupt by now.
Scene change to Syria and we have the same minimum aircraft, troops, special forces Minimum
but enough. Israel feels very strongly about the S-300. Putin and his generals have probably
verified for themselves what they long suspected – that many products built by the US
military industrials since the 1990s are pretty crap. Just look at the F-35 and the Boeing 787
"Dreamliner", which pilots and cabin crew refer to as the "binliner" due to its continuous
faults. After a PHD on more-or-less this subject my humble self came to the same conclusion.
So do the Syrians really need the S-300 when they seem to be doing fine with what they have
got? They could be beefed up with some Pantsirs and Buks. Why antagonize Israel needlessly? Why
risk WWIII? Why risk Russia's World Cup – when sabotage and stealth are what the Israelis
are best at? Why not just keep slipping Assad stuff that will keep the Israeli's guessing?
Posted by: Lochearn | May 11, 2018
.
@ Grieved who wrote: "Miracles abound. But everyone is so damn gloomy. Is it a new CIA
manic-depression drug? Radio waves? Crazy."
The more the elite can rile the public with fear and anger against others the better their
chances of manipulating events to their ends at least that is their plan and I am not seeing
white flags yet.
Yes, we are in the middle of a watershed event for humanity where the real issue of whether a
small elite continue to control the tools of finance is being fought as a battle between Israel
et al and the rest of the world through Syria/Iran/??? That the issues are so intertwined and so
misunderstood by the public is a human travesty that I attribute to brainwashing by the Western
media.
The good thing about this situation is that we are in it because the old way is breaking down
all around us and energy abounds for supporting structural change. For someone who has been
watching and waiting for 40+ years, I am DAMN happy to see such an opportunity for human growth
present itself in my lifetime.
May 11. /TASS/. The refusal to supply the S-300 air defense missile systems to Syria is not
linked in any way with the recent visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Moscow,
acting Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday.
Peskov commented on a statement, which acting Russian Presidential Aide for Military and
Technical Cooperation Vladimir Kozhin gave in an interview with the newspaper Izvestia.
"Technologically, it is absolutely incorrect to link this [Kozhin's words] with Netanyahu's
visit because the interview was given before Netanyahu's visit," the acting Kremlin spokesman
pointed out.
Russia has never announced such deliveries and only specified that it reserves the right in
the wake of US-led airstrikes against Syria to do everything possible in this situation.
In an interview published on Friday, Kozhin said that Russia was not delivering the S-300 air
defense missile systems to Syria and no talks had been underway on their delivery thus far.
As the acting Kremlin spokesman added, the Syrian army "has everything it needs."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on April 16 that Russia was ready to consider
all necessary steps to reinforce Syria's defense capabilities, including the delivery of the
S-300 systems.
Unlike the West, RF does not pre-announce. Just do it!
Do you think Putin is pleased about this?
Israeli Weapons Among Arms Handed Over to Syrian Army By Terrorists in Damascus
Oh, not just medical aid!
Posted by: Likklemore | May 11, 2018
..
Explanation of Russia's approach by Andrei Korybko. Russia is taking a balance-of-power
approach, not a bloc approach, to Syria. Hence its ambiguous stances towards Turkey, Iran, and
Israel. Beyond what is required to defeat the Takfiris and assure the stability of the Syrian
government, the rest is negotiable. Putin does not want the situation between Iran and Israel to
escalate, and to that end is seeking greater influence in Syria vis-a-vis Iran.
Such a massive organized aggression has been inflicted on Syria, so much effort has been put
into sujugating and destroying Syria, the Syrians have suffered so horribly. Years of economic
warfare – sanctions, tens of thousands of mercenary madmen from dozens of countries
deployed against Syria, entire cities destroyed, massive amounts of arms and financing provided
to the madmen, global mass media disinformation deployed, oil stolen, thousands of US bombs
dropped, continual Israeli attacks and subterfuge, NATO special forces deployed, massive
mercenary underground construction project at Douma, false flags, Turkish aggression, Saudi
complicity, and more.
And how do things stand, after seven years of this? Syrians are inspirational for their
resistance, Syria is battered but winning, Russia's standing has risen as she has saved Syria,
the mercenaries are largely eliminated or herded into specific areas; Israelis and Americans have
lost yet more international standing, are more obviously outlaw regimes, and have lost self
confidence; their military intimidation is more and more lacking in real authority. NATO is
licking its wounds and is less cohesive, occupied Germany is showing signs of awakening, Turkey
and the US are at odds, the British are a malicious joke, the Saudis are weaker, Iran and Lebanon
are stronger, Iraqis despise the Americans, China is stronger.
Meanwhile, Russia too has been under US led economic warfare attack, and near global
disinformation attack, and demonization. And yet she too is stronger in many ways than she was
just a few years ago.
Posted by: Robert Snefjella | May 11, 2018
..
karlof1 @20
There's nothing in that statement that approves of Israel's attack. And informing Putin of a
changed stance due to a perception that 'red lines' were crossed (red lines that would've been
discussed weeks or months prior) would be positioned by Netanyahu as a courtesy ( when it is
really just a sneaky attempt at battlefield advantage).
Here's a thought (not fully baked):the Russians have their eye on the ball. Those who are
focused on Zionists as a problem for a West easily miss the fact that USA is a bigger problem for
Russia than Israel. USA is the "power behind the throne". Zionists and neocons may manipulate
that power but it is better for Russia to make an effort to separate Israel from the West. You
catch more flies with honey.
If SCO becomes strong enough to offer meaningful security guarantees and Israel also has an
opportunity to participate in lucrative economic opportunities in Eurasia then Israel might be
enticed to end it's belligerent manipulation of US. It may require a new generation of leadership
in Israel before that happens. Russia-China are playing long games.
So you run around spouting your hatred for Putin because he does not proclaim himself world
policeman and and does not crap on about R2P. As he has said, he is not anybodies friend. He is
the president of the Russian federation.
In this video I linked earlier, he plainly states his position on Israel.
Like it or not Putin recognizes and operates within International law and Russian law, and
respects UN recognized borders. Putin, all the time he has been President has operated on the
principle of evolution not revolution. He is not about to change now.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | May 11, 2018
The more the elite can rile the public with fear and anger against others the better their
chances of manipulating events to their ends at least that is their plan and I am not seeing
white flags yet.
Yes, we are in the middle of a watershed event for humanity where the real issue of whether a
small elite continue to control the tools of finance is being fought as a battle between Israel
et al and the rest of the world through Syria/Iran/??? That the issues are so intertwined and so
misunderstood by the public is a human travesty that I attribute to brainwashing by the Western
media.
The good thing about this situation is that we are in it because the old way is breaking down
all around us and energy abounds for supporting structural change. For someone who has been
watching and waiting for 40+ years, I am DAMN happy to see such an opportunity for human growth
present itself in my lifetime.
I'll add a few other things that may or may not be of interest:
'Who we are, why we're digging: Team probing Syrian war & Skripal poisoning case reveal
all', the UK working group on Syria, propaganda, and media,
via RT (with this video,
9:26)
"... Suppose there were no Russia in Syria, what would have happened? Libya would have been the fate. Most likely US would have recognized Golan Ht as Israel's. Oil harvesting companies would become more visible. Lebanon would have been in flames. Nothing else in ME. Some more terror attacks in EU may be. ..."
"... The real purpose of the Donald's missile-rattling is nothing more than helping Bibi Netanyahu keep his coalition of right wing religious and settler parties (Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu and the Jewish Home) together, thereby maintaining his slim 61-vote majority in the 120-seat Knesset. ..."
"... Netanyahu's malefic political glue is the utterly false claim that Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel because it is hell-bent on getting the bomb. ..."
"... As a matter of record, of course, Netanyahu has been saying this since the early 1990s and he has always been wrong because there were never any facts or logic to support his blatant fear-mongering. ..."
There have been major developments this week, all of them bad, including Putin re-nominating
Medvedev as his Prime Minister, and Bibi Netanyahu invited to Moscow to the Victory Day Parade
in spite of him bombing Syria, a Russian ally, just on the eve of his visit. Once in Moscow,
Netanyahu compared Iran to, what else, Nazi
Germany . How original and profound indeed! Then he proceeded to order the bombing of Syria
for a second time , while still in
Moscow. But then, what can we expect from a self-worshiping narcissist who finds it appropriate
to serve
food to the Japanese Prime Minister in a specially made shoe ? The man is clearly batshit
crazy (which in no way makes him less evil or dangerous). But it is the Russian reaction which
is so totally disgusting: nothing, absolutely nothing. Unlike others, I have clearly said
that it is not the Russian responsibility to "protect" Syria (or Iran) from the Israelis. But
there is no doubt in my mind that Netanyahu has just publicly thumbed his nose at Putin and
that Putin took it. For all my respect for Putin, this time he allowed Netanyahu to treat him
just like Trump treated Macron. Except that in the case of Putin, he was so treated in his own
capital. That makes it even worse.
[Interestingly, while whining about "Nazi Iran" Netanyahu did say something truly profound
and true. He said " an important history lesson: when a murderous ideology emerges, one has
to push back against it before it is too late". That is indeed exactly what most people
across the world feel about Israel and its Zionist ideology but, alas, their voice is
completely ignored by those who rule over them. So yes, it sure looks to me like it is becoming
"too late" and that the consequences for our collective cowardice -- most of us are absolutely
terrified from speaking the plain truth about our Zionist overlords - will cost us all a
terrible price.]
Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the US does
not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral agreement. But being the
megalomaniac that he is, and not to mention the spineless lackey of the Israel Lobby, Trump
ignored all that and thereby created further tensions between the US and the rest of the world
whom the US will now blackmail and bully to try to force it to support the US in its rabid
subservience to Israel. As for the Israelis, their "sophisticated" "strategy" is primitive to
the extreme: first get Trump to create maximal tensions with Iran, then attack the Iranians in
Syria as visibly and arrogantly as possible, bait the Iranians into a retaliation, then bellow
"OI VEY!!!" with your loudest voice, mention the Holocaust once or twice, toss in a "6 million
people" figure, and get the US to attack Syria.
How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I
sure can't think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomanical thugs (and
cowards) than the Israelis. Can you?
Nonetheless, it appears undeniable that the Zionists have enough power to simultaneously
force not one, but two (supposed) superpowers to cave into their demands. Not only that, they
have the power to do that while also putting these two superpowers on a collision course
against each other. At the very least, this shows two things: the United States has completely
lost its sovereignty and is now an Israeli protectorate. As for Russia, well, she is doing
comparatively better, but the full re-sovereignization the Russian people have voted for when
they gave their overwhelming support to Putin will not happen. A comment I read on a Russian
chat put it: "Путин кинул
народ -- мы не за
Медведева
голосовали" or " Putin betrayed
the people -- we did not vote for Medvedev ". I am not sure that "betrayed the people" is
fair, but the fact that he has disappointed a lot of people is, I think, simply undeniable.
It is still way too early to reach any conclusions at this point, and there are still way
too many unknown variables, but I will admit that I am very worried and that for the first time
in 4 years I am having major doubts about a fundamental policy decision by Putin. I sure hope
that I am wrong. We will find out relatively soon. I just hope that this will not be in the
form of a major war.
Paul Craig Roberts has repeatedly, for some years now, questioned Putin's apparent
willingness to bend over backwards to placate his "partners" in the West.
PCR has maintained consistently that the West can not be trusted, that Russia's attempts
at accommodation are taken as signs of weakness, acting only to embolden the West in its
continuing vicious assaults.
Of course, Russia is playing for time: hoping that over time the strategic tables will
increasing tip in its own & China's etc favour.
However, I suspect Saker & PCR are right: further submission will only lead to ever more
vicious attacks. This is made all the worse by China's unwillingness to assert itself
internationally as the 2nd largest economic power. (As if it can't see the US strategy, via
tariffs etc to retard, if not destroy its future economic development)
One might have a tiny mite of hope that the West might ultimately act sanely. However, with
the Zionists now pulling all the strings sanity is over & out.
Netanyahu is regarded in Washington, and perhaps also Moscow, as almost Churchillian for his
efforts to protect Israel and by extension the region and the US.
Who among us wants horizontal nuclear proliferation and a nuked up Iran armed with
ICBM's?
I've been waiting to hear your take, Saker, since things are very bad indeed. I did not like
what I saw happen on May 9th. Here is my very abbreviated take on it.
Bibi knows that he's pulled Trump fully into the Israeli orbit. He as much as told Putin
he would attack Syria and dared him to do anything about it. If Putin responded with force,
that would provide Israel and America with all the provocation they need to go all-in against
Syria, Iran, and Russia, which is what the Ziocons were hoping to accomplish anyway. Putin,
seeing all this and being the better man, can only sit back and take it. For now.
Bibi pissed in Putin's face and nobody could do a thing about it. But the whole world saw
what happened and nobody with half a brain is on the side of the Israelis. I'm no longer
upset that Putin didn't respond. He has admirable restraint and patience. The very hand of
God Himself will move against the Israelis for all their crimes and treachery, and Putin will
still be one of His chief instruments.
How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension.
I sure can't think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomanical thugs
(and cowards) than the Israelis. Can you?
Yes I can, Saker, you live among them.
Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the
US does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral
agreement
.
See Club Orlov http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/ 5/10 regarding the
120+ billion of Iranian money we hold in dollars the dead broke US gets to keep by pulling
out of the deal.
Good call.
That is why we follow you Saker.
It is the responsability of the american men to rebel and fix this goverment.
Im from cuba and the worst part here is that we have been delivered to be control and saked
by people that we took the lunch from them when we where kids,in the school yard.
Agree. Putin seems to have rolled over and is crying uncle. Sad. Perhaps he is waiting
until his new weapons are fully stockpiled before he makes any serious attempts to defend --
ultimately -- himself and his nation.
Without Russia putting some brakes on the Empire's unopposed oppressions, there is little
hope for truth, justice, etc. in the world. There is no attempt to print the truth in
national publications (that has been going on for a long time), and increasingly, little
attempt to hide the fact that they are not printing the truth. The masses, instead of
rebelling against obvious lies, seem to have internalized doublethink and do not have any
significant impulse to rise up and defend their own interests. The propaganda is too thick,
too strong, and too unopposed. Things look grim.
Who among us wants horizontal nuclear proliferation and a nuked up Iran armed with
ICBM's?
I think that would be a good check of Israel's power that could stabilize the ME and
return to the path of development that existed there still till early 1980s when the process
of destabilization began which was a part of the Yinon plan. If Israel remains the absolutely
dominant power people in ME countries will be allowed to live in Hobbesian chaotic world only
where they will be encouraged to engage in ethnic and sectarian fighting forever.
How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond
comprehension.
Why not? Israel has been successfully expanding its territory, and getting two superpowers
to cave into its demands (Saker's own words). That is pretty admirable in my book. This is certainly worth of both respect and admiration, even if one otherwise wishes to
see Israel burn in a sea of atomic fire.
Anyhow, there's no reason for Russia to care. Increased American tensions with Iran will
raise the price of oil. Also a reminder that the Kremlin couldn't care less about American
murders of Russian mercenaries. So in what world will they concern themselves with
Iranian ones.
A comment I read on a Russian chat put it: "Путин
кинул народ -- мы
не за
Медведева
голосовали" or "Putin betrayed
the people -- we did not vote for Medvedev".
Ah yes, the сирийские
братушки ("Syrian brothers"). Perhaps Western
Russophiles consider them such, but few Russians do.
So The Saker is correct, Putin did not betray "his" people. (Well, he did, but that
happened in 2014, not now).
I'm no longer upset that Putin didn't respond. He has admirable restraint and patience.
The very hand of God Himself will move against the Israelis for all their crimes and
treachery, and Putin will still be one of His chief instruments.
This is your wishful thinking talking. You are still upset with Putin and you should be.
May 9 parade with Netanyahu and bombing in Syria really looked very bad. To me it signified
Putin's capitulation. At least it is the end game and Russia realized she was outplayed as
she is apparently not ready to go all the way with the nuclear blackmail. Putin will stay put
waiting for the stupid World Cup while Netanyahu will be escalating or some face saving
measure will be found for Russia to withdraw from Syria or Russia will be invited to be a
part of occupational government there.
Chinese looking from afar probably are disappointed but they never trusted Russian corrupt
elite staying the course.
Suppose there were no Russia in Syria, what would have happened? Libya would have been the fate. Most likely US would have recognized Golan Ht as Israel's.
Oil harvesting companies would become more visible. Lebanon would have been in flames.
Nothing else in ME. Some more terror attacks in EU may be.
But would these have changed the internal dynamics within US ? No It would not. US would
still be going down the path it has been and that path would still be what it is today at
home and abroad.
Social anarchy, takeover of Democrats by non-whites , takeover of GOP by religious
militant and bipartisan tax cutting for pro big business will continue unhindered . Is it
good? No. But good for the destruction of the country. That is good .
ME without USA would then look like no different until Russia also faces the same fate that
has happened to Wiemar Germany and Egyptian/ Persian in the historical past.
on another note after seeing shabas putin next to netanyahu holding picture of a commie
terrorist commissar let me say Saker the "ukronazis" have the stalinist russians pegged right
thank God they left Russia some hope for a jew free state
Paul Craig Roberts has repeatedly, for some years now, questioned Putin's apparent
willingness to bend over backwards to placate his "partners" in the West.
The problem isn't bending over backward .it's bending over forward.
Netanyahu is regarded in Washington, and perhaps also Moscow, as almost Churchillian for
his efforts to protect Israel and by extension the region and the US.
"With Sharon's backing, terrible things were done. I am no vegetarian, and I supported
and even participated in some of the assassination operations Israel carried out. But we are
speaking here about mass killing for killing's sake, to sow chaos and alarm, among civilians,
too. Since when do we send donkeys carrying bombs to blow up in marketplaces?"
-- Mossad officer, quoted in Ronen Bergman's Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of
Israel's Targeted Assassinations
[Interestingly, while whining about "Nazi Iran" Netanyahu did say something truly
profound and true. He said "an important history lesson: when a murderous ideology emerges,
one has to push back against it before it is too late". That is indeed exactly what most
people across the world feel about Israel and its Zionist ideology but, alas, their voice
is completely ignored by those who rule over them. So yes, it sure looks to me like it is
becoming "too late" and that the consequences for our collective cowardice -- most of us
are absolutely terrified from speaking the plain truth about our Zionist overlords - will
cost us all a terrible price.]
Add to that the Jews' other genocidal favorites; diversity, multiculturalism, open
borders, and anti-nationalism-fur-de-goyim.
Of course, Saker and his fellow cucked "Russian nationalists" don't add them, which
is part of the reason that I'm indifferent to Russian nationalists anymore.
Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the
US does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral
agreement.
Let's just say I'm not taking flatheads' word on this one.
In the meantime, I want to refocus on the Skripal case.
Only took you like a thousand words to get around to the point; congratulations.
This is made all the worse by China's unwillingness to assert itself internationally as
the 2nd largest economic power. (As if it can't see the US strategy, via tariffs etc to
retard, if not destroy its future economic development)
In reality the US strategy is now to be a bit less than a total globalist-run whorehouse.
Which will probably be changed back with the next new president. China's main concern will be
internal stability and security for the foreseeable future.
One indeed can admire how a few thousand jews wield such power.
I consider the rest of jewry as their victims.
But then, why not admire Hitler, he was on his own.
In both cases, disaster struck.
Jews still do not see that the present situation in the USA resembles the Weimar
Republic.
Henry Ford knew this quite well 'in the end most Jewish enterprises fail through
overconfidence'.
Possibly the first time was when they were, as is asserted, implicated in the murder of the
Roman emperor.
Rome twice sent big armies to Palestine.
If Rome also invented Christianity to undermine them, it remains an interesting theory.
I am inclined to agree with you Putin is smarter and would not/cannot fall for the bait. I
believe history will confirm that he will save the human race from total annihilation that we
possibly face in months/years to come. I was hoping that Trump would also be a force for good
but my view is changing as each day passes. I do not understand the subservient position that
the US takes with Israel. Yes there is an aggressive Zionist faction who control America and
yes nobody dares speak out against them but there must come a time when enough is enough.
Unfortunately if Trump meant it when he said he would drain the swamp he has been prevented
from doing so.
I wouldn't be too hard on Putin. I have a whacked theory that the Jews see the control of the
USA slipping. 9-11 was a huge screw up and more and more people know. They had talked of
moving to India or China but I don't think that will work. Neither will allow the same stunts
they have pulled around Whites. I think the psychopathic Jews are breed to be a parasite on
the White Man and it will never work elsewhere. So they're fucked. What can they do? Well if
you're a psychopath then the best thing to do would be to start a China/Russia vs. USA nuke
war and while this goes on nuke the Europeans, Arabs and maybe a little germ warfare thrown
in for good measure. You sit in the middle and hunker down then start over.
Now this may be completely crazy but psychopaths are crazy by most peoples definition and
the above is perfectly logical. Maybe Putin doesn't think of it in directly these terms like
I laid out but he can't help but notice that these animals are off, a lot. The Jews position
gets worse every single day. They will have no luck at all disarming the Americans and the
internet, despite their censorship, can;t be completely closed down. Their media platform is
failing. No one believes what they say.
We should get rid of the Jews. Peacefully if we can but by any means necessary. Jewish
populations upon moving into another territory are in no way distinguishable from a tribe of
psychopaths over the long term. No one wants to live with psychopaths.
Mr Saker,
I agree with your first part of the article and if I may add, Putin is a corrupt capitalist
much like his brother in the US, Trump! They do love wealth and power so much that they both
are prime targets for corruption by the wealthy Z's. Now that they both have become pawns and
subservient to a third party, the Z's are dancing in street for taking control of the 2
superpowers! The one point that I'd disagree with is about your concerns of the 2 super
powers having to come closer to a potential military conflict! Since a third party has taken
control of the two superpowers the 2 countries are NOT allowed to challenge each other
militarily because there's zero or even less than zero benefits for the real people who are
in charge!
It was a real stab in the back for our allies and that's really hard to see.
I definitely see yours and the Saker's arguments in making this point, however,
personally, it all looks to me like act 1 of a bigger play. Like Trump, Putin seems to make
his concessions up front, but there must, by necessity be a payback concession somewhere down
the road; if their allowed survival itself isn't the original concession already.
The nature of the understanding between Russia and Israel, which has not been covered
anywhere in the news, must ultimately not be so difficult to determine for journalists
investigating it, if such journalists actually existed.
None of them has any interest in covering this, however, because: the west can't deviate
from the onslaught of Russian vilification; Russia, doesn't want to show its vulnerabilities
and Israel doesn't want to show its power.
But I suspect some of this will come to light as the next phase of operations against
Iran.
The mere threat of a military attack from the White House is madness because it arises
from blatant lies that have absolutely nothing to do with US national security. Nor, for
that matter, the security of any other country in the region, including Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
The real purpose of the Donald's missile-rattling is nothing more than helping Bibi
Netanyahu keep his coalition of right wing religious and settler parties (Likud, United
Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu and the Jewish Home) together, thereby maintaining his slim
61-vote majority in the 120-seat Knesset.
Netanyahu's malefic political glue is the utterly false claim that Iran is an
"existential threat" to Israel because it is hell-bent on getting the bomb.
But that's where the whopper comes in. It amounts to the ridiculous postulate that Iran
is so fiendishly evil that if it is involved in the nuclear fuel cycle in any way, shape or
form -- presumably even just operating a uranium mine -- it is only a matter of months
before it will have a bomb.
As a matter of record, of course, Netanyahu has been saying this since the early 1990s
and he has always been wrong because there were never any facts or logic to support his
blatant fear-mongering.
But maybe this will blow the top on the economic fiction that's been going on since at
leads Greenspan:
And that gets us to the madness at the other end of the Acela Corridor. On a day in
which there was no good news whatsoever -- except that defense spending will go ever higher
making the impending yield shock even worse -- the stock market rose by another 1%.
There is no mystery as to why, however. Honest price discovery and the discounting of
real world information was totally destroyed by the Fed's monetary central planners years
ago.
The only thing the casino discounts today is the trading points on the hourly, daily and
weekly stock charts, and the presumption that both the fiscal and central banking branches
of the state stand ready to "stimulate" whenever a serious breach occurs on the charts.
Nothing could be more mistaken -- and for reasons we will amplify upon in Part 2.
But the spoiler alert is this: The private sector is now swamped under record and
unsustainable debt in both the household and business sectors. By succumbing to the most
incendiary Deep State meme of all -- the Iranian Nuke lie -- the Donald has now made a
public debt catastrophe an absolute certainty.
It looks like a smackdown following the announcement of the superweapons. My thought on
Putin's gloating show was why not keep these weaponse developments secret. Once the
toothpaste is out of the tube you can't push it back in. One explanation may be that Putin
thought he was in charge up to that point, but may have found out differently. I don't know
if Russia has a Rothschild central bank. But agreed, it certainly looks bad. Plus Israel has
hit Syria again. It all looks very bad.
Don't be ridiculous,. Most of us would trust Iran with nukes even if they wanted them,
which they do not, before the Zionist terrorist state. As the Saker said. "How anybody can
respect, never mind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I sure can't think
of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomaniacal thugs (and cowards) than
the Israelis. "
ussia's objectives in Syria are not identical
to their own? Are they not students of history?
I can only imagine the negotiations that went on in Russia among Netanyahu and company and
the Russian government. I'm certain that Russia made assurances that it would not provide
S-300 systems. What did Netanyahu have to pay for that? Perhaps assurances that he would stop
pushing the Americans to bomb Syrian positions? I don't know. You have an imagination. Think
of what Putin wants that Netanyahu could provide.
I congratulate Mr Roberts for his courage.
"We must take it on faith alone."
I also agree with all his references to Israel. I loathe people who demand acts of faith (or
self induced stupidity)
Russia has a national, sovereign, bank , led by a very competent economist, Elvira
Nabiulina.
However, Russia's economy is not a match to its military status. Russia's entire GDP is
lower than South Korea's, and is only slightly over twice the Pentagon's budget.
I think this is one of the reasons why President Putin must tread carefully: Russia's
economy and internal stability are very vulnerable to external economic and financial
pressure.
I am a supporter of the Resistance. I support resistance to American hegmony, the idea of a unipolar world with the rest of
the nations following American dictates. I support resistance by American citizens against the ideas of American exceptionalism,
ongoing foreign belligerence that benefits only the Military Industrial Complex and a certain "shitty little country in the Levant".
I support resistance to the Zionist State, the ongoing crimes perpetrated by the Zionists against both the indigenous Palestinians
in their own nation and against their neighboring Arab countries. I support American resistance to the stranglehold that supporters
of Israel enjoy on the political system in the US.
Therefore, I support actors such as China and Russia in that they are cooperating to balance the unbridled hubris and exceptionalism
of my country, providing a balance, a multi-polar future. Iran has become a lynchpin in this geopolitical competition, being positioned
smack in the middle of a horizontal (OBOR/BRI initiative) and vertical (Russia's energy cooperation ideas) axis of the future.
I support Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (Hizbollah) in their desire to remain independent, complete nations while supporting
the Palestinians and fighting against the Zionists.
I am not so naive, however, to imagine that all the components of the resistance have similar goals in specific areas, in this
case the Syrian situation. It is more than curious to see people saying that Putin "sold out" Syria and Iran. Do you not consider
that Putin is acting for the benefit of the Russian nation and Russian interests, and not for the benefit of the rest of the resistance
and their program? Do you not realize that without the Russian action in support of the Assad administration, he would certainly
have lost his nation, a nation that would currently be a destabilized basket case, a series of fragments falling under control
of various Sunnite head choppers, Kurdish militias, and government remnants?
It is important to consider the objectives of the resistance players in Syria, both short- and long-term. Russia's objectives
in Syria have been to keep the nation united and integrated, under the control of the current legitimate government until democratic
elections can be held at some future date. Russia wants to prevent a radical Sunni movement from threatening its southern flank,
sending activists to radicalize the Sunni populations in its Caucasus region. Another more recent objective of Russia in this
long-term goal is to keep the Americans out of Syria as much as possible, hoping that the cessation of military action and the
return of Syrian government control will lead to removal of all US troops.
The Russian goals do NOT include the destruction of the Zionist State, the return of the Golan Heights to Syria, or the emancipation
of the Palestinian people. It is very important to keep this in mind.
The goals of the providers of the boots on the ground that saved the Syrian government, namely Hizbollah, Iran, and the Iraqi
Shiite militias, extend beyond the scope of the Russian goals, at least as far as long-term targets are concerned. These players
certainly share the Russian goals of shoring up the Assad regime, destroying the Daesh forces, both mercenary and local, and returning
Syria to the stable ally that it was. There are more goals for these forces, though, and these goals are clear for all to see.
Hizbollah wants the return of all Lebanese territory to Lebanon. Hizbollah, Iran, and Syria want the return of the Golan Heights
to Syrian control. They rightfully see the stabilization of the situation in Syria, the massing of their forces, hardened, battle
tested forces, as an excellent opportunity to engage Israel and take back territory.
They realize that the Syrian air defenses are much improved, and although Israel is still able to attack Syrian targets with
impunity, there is more risk.
They have made plans and accumulated missiles, accurate, precision missiles that will be able to attack Israeli military positions
in the Golan Heights, for example, the IDF electronic surveillance / EW positions on Mt. Hermon. These provide the Israelis with
direct line-of-sight to most of the Damascus Plain. What would happen if Syria/Iran/Hizbollah used a precision missile strike
to take out the Israeli's eyes, as well as the AD jammers and other equipment? All of these players also want a fair and just
solution for the Palestinian people, the recovery of their ability to determine their own future on terms that are acceptable
to them. I support these goals. I am not Putin.
Remember, an escalation in military action between the Israelis and the Syrian/Iranian/Hizbollah forces in southern Syria will
be viewed by Russia as a greater risk for its own troops, and a greater chance that the US will interfere more forcefully in the
country. The Russians want to avoid this. Do I like this? Of course not. Keep in mind my own views, and the forces of the resistance
that I said that I support. Do I feel that the Russians sold out thier allies? No way. Do you really think that the generals of
the IRGC and Hassan Nasrallah are unaware of the fact that R
"... A McClatchy journalist investigated further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was disinformation. ..."
"... Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma. ..."
"... The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny. Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation. ..."
"... Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them, anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them. ..."
"... No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of Russian responsibility) have been shattered. ..."
"... Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation. ..."
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
"... 1984, anyone? ..."
"... The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and other sites is just so stupid its painful. ..."
"... Presumably the Skripals touch the cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW can't even get the amounts of the chemical right. ..."
"... Biggest problem with the world today is lazy insouciant citizens. ..."
"... One very important point Lavrov made was the anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction of humanity; ..."
"... while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter envisioned. ..."
"... Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation. ..."
"... Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™. ..."
"... Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar. ..."
"... And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™ apparatus. ..."
"... Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill Clinton in charge of a girls' school. ..."
"... In the Guardian I only read the comments, never the article. Here, I read both. That is the difference between propaganda and good reporting. ..."
The Grauniad is slipping deeper into the disinformation business:
Revealed: UK's push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance is the headline of a page one piece
which reveals exactly nothing. There is no secret lifted and no one was discomforted by a
questioning journalist.
Like other such pieces it uses disinformation to accuse Russia of spreading such.
The main 'revelation' is stenographed from a British government official. Some quotes from
the usual anti-Russian propagandists were added. Dubious or false 'western' government claims
are held up as truth. That Russia does not endorse them is proof for Russian mischievousness
and its 'disinformation'.
The opener:
The UK will use a series of international summits this year to call for a comprehensive
strategy to combat Russian disinformation and urge a rethink over traditional diplomatic
dialogue with Moscow, following the Kremlin's aggressive campaign of denials over the use of
chemical weapons in the UK and Syria.
...
"The foreign secretary regards Russia's response to Douma and Salisbury as a turning point
and thinks there is international support to do more," a Whitehall official said. "The areas
the UK are most likely to pursue are countering Russian disinformation and finding a
mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons."
There is a mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons. It is the
Chemical Weapon Convention and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
It was the British government which at first
rejected the use of these instruments during the Skripal incident:
Early involvement of the OPCW, as demanded by Russia, was resisted by the British
government. Only on March 14, ten days after the incident happened and two days after Prime
Minister Theresa may had made accusations against Russia, did the British government invite
the OPCW. Only on March 19, 15 days after the incident happen did the OPCW technical team
arrive and took blood samples.
Now back to the Guardian disinformation:
In making its case to foreign ministries, the UK is arguing that Russian denials over
Salisbury and Douma reveal a state uninterested in cooperating to reach a common
understanding of the truth , but instead using both episodes to try systematically to divide
western electorates and sow doubt.
A 'common understanding of the truth' is an interesting term. What is the truth? Whatever
the British government claims? It accused Russia of the Skripal incident a mere eight days
after it happened. Now, two month later, it admits that it
does not know who poisoned the Skripals:
Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to identify the individual or
individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security
adviser has disclosed.
Do the Brits know where the alleged Novichok poison came from? Unless they produced it
themselves they likely have no idea. The Czech Republic just admitted that it
made small doses of a Novichok nerve agent for testing purposes. Others did too.
Back to the Guardian :
British politicians are not alone in claiming Russia's record of mendacity is not a personal
trait of Putin's, but a government-wide strategy that makes traditional diplomacy
ineffective.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, famously came off one lengthy phone call with Putin
– she had more than 40 in a year – to say he lived in a different world.
No, Merkel never said that. An Obama administration flunky planted that
in the New York Times :
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking
with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call
said. "In another world," she said.
When that claim was made in March 2014 we were immediately suspicious
of it:
This does not sound like typically Merkel but rather strange for her. I doubt that she said
that the way the "people briefed on the call" told it to the Times stenographer. It is rather
an attempt to discredit Merkel and to make it more difficult for her to find a solution with
Russia outside of U.S. control.
A day later the German government
denied (ger) that Merkel ever said such (my translation):
The chancellery is unhappy about the report in the New York Times. Merkel by no means meant
to express that Putin behaved irrational. In fact she told Obama that Putin has a different
perspective about the Crimea [than Obama has].
A McClatchy journalist investigated
further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was
disinformation.
That disinformation, spread by the Obama administration but immediately exposed as false, is
now held up as proof by Patrick Wintour, the Diplomatic editor of the Guardian , that
Russia uses disinformation and that Putin is a naughty man.
The British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson
wants journalists to enter the UK reserve forces to help with the creation of
propaganda:
He said army recruitment should be about "looking to different people who maybe think, as a
journalist: 'What are my skills in terms of how are they relevant to the armed forces?'
Patrick Wintour seems to be a qualified candidate.
Or maybe he should join the NATO for Information Warfare the Atlantic Council wants to
create to further disinform about those damned Russkies:
What we need now is a cross-border defense alliance against disinformation -- call it
Communications NATO. Such an alliance is, in fact, nearly as important as its military
counterpart.
Like the Guardian piece above writer of the NATO propaganda lobby Atlantic Council
makes claims of Russian disinformation that do not hold up to the slightest test:
By pinning the Novichok nerve agent on Sweden or the Czech Republic, or blaming the UK for
the nerve gas attack in Syria, the Kremlin sows confusion among our populations and makes us
lose trust in our institutions.
Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that
several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in
Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma.
The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny.
Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation.
The bigger aim behind all these activities, demanding a myriad of new organizations to
propagandize against Russia, is to introduce a strict control over information within 'western'
societies.
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation.
That scheme will be used against anyone who deviates from the ordered norm. You dislike that
pipeline in your backyard? You must be falling for
Russian trolls or maybe you yourself are an agent of a foreign power. Social Security? The
Russians like that. It is a disinformation thing. You better forget about it.
Excellent article, in an ongoing run of great journalism.
I am curious - have you read this? https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/
It purports to be a book by an American military man intimately familiar with the covert ops
portion of the US government. The internal Kafka-esque dynamics described certainly feel
true.
One of the reasons newspapers are getting worse is the economics. They aren't really viable
anymore. Their future is as some form of government sanctioned oligopoly. Two national papers
-- a "left" and a "right" -- and then a handful of regional papers. All spouting the same
neoliberal, neoconservative chicanery.
Genuine journalist Matt Taibbi warned of this sort of branding of disparate views as enemy a
month ago. He was also correct. Evil and insidious. The enemy of a free society.
Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning
of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as
they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA
will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them,
anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them.
I agree that it's difficult to see how the drive to renew the Cold War is going to be
stopped. I presume that, with the exception of certain NeoCon circles, there isn't a desire
for Hot War. Certainly not in the British sources you quote. Britain wouldn't want Hot War
with Russia. It's all a question of going to the limit for internal consumption. Do a 1984,
in order to keep the population in-line.
thanks b... i can't understand how any intelligent thinking person would read the guardian,
let alone something like the huff post, and etc. etc... why? the propaganda money that pays
for the white helmets, certainly goes to these outlets as well..
the uk have gone completely nuts! i guess it comes with reading the guardian, although, in
fairness, all british media seems very skewed - sky news, bbc, and etc. etc.
it does appear as though Patrick Wintour is on Gavin Williamson's propaganda
bandwagon/payroll already... in reading the comments and articles at craig murrays site, i
have become more familiar with just how crazy things are in the uk.. his latest article
freedom no
more sums it up well... throw the uk msm in the trash can... it is for all intensive
purposes, done..
Meanwhile, OPCW chief Uzumcu seems to have been pranked again, this time by his own staff
(this is how I interpret it):
He claimed that the amount of Novichok found was about 100 g and therefore more than
research laboratories would produce, i.e. this was weaponized Novichok.
Q: What is our reaction to the Guardian article on a "comprehensive strategy" to "deepen
the alliance against Russia" to be pursued by the UK Government at international forums?
A: Judging by the publication, the main current challenge for Whitehall is to preserve
the anti-Russian coalition that the Conservatives tried to build after the Salisbury
incident. This task is challenging indeed. The "fusion doctrine" promoted by the national
security apparatus has led to the Western bloc taking hasty decisions that, as life has
shown, were not based on any facts.
No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the
US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political
justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of
Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was
built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of
Russian responsibility) have been shattered.
Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian
logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to
see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting
countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation.
Hmmm... My reply to c1ue went sideways it seems. Yes, The late Mr. Prouty's book's the real
deal and the website hosting his very rare book is a rare gem itself. Click the JFK at page
top left to be transported to that sites archive of writings about his murder. The very important essay by
Prouty's there too.
The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is
his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."
This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be
defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of
historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs
of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection
between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present
reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do. What b points out is
something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly
rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes
b's analysis uniquely indispensable.
Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime,
"whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to
understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted
contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does
this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"
Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no
essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.
The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and
other sites is just so stupid its painful. This implies that the Skripals both closed the
door together and then went off on their day spreading the stuff everywhere, yet no one else
was contaminated (apart from the fantasy policeman).
Presumably the Skripals touch the
cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected
as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance
of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the
chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW
can't even get the amounts of the chemical right.
The problem is,,, most know it's all BS but find it 'easier' to believe or at most ignore, as
then there is no responsibility to 'do something'. Biggest problem with the world today is
lazy insouciant citizens. (Yes,,, I'm a PCR reader) :))
Did you catch the Lavrov interview I linked to on previous Yemen thread? As you might
imagine, the verbiage used is quite similar. One very important point Lavrov made was the
anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction
of humanity; and that while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the
rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of
forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter
envisioned.
"I cannot sufficiently express my outrage that Leeds City Council feels it is right to ban
a meeting with very distinguished speakers, because it is questioning the government and
establishment line on Syria. Freedom of speech really is dead."
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation. _______________________________________
Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and
including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™.
This isn't a new insight, but it's worth repeating. It struck me anew while I was
listening to a couple of UK "journalists" hectoring OPCW Representative Shulgin, and
directing scurrilous and provocative innuendo disguised as "questions" to Mr. Shulgin and the
Syrian witnesses testifying during his presentation.
It flashed upon me that there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the Perpetual Big
Liars must eventually abandon, much less confess, their heinous mendacity. Just as B points
out, there are no countervailing facts, evidence, rebuttals, theories, or explanations
that can't be countered with further iterations of Big Lies, however offensively incredible
and absurd.
Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or
technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech
Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought
off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar.
And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy
arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have
been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly
independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™
apparatus.
Even as the Big Liars reach a point of diminishing returns, they respond with more of the
same. I wish I were more confident that this reprehensible practice will eventually fail due
to the excess of malignant hubris; I'm not holding my breath.
Is Putin capitulating? Pro US Alexei Kudrin could join new government to negotiate "end of
sanctions" with the West.
Former finance minister Alexei Kudrin will be brought back to "mend fences with the West"
in order to revive Russia's economy. Kudrin has repeatedly said that unless Russia makes her
political system more democratic and ends its confrontation with Europe and the United
States, she will not be able to achieve economic growth. Russia's fifth-columnists were
exalted: "If Kudrin joined the administration or government, it would indicate that they have
agreed on a certain agenda of change, including in foreign policy, because without change in
foreign policy, reforms are simply impossible in Russia," said Yevgeny Gontmakher . . . who
works with a civil society organization set up by Mr. Kudrin. "It would be a powerful
message, because Kudrin is the only one in the top echelons with whom they will talk in the
west and towards whom there is a certain trust."
Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington
Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill
Clinton in charge of a girls' school.
It would mark Putin's de facto collapse as a leader. We
shall know very soon. Either way, if anyone wondered what the approach to Russia would be
from Bolton and Pompeo, we now know: they will play very hard ball with Putin, regardless of
what he does (or doesn't do), and with carefree readiness to risk an eventual snap.
Certainly looks like @ 18 is a fine example of what b is presenting.
A good way to extract one's self from the propaganda is to refuse using whatever meme the
disinformation uses, e.g. that Sergei Skripal was a double agent -- that is not a known, only
a convenient suggestion.
Military intelligence is far better described as military
information needed for some project or mission. Not surreptitious cloak and dagger spying.
This is not to say Sergei Scripal was a British spy for which he was convicted, stripped of
rank and career and exiled through a spy swap. To continue using Sergei Scripal was a double
agent only repeats and verifies the disinformation meme and all the framing that goes with
it. Find some alternative to what MSM produces that does not embed truthiness to their
efforts.
I realize it's from one of the biggest propaganda organs in the world... take this New
York Times report of the OPCW's retraction with a 100 grams -- 100mg? -- of salt:
Kudrin is a neoliberal and as such is an
enemy of humanity and will never again be allowed to hold a position of power within Russia's
government. Let him emigrate to the West like his fellow parasites and teach junk economics
at some likeminded university.
"... I am reading Taleb's recent book "Skin in the game" which has interesting material about the disconnection between risky behaviors and their consequences in modern USA. He also has a chapter about the mechanics involved in why minority viewpoints in our culture become dominant. It's an interesting read. ..."
"... Finally, the Police partially acknowledged their mistake and accused the Russians of not having been completely fair play. Indeed, these thuriferous bastards of Vlad the Impaler had put poison on the OUTDOOR handle of the front door of the house. It's infinitely subtle of these savages. The Brit Police did not suspect what strong part it had to make, the unexpected thwarting its learned calculations. Presumption, again and again. Nevertheless, the detectives are formal: the Russians did the trick well. The evidence is obvious. In this dramatic case, we are not going to make a comparison between insular and continental logic. The hour is too serious for these trifles. Lots of laughter. ..."
"... It's very difficult in any case to believe that such a notice could have been issued. Can't see why it would be needed. The scripting of the official story on such matters as this seems to be a joint enterprise between the media and the press officers. That's a time-honoured consensus so why would the media need bullying to stay in line? ..."
"... My personal view on all this is that the No. 10 press officers aren't that good at this new-fangled information stuff. They don't seem to have their hearts in it somehow. Time for them to go back to counting paperclips and for information campaigns to be handled by the experts. The BBC have a proven track record in this field and it's time that was officially recognised. ..."
Sir Mark, bless him, has told an MP during a committee meeting, that the armed forces, MI-5, MI-6 and GCHQ do not know who or
indeed what sickened the Skripals, pere et fille , in Salisbury. He doesn't seem to have mentioned the police. So, basically,
pilgrims, Teresa May, the queen's first minister has insistently and incessantly accused the Russians of a crime of which our British
cousins know precious little. In a closely related development, it is now revealed that the Britishers sealed up Skripal's house
after the poisoning event leaving the black Persian shown above and two guinea pigs to die of thirst and hunger within. It would
seem likely that they knew they were doing this since they would have searched the house first. No? Perhaps they thought that the
cat might be a threat as a being of possible Iranian descent. This is impressive stuff. pl
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-05-01/uk-has-not-yet-identified-skripal-poisoning-suspects
These false flag ops are all so shabby in their execution. The lack of thoroughness and imagination on the part of the governments
running them is really disappointing. For example, if I was running an investigation into the Skripal incident, I would have captured
the cat and rodents and run pathology tests on them to see what bio/chem agents might be in their systems. Also, because they
might escape and become a vector of further infection. That seems like it would be SOP. So I'd do it even if I knew the story
was BS to create the appearance of reality. Then, I could always state that the pets should signs of Russian engineered bio/chem
agents. Could even create a video of the pets dying some horrible death due to the agents. That's more better BS.
And yet, this appears to be a lie as well. An earlier piece in the British news claims the pets were taken to Porton Down for
examination and testing soon after the incident. Seems more likely they eliminated evidence and then came up with the cover story
about how the animals were "forgotten about" and locked in the house for a month, implying totally unimportant for the investigation.
http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/...
I hope she and Johnson pay the price for this folly. May it be steep! Very. very steep.
How these two suckered so many nations foolishly into sending diplomats home reflected respect for UK policy toward Russia.
These nations will need to think long and hard about following any such UK lead in future.
This week, the US took down the Russian flag flying over Russian real estate in Seattle. Shameful!
I don't know much about the dynamics of British politics but as a light observer of British news I wonder why Theresa May remains
prime minister? She became prime minister after the historic Brexit vote. Promptly takes the country to an election and botches
it for the Tories. Then bungles the Brexit negotiations. Runs a floundering government. Now comes up with accusations against
the Russians in the Skripal affair with no evidence presented but looking more foolish as her story comes under scrutiny.
I am reading Taleb's recent book "Skin in the game" which has interesting material about the disconnection between risky behaviors
and their consequences in modern USA. He also has a chapter about the mechanics involved in why minority viewpoints in our culture
become dominant. It's an interesting read.
2 cats and 2 guinea pigs were locked up for 9 days in Skipal's house, in the hope of proving that the Russians are guilty.
When the police reopened the house, they found four bodies. the veterinary faculty is positive, both cats died of starvation.
Guinea pigs, some say, began to be worked by hungry cats, accelerating their deaths. Unspeakable bloodshed. In this whole case,
it's THE revolting detail, among many others. Poor beasts.
Finally, the Police partially acknowledged their mistake and accused the Russians of not having been completely fair play.
Indeed, these thuriferous bastards of Vlad the Impaler had put poison on the OUTDOOR handle of the front door of the house. It's
infinitely subtle of these savages. The Brit Police did not suspect what strong part it had to make, the unexpected thwarting
its learned calculations. Presumption, again and again. Nevertheless, the detectives are formal: the Russians did the trick well.
The evidence is obvious. In this dramatic case, we are not going to make a comparison between insular and continental logic. The
hour is too serious for these trifles.
Lots of laughter.
Presumably there are bigger guns in the background if information that would really threaten national security or the lives
of serving officers is in danger of being released. The D-Notice system itself seems to be a more or less voluntary affair -
It's very difficult in any case to believe that such a notice could have been issued. Can't see why it would be needed.
The scripting of the official story on such matters as this seems to be a joint enterprise between the media and the press officers.
That's a time-honoured consensus so why would the media need bullying to stay in line?
My personal view on all this is that the No. 10 press officers aren't that good at this new-fangled information stuff.
They don't seem to have their hearts in it somehow. Time for them to go back to counting paperclips and for information campaigns
to be handled by the experts. The BBC have a proven track record in this field and it's time that was officially recognised.
"... Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is to get on the mailing list for my website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . ..."
"... People are not turning to the MSM, they are heading straight to: MoA, ZH, PCR, RT... this is where people now turn to find the truth! The two most frequent, each appearing in six out of seven datasets? ZeroHedge and RT. ..."
"... I have never been a Trump supporter, but IMO the one positive I saw back in the elections is that his character would bring about exactly this loss of trust. Not "He's bad and we can't trust him," so much as the fact that he's polarizing, and will fight everyone, and has inadvertently caused a lot of bad people to expose themselves. ..."
I sometimes try to get
establishment loyalists to explain to me exactly why we're all meant to be terrified of this
"Russian propaganda" thing they keep carrying on about. What is the threat, specifically?
That it makes the public less willing to go to war with Russia and its allies? That it makes us
less trusting of lying, torturing, coup-staging intelligence agencies? Does accidentally catching a
glimpse of that green RT logo turn you to stone like Medusa, or melt your face like in
Raiders
of the Lost Ark
?
"Well, it makes us lose trust in our institutions,"
is the most common
reply.
Okay. So? Where's the threat there?
We know for a fact that we've been lied to
by those institutions. Iraq isn't just something we imagined
. We should be skeptical of
claims made by western governments, intelligence agencies and mass media. How specifically is that
skepticism dangerous?
When you try to get down to the brass tacks of the actual argument being made and demand
specific details about the specific threats we're meant to be worried about, there aren't any to be
found. Nobody's been able to tell me what specifically is so dangerous about westerners being
exposed to the Russian side of international debates, or of Russians giving a platform to one
or
both sides
of an American domestic debate. Even if every single one of the allegations about
Russian bots and disinformation are true (
and
they aren't
), where is the actual clear and present danger? No one can say.
In an absolutely jaw-dropping
article
that you should definitely read in its entirety
, Elizabeth Braw took it upon herself to finally
answer the question of why Russian propaganda is so dangerous, using the following hypothetical
scenario
:
What if Russia suddenly announced that its Baltic Fleet had dispatched an armada towards
Britain? Would most people greet the news with steely resolve in the knowledge that their
governments would know what to do, or would constant Kremlin-influenced reports about the
incompetence of British institutions make them conclude that any resistance was pointless?
I mean, wow. Wow! Just wow. Where to even begin with this?
Back to the aforementioned excerpt. Braw claims that if Russian propaganda isn't shut down or
counteracted, Russia could send a fleet of war ships to attack Britain, and the British people
would react unenthusiastically? Wouldn't cheer loudly enough as the British Navy fought the
Russians? Would have a defeatist emotional demeanor? What exactly is the argument here?
That's seriously her only attempt to directly address the question of where the actual
danger is. Even in the most cartoonishly dramatic hypothetical scenario this Atlantic Council
member can possibly imagine, there's
still
no tangible threat of any kind.
Even
if Russia was directly attacking the United Kingdom at home, and Russian propaganda had somehow
magically dominated all British airwaves and been believed by the entire country, that still
wouldn't have any impact on the British military's ability to fight a naval battle. There's
literally no extent to which you can inflate this "Russian propaganda" hysteria to turn it into a
possible threat to actual people in real life.
Such responses to disinformation are like swatting flies: time-consuming and ineffective. But
not addressing disinformation is ineffective, too. "Western media still have this thing where
they try to be completely balanced, so they'll say, 'the Russians say this, but on the other
hand the Americans say this is not true,' They end up giving a lie and the truth the same
value," noted Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the former president of Estonia.
I just have so many questions. Like, how desperate does a writer have to be for an
expert who can lend credibility to their argument that they have to reach all the way over to a
former president of Estonia?
And on what planet are these people living where Russian
narratives are given the same weight as western narratives by western mainstream media? How can I
get to this fantastical parallel dimension where western media "try to be completely balanced" and
give equal coverage to all perspectives?
Braw argues that,
because Russian propaganda is so dangerous (what with the
threat of British people having insufficient emotional exuberance during a possible naval battle
and all), what is required is a "NATO of infowar", an alliance of western state media that is
tasked with combatting Russian counter-narratives.
Because, in the strange
Dungeons
& Dragons
fantasy fairy world in which Braw penned her article, this isn't already happening.
And of course, here in the real world, it
is
already happening. As
I
wrote recently
, mainstream media outlets have been going out of their minds churning out attack
editorials on anyone who questions the establishment narrative about what happened in Douma. A BBC
reporter
recently
admonished a retired British naval officer
for voicing skepticism of what we're being told
about Syria on the grounds that it might "muddy the waters" of the "information war" that is being
fought against Russia. All day, every day, western mass media are pummeling the public with stories
about how awful and scary Russians are and how everything they say is a lie.
This is because western mass media outlets are owned by western plutocrats, and those
plutocrats have built their empires upon a status quo that they have a vested interest in
preserving,
often to the point where they will
form
alliances with defense and intelligence agencies
to do so. They hire executives and editors who
subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, who in turn hire journalists who subscribe to a
pro-establishment worldview, and in that way they ensure that all plutocrat-owned media outlets are
advancing pro-plutocrat agendas.
The western empire is ruled by a loose transnational alliance of plutocrats and
secretive government agencies. That loose alliance is your real government, and that government has
the largest state media network in the history of civilization. The mass media propaganda machine
of the western empire makes RT look like your grandmother's Facebook wall.
In that way, we are being propagandized constantly by the people who really rule us. All this
panic about Russian propaganda doesn't exist because our dear leaders have a problem with
propaganda, it exists because they believe only
they
should be allowed to propagandize us.
And, unlike Russian propaganda, western establishment propaganda actually
does
pose a
direct threat to us. By using mass media to manipulate the ways we think and vote, our true rulers
can persuade us to consent to
crushing
austerity measures and political impotence
while the oligarchs grow richer and medicine money
is spent on bombs. When we should all be revolting against an oppressive Orwellian oligarchy, we
are instead lulled to sleep by those same oligarchs and their hired talking heads lying to us about
freedom and democracy.
Russian propaganda is not dangerous. Having access to other ways of looking at
global geopolitics is not dangerous. What absolutely is dangerous is a vast empire concerning
itself with the information and ideas that its citizenry have access to.
Get your
rapey, manipulative fingers out of our minds, please.
If our dear leaders are so worried about our losing faith in our institutions, they
shouldn't be concerning themselves with manipulating us into trusting them, they should be making
those institutions more trustworthy.
Don't manipulate better,
be
better. The fact that an influential think
tank is now openly advocating the former over the latter should concern us all.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is
to get on the mailing list for my
website
,
so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely
reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking
me on
Facebook
,
following my antics on
Twitter
, checking
out my
podcast
, throwing some
money into my hat on
Patreon
or
Paypal
,
or
buying my new book
Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers
.
People are not turning to the MSM, they are heading straight to: MoA, ZH, PCR, RT... this is where people now turn to find
the truth! The two most frequent, each appearing in six out of seven datasets? ZeroHedge and RT.
"Well, it makes us lose trust in our institutions," is the most
common reply.
I have never been a Trump supporter, but IMO the
one positive I saw back in the elections is that his character would
bring about exactly this loss of trust. Not "He's bad and we can't trust
him," so much as the fact that he's polarizing, and will fight everyone,
and has inadvertently caused a lot of bad people to expose themselves.
Why should you trust people who think they have the right to take
whatever amount of your money they want, use it for any purpose they
want, and also who believe they have the right to harass, torture,
stalk, or kill whoever they want, on any pretext they feel like thinking
up?
The Atlantic Council is just another tentacle of the Soros Squid. The man should
have been dealt with as a Nazi collaborator in the aftermath of World War 2.
Unfortunately for humanity, he evaded accountability for his crimes against
humanity during the war.
"... Israel is annoying everyone in the Syrian theater. Note well that the scale of impact is in the "annoying" range. Kind of like the "bluster" of the US but even more constrained by forces on the ground all around it. ..."
"... No one in the region believes that Russia or Iran have failed at anything. Observers simply hope they have the good fortune to see the revenge, knowing that they may never know how Iran counters - if in fact it ever does. ..."
"... Russia is working to move the final resolution of Syria into political methods rather than military - this is very important to keep in mind with all appraisals of the situation. It's time to repeat that Russia is working for peace, not to win battles. The two efforts are very different, and create different tactics. ..."
"... I echo that feeling. The explosions in Hama and Aleppo, for which there still remains no official report, have kicked up rampant speculation and many strange comments on this site. ..."
"... The idea that Russia is all bluster, has no clue what's going on, has abandoned Syria, or that the whole Russian exercise is due to Putin "begging to be admitted in the Western Club," flies in the face of facts on the ground. ..."
"... Putin is where he says he is. He was already part of the club (G8) and he left because the club was filled with jackasses. Putin is forming his own club, with Xi. ..."
Thanks to posters for links to
Garrie on a possible "white hat" false flag and to
Magnier for a plum-rich storytelling of how Israel is on the losing end of a shift in the
balance of power, something that as yet it cannot admit to itself.
Israel is annoying everyone in the Syrian theater. Note well that the scale of impact
is in the "annoying" range. Kind of like the "bluster" of the US but even more constrained by
forces on the ground all around it.
I'm astonished that anyone would think that Putin doesn't understand the US or what is
going on in the Syria theater. Russian commanders are in constant contact with all forces
that bear on the situation, including those of the US, and Israel. And Putin has spelled out
on numerous occasions - in interviews, from the Valdai Club, from his remarks directly to
journalists and his people - what the empire is doing.
No one has lost face in this latest event, except Israel with Netanyahu's inane
presentation, currently being called out as empty by Europeans.
No one in the region believes that Russia or Iran have failed at anything. Observers
simply hope they have the good fortune to see the revenge, knowing that they may never know
how Iran counters - if in fact it ever does.
Russia is working to move the final resolution of Syria into political methods rather
than military - this is very important to keep in mind with all appraisals of the situation.
It's time to repeat that Russia is working for peace, not to win battles. The two efforts are
very different, and create different tactics.
With each situation that Russia confronts, from military attacks to diplomatic property
seizures, Russia looks for the peace dividend. Armchair punters are watching one horse race,
while Russia is looking decades down the road and asking what it takes to create stability
that endures, out of each situation.
Yes, some don't appreciate the giant step that Putin took moving into Syria to oppose The
Leader Of The Free World™ with its president Obama threatening that Russians would soon
be going home in body-bags.
But Russia survived and endured, and made a major point that
right can win over might.
The strategy was brave and the tactics were revolutionary,
including the busing of combatants away from combat. Credit where credit is due, Putin is a
winner at home and abroad, as in Syria (and Crimea, BTW).
"I'm astonished that anyone would think that Putin doesn't understand the US or what is
going on in the Syria theater." Posted by: Grieved | Apr 30, 2018 9:24:11 PM | 107
I echo that feeling. The explosions in Hama and Aleppo, for which there still remains
no official report, have kicked up rampant speculation and many strange comments on this
site.
The idea that Russia is all bluster, has no clue what's going on, has abandoned Syria,
or that the whole Russian exercise is due to Putin "begging to be admitted in the Western
Club," flies in the face of facts on the ground.
Putin is where he says he is. He was already part of the club (G8) and he left because
the club was filled with jackasses. Putin is forming his own club, with Xi.
Putin blocking the delivery of S-300 in Syria against the demands of the Russian Military
This was discussed by Putin with General Staff chief Valery Gerasimov and Defence Minister
Sergei Shoigu on April 20. The Russian military, they told the President, want the go-ahead
to deploy S-300 missile batteries to cover Syrian and Iranian forces against US and Israeli
attack from the air. They believe Israeli threats to attack the S-300 batteries as soon as
they are operational are a bluff which Russia must call if Russia's positions in Syria, and
Iran itself, are not to come under subsequent attack from the American-Israeli combination.
Testing the threat in Syria, they argue, is the less threatening, less costly option than
encouraging the Americans and Israelis to prepare their
offensive against Iran. Putin won't agree.
To respond to Putin's reluctance, the General Staff and the Defence Ministry have devised
a step short of the S-300, but with potentially enough defensive power to intercept or deter
American and Israeli air attacks. This is the deployment of more Russian electronic warfare
systems with the capacity to jam the surveillance, targeting, fire control and command
signals on which the attackers rely. It is the Samson Haircut option – deprive the
giant of control of his firepower, blind him.
Silently, Putin has decided to protect Deripaska; not to call the US attack on Rusal an
act of war; and to test the Americans with an offer of armistice. International bankers close
to Russian business believe it is a Russian illusion that an armistice with the US can be
anything but temporary; pursuing it is a miscalculation of US intentions, the sources add.
They warn that new attacks will come.
Putin Reportedly "Ready For Deep Concessions", Seeks Deal With Trump
He understands Russia can't compete with the West economically and he doesn't plan to go
to war with the West.
Kremlin has ordered officials to curb their anti-U.S. rhetoric.
Putin's decision explains why lawmakers Monday suddenly pulled a draft law that would've
imposed sweeping counter-sanctions on U.S. companies, two of the people said.
Russian Senators to soften counter sanctions against US
RBC: Russian senators to water down Moscow's response to US sanctions. Two Federation
Council members told the newspaper that the final version of the amendments to the
'anti-sanctions' bill initiated by State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin and leaders of all
parliamentary factions, will be "quite mild."
Passer by | Apr 30, 2018 3:53:05 PM | 45
I believe Putin is playing for time. The March 1 weaponry display didn't include production
numbers but I think it is a safe bet they don't exist in sufficient numbers..yet.
So US&Co have a small window left to create hell on earth for as many as possible and
they IMO will hit Iran before the football playoffs that Putin so wants to go smoothly.
I would assume Iran is/was responsible for Iranian defense of these sites so I am
surprised they didn't respond, maybe there was no time?? Couldn't Russia have warned them??
And does anyone know what weaponry the Russians brought into Syria recently under cover of
smoke?
I think the World Cup is playing a big role in the decision making as you have said. There
is a lot at stake: investments already made and international exposure also. I can't wait for
it to be finished so we can get back to war !! (sarc)
Russia began its Syria intervention with an S-400 deployed in Latakia and has introduced
several more since, one being in
Sept 2017 . Syria also has the BUK-M2E AA system and the Pantsir to go with its older and
upgraded S-200 systems along with who knows what else. Just what was off loaded from Russian
supply vessels under the cover of smoke last week (don't know if such veiling's continuing)?
My guess is more AA systems of the type causing Zionists on both sides of Atlantic to
freakout.
As for the Zionists attacking Iranian military bases, those Iran uses in Syria are
joint-use with Syria regardless of what's said by Zionists; so, any such attack will need to
be aimed at Iran proper. The consequences for the region would be horrible--particularly for
Zionists and Saudis: Dimona would be leveled as would Saudi oil infrastructure. The fallout
and other pollution would be appalling. If the Zionists want to keep their skin, they'll
arrest Nutty before he gets his get-out-of-jail war started.
Zionists know they've lost and are contained and constrained, so they're moving into
desperation mode. Too bad they lack the courage to put a pistol to their head and pull the
trigger.
Russia could easily give Syria the s300 system. But Putin clearly does not want to hurt his
buddy Netanyahu's feelings. They are always so chummy you can see there is a mutual respect
between them whenever they meet. Russia is only in Syria to fight terrorism. They will
obviously not confront Israel and go to war, and that is of course, understandable. But whats
even worse is that they seem to refuse to give Syria/Iran the means to defend themselves from
Israeli attacks.
If its true Putin is blocking the delivery himself against the request of the Russian
Army, that is even more shameful. I guess in terms of preventing a World War, it is good that
Putin is chummy with Netanyahu. However a regional war is looking very likely at this point.
Unfortunately the only way Israel will learn is by being smashed in the teeth. I'm sure in
time Syria, Iran or Hezbollah will have to teach them another lesson.
A lot of Russian oligarchs are dual Israeli or American -Russian citizens. Even in the Soviet
era while they provided just enough support to prevent the Arab countries from being totally
defeated they stopped short of giving them enough to threaten Israel or defeat them. Putin
has made peace with a number of the oligarchs that remain in Russia but he has to take care
not to get the pro Israeli -US faction riled or threaten their overseas financial interests
which Trump has threatened to do with sanctions targeted at the oligarchs
So Russia will prevent Syria from being totally overwhelmed but concede the US the
northeast oil rich fields and Israel gets the gas fields in Golan. They will allow isolated
missile attacks and bombing by US and Israel that both resort to for show to appease their
hawks. In the meantime if Assad has an accident or gets overthrown due to economic reasons
then israel and US may get their puppet state and Russia/Iran may exit. Then on to Lebanon
and Iran.
Wars are not fought to be won anymore. They are fought to be long lasting. Perpetual War
Abroad is Peace at Home
"... BraaaaVO! Killer post....Ironically, at age 57, I NOW do what Russians TOLD ME they did over 30 years ago: Whatever I read in the papers or hear from the U.S. gov, I automatically believe the OPPOSITE! ..."
The Russia bashing is indeed perplexing. But it is not universal. One explanation is
that Americans are afraid of the rivalry. Also Americans have been brought up with a
negative imagine of "KGB" and it is impossible to shake this. Russia would love to be
part of Europe and increase ties and business. Europe is game; but not USA. It represents
a challenge to its own supremacy. I think this is the underlying problem. Putin came out
of nowhere, as many of the "Putin Videos" show. His first priority was to rebuild the
morale of the Russian army and to do this he picked on Chechnia. Perhaps today he would
do things differently. He also turned on many oligarchs who had helped him. But he did
this because he did not ask nor want their "help" which he considered self-serving; they
wanted to control him, not the other way round. He may regret having been too hard on
some (Boris Bereshovski for instance) but it had to be done. All these things played into
the hands of the anti-Russians in US. One thing is sure. Neither Russia nor Putin had
anything to do with the riots in Maidan which are the root cause of all the disasters
occurring in that country. If Putin "took advantage" of the break-down in Kiev to retake
Crimea so much to his credit. It was certainly not "planned". The State Dept got faked
out. Now they are licking their wounds by Putin bashing day in day out. Rather pathetic
really. The best would be to welcome Russia into the world economy. It can make a great
contribution.
I was brought up to hate Russia, to fear Russia but not anymore! It was all lies and
manipulation! Do not include all Americans because its just not true but yes, Russophobia
is from decades and decades of brainshing in America.. Believe me, since literally the
age of 5 I was taught to fear Russia.
From school drills in preparation of " Russia
coming to get us" to Putin being a communist dictator to now, Russia is more dangerous
than terrorists organization is ALL lies by our government and media! People need to wake
the hell up !
It is our government bombing and invading countries, our government funding
millions to Isreal to slaughter Palestines, funding Nazi Ukraine president to kill
Russian speaking E Ukrainians!
Our government funded and trained ISIS! The world is not n
chaos because of your government!
Well, Washington D.C. IS afraid of rivalry.
Remeber the 1992 ,Wolfowitz Doctrine'? Even one of the mouthpieces, the NYT, was slightly
disgusted.
The essence of that vile doctrine: do not allow any rival to rise and challenge US power,
hegemony.
I am not at all afraid of Russia. In fact they're much like us , who want peace and
wished our countries were friends and allies like we should be ! But NO ! We have twisted
butthead warmongers who want to cause trouble and keep Russia down because heaven forbid
they might be bigger and better than us! I say good for them ! We are NOT excepectionals
, we should be equals !
Guess what, the Russians are not afraid of USA either.
But we all ARE afraid of a wounded animal, they are the most dangerous. And USA is a
wounded dying animal. I will be very surprised if humanity managed to avoid a nuclear war
within the next 10 years. The fake "capitalism" is collapsing and the only way out is a
major war.
IMO -- WHAT the americans among us are saying "'not afraid of russia\|"
is that they don't fear Russia the WAY the warmongers told them to fear Russia...
as if russians have some malicious nefarious intent towards americans...and they are
right. americans should NOT fear russia nor russia americans in the sense that everyone
are just PEOPLE -- ordinary folks who just want to grow up , live, have families and
friends and work a good decent job, leave something for their children , etc..and then
grow old with grace .
buit these warmongers of leaders are just so EVIL - who sit around with their cronies
and their families and friends SCHEMING and makng their 'inner circle" decisions about
'shaping the world" as they see fit...and create MISERY for everyone.
There is nothing being implied into my statement. "Capitalism" has ALWAYS been fake
and bunch of lies. With a major war, they will be able to keep the charade a bit longer,
the same way thy did it with WWII.
EUROPE and its ''invasion" by the USA is the USA'S STEPPING STONE and war front
towards Moscow n order to rule over all of Eurasia -- all that resource and land,
magine...
it is just a mirror of the USA'S ''conquering the west" ..by the other direction. as
is JAPAN, peripeheral asian countries to china /russia is from the pacific end...
THAT'S really teh USA''s obsession - always was - and this has been OPENLY declared by
no less than the likes of THEODORE ROOSEVELT, "the pacific shall be ours, the philippines
shall be our doorstep and forever ours - and then on to the mainland of asia"...things of
that kind...
no less than MANIFEST DESTINY to rule the world, or "OUR SOUTH AMERICAN
BACKYARD"..
and were russia and europe to unite and have peaceful cooperation , trade, friendship
and tighten their commonalities of cultures --
WHAT WOULD EUROPE AND EURASIA really need THE usa FOR?
DEFENSE AND SECURITY against WHOM exactly? a europe at peace with russia would SOON be
a europe at peace WITH the middle east and africa -- and asia --
and the extremists would SO ISOLATED within that landmass they would simp;ly wither
away for STARVATION as peoples ignore them
people who find meaningful decent jobs , children growing up with families intact and
with futures to look forward to and travel everywhere their dreams allowed...etc...
WHAT WOULD the landmasses and their peoples and cultures NEED USA for? resources?
technology? science? medicine/ / agriculture? food? ships? cars? .......security?
defense/ ?
safety? rights? entertainment? cultural enrichment? stories? friends? nope
they would NOT NEED the USA at all. the wil.l welcome american FRIENDS and traders as
it ought to be...but NOT as rulers and ''security and defense " SCAM ARTISTS.
THAT'S WHAT THE USA FEARS from russian/european integration...and become what it
really IS..
look at all the blogs/comments in Uk nationalistic papers eg Daily mail-readers
comments are full of vile nonsense and insane idiocy-there is no hope of peaceful
resolution Rus and west while ordinary people are so ill informed, do not even wish to
understand, completely prejudiced, have such entrenched attitudes perpetuated by mass
media, playstation/xbox games and zombie films exported from USA that have morally
corrupted peoples and nations.
NGO's being funded by USA to subvert other states, look
out for cyberwarfare too.
Please support The Saker too, very high intelligence from this
analyst.
Just consider the speech's given by Western Leader's at the opening session of the UN
recently -- Cameron posits critical thinking as being aligned with ISIS-Obama casting Russia
as a threat equal to ISIS and Ebola
Just consider the speech's given by Western Leader's at the opening session of the UN
recently -- Cameron posits critical thinking as being aligned with ISIS-Obama casting Russia
as a threat equal to ISIS and Ebola, ...these statements are allowed to pass uncritically
into the mainstream without a second thought. This depraved leadership sends shivers down
my spine as it indicates just serious our problems are and how far down the rabbit hole
we have fallen. Capitalism in crisis produces fascism at home and primitive accumulation
in the form of Imperialism abroad. America is broke and going from Broke having invested
trillions in PNAC they are doubling down on full spectrum dominance-a fallacy that will
never be reached leaving poverty stricken societies in their wake. Societies akin to the
Hunger Games-quasi-feudal fiefdoms only serfs had more rights than today's wage
slaves-tenure on the land,access to the mode of production ability the keep and trade the
fruits of their labour at least to an extent. The fall of the Soviet Union was a
catastrophe for the workers of the world-Not only did we not get a peace dividend from
the end of the cold war but a century of social gains won by labour have been rolled back
to practically nothing the finishing touches being put into place with the free trade
deals about to be unleashed upon the Western Worker-notice austerity was and is not an
option for Putin's Russia-he has put his neck on the line for his people and his country
and they will do the same for him and the Motherland.
America has to hire mercenaries to fight their battles which is why they can't win. And
these false flags are getting a little tiresome. And Mr. Lavrov as FM he is the
consummate diplomat, he does not brow beat or chest pound,nor does he humiliate his
adversaries even though circumstances have offered him ample opportunities-people like
MCCAIN OBAMA and KERRY embarrass themselves and their nation often enough without Russia
having to add insult to injury-Russia is above that but truth telling is another matter
and must be pursued no matter how embarrassing for certain parties the exercise maybe
Russia does need to increase it's public relations budget every thing from student
exchanges on up to film festivals Sochi would make an excellent venue for the
glitterati......and serves as a reminder of just how immature the West truly is when one
harken's back to the coverage of the Olympics. This Ukraine situation needs to be
resolved in opposition to the fascists putsch ruling now before it blows up in all of our
faces. Cohen nailed it-we are 5 min. to midnight and closing.
Our real enemy is not in
the Kremlin or the Middle East-but right here on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue-time
for Occupy 2.0 with Agenda.
Yes, and Ebola isn't a real threat. The only reason it's in the US is because people
have been idiots and have not taken the proper precautions. Russia has a vaccine ready to
go. ISIS was created by the US, and they're not a real threat. I am not afraid of Russia
or the KGB or Putin or Boris and Natasha. All of it is fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.
Oh Yes, and not forgetting the hybrid not so Holy Hollywood, the entertainment
industry who of course are run by the Banksters. The missing link in humanity the genetic
modification from apes to human form, the Banksters. Do you remember the "Man from
Atlantis" and the "Planet of the Apes" and the oil magnets "Dallas"
https://encrypted-tbn1.gsta... Play
Hide
What this shows more than anything is how desperate the western elites are. They know
Russia, China and others are rising powers and that the US empire's days are numbered.
The dollar's reign as world reserve currency is coming to an end and they know that the
US a busted, bankrupt economic house of cards that could completely collapse at any time
taking down US power with it. Hence, the risk taking and recklessness. We're in a very
dangerous time.
It just takes a few to manipulate the minds of public opinion and perception. That is
mind control and you have to ignore mainstream media and go online to find unadulterated
truth. Putin has other means to deal with the US; he doesn't have to stoop so low to call
obama what he really is: an illegitimate child who became an illegitimate president, a
man who came from nowhere and has nothing to offer but war with third world nations who
have no nuclear defense. America is as confused as Africa and his zionist handlers like
it that way.
The basic problem is, and always will be, that people believe what they want to
believe irregardless of facts, evidence, proof or common sense. The believe that which
they think will benefit themselves, soothe their ego, fill their pockets, bring tem
pleasure etc and deliberatly ignore, condemn, and close their eyes to learning something
that may not fit that goal. They rationalize away their deliberate ignorance and refuse
to look for truth under some morally relative "label" or "cause" so that they don't have
to face truth about themselves and their true intentions.
The Valdai Speech is on the "President of Russia" website - or at least three quarters
of it, with the rest still being translated from Russian:
http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/...
The Economist is the voice of the british oligarchy and security services. They don't need to
be advised by the CIA, because the English oligarchy is dictating US politics and
strategy.
Is the Pope Catholic? Do you even have to ask? After almost 25 years of documented USA
lies against Iraq/Iran do we even have to discuss this?
documented USA/NATO lies that have been proven to be lies:
1990 babies taken out of incubators and left to die on cold hospital floor
1990-1999 Saddam working on nuclear weapons
2001 Osama engineered and did 9-11
2001-2003 Saddam has ties with Ali Queda
2001-2003 Saddam has weapons of mass distraction (Colin Powell, Bush jr, Cheney, Condy
Rice, etc)
2002-2203 Saddam working on weapons of mass distraction
2002-2003 Saddam working on acquiring nuclear weapons
2001 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2001 Iran has ties with Ali Queda
2002 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2003 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2004 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2005 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2006 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2007 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2008 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2009 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2010 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2011 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2012 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2013 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2013 Assad gassed his own people (part 1)
2013 Assad gassed his own people (part 2)
2014 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2014 Assad gassed his own people (part 3)
BraaaaVO! Killer post....Ironically, at age 57, I NOW do what Russians TOLD ME they
did over 30 years ago: Whatever I read in the papers or hear from the U.S. gov, I
automatically believe the OPPOSITE! Auto-freakin'-matically.....works like a chahm...
A very interesting professionally made video of the entire Valdai speech of the
President of Russia (24 Oct 14) along with all the pointed questions asked of him by the
Russian, Bulgarian, Palestinian, English, and American audience, and his complete answers
to these, can be found at the "Vineyard of the Saker" site (h t t p : / /
vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/... .
Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin?
No!! Fancy that!! Where have you been for the last 3 years? and why bring it up now?
The CIA has been waging full-spectrum media warfare, propaganda, dis-information and
covert destabilisation of Russia and the Russian president for many years. (What do you
think they are paid for? making tea?)
It's just a coincidence that we chosen people own and run Newsweek, The Economist, The
Daily Express, The Daily Mirror, The New York Times, The New York Post, The Washington
Post, News International (The Sun Newspaper, Sky News, Fox News), The Independent, The
London Evening Standard, the Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, ABC News,
CBS News, NBC News, Bloomberg News, and Reuters. And run the BBC.
It's just a coincidence, goyim. Nothing to see here. Move along. And keep thinking
what we tell you to think.
Russia is establishing a BRICS development bank and consequently becoming a threat to
the IMF and WB, this is why the global eite want Putin removed and a puppet regime put in
place.
It's also good to remember that this has been going on for years and years, and in
spite of that, Pr. Vladimir Putin kept offering his friendship, insisting on the
importance of collaboration, equal terms, exchange, peace, and even disarmament ! For
years and years !
Considerable Ukrainian money has gone into influencing US, EU and Israeli press and
politicians ($12m to the Clinton foundation gets Hilary's attention). It is not necessary
to invoke the CIA.
Beresovsky is only recently dead.
Khordokovsky is free.
Gusinsky and
Lebedev have major media interests.
The remnants of Mockingbird work for defense
institutes in Estonia, Universities in Azerbaijan and think tanks in Poland. It is not
necessary to invoke the current US government. One thing fascinates me. Every year or so
there is yet another negative biography of Putin. I do not believe the market is so big. Beresovsky started it - his cousin wrote the first one and claimed P had $40Bn without
any evidence whatsoever. Did he fund the others too (there hasn't been one recently).
To our German friends on here I say...isn't it weird that no one is allowed to say the
word "reunification" for Crimea and Russia
I do not recall a referendum for the DDR citizens.
Germany and most other EU countries are merely assisting in their own decline. Any
country -- including mine -- that insists on continuing to play the role of vassal to
Washington will enjoy the same fate that Washington is stupidly preparing for itself. The
German government has to have a few screws loose to join Washington in driving Putin into
the arms of the Chinese -- and taking his natural gas resources with him. Don't be
surprised if Germans freeze in the dark this winter.
It goes on day and night in Russia, although that doesn't exclude an American
origin.
There is no defamation of Putin that is not screamed from the rafters by the Russian
liberati. The allegations of corruption, photoshopped pictures of Putin with women who
can be found by an image search in the same pose and clothing embracing somebody else,
the whole nine yards.
First off, I say this as a former bookseller, who spent major amounts of time shelving
the magazines and newspapers. Newsweek is all but dead. Put a fork in it, it's done!!! I
didn't know The Economist was a Rothschild publication until someone on here pointed it
out. I did know, however, that most people consider it one of the most manifestly boring
magazines on the planet. Finally, as regards the British tabloids shown and the American
ones that didn't get mentioned, they are for people who have a little mind and a little
time. My favorite one was The Weekly World News, now sadly gone. I know it transgressed
the bounds of good journalism, but now I'll never know what became of "Bat Boy," the
pregnant mummy (the museum janitor did it!!!) or the 12 US Senators who are actually
space aliens. (Now, I know they're lying. There's way more than 12 of them!!!)
That said, when I see headlines like the ones shown here, I ignore them. Newsweek
discredited itself long ago, and this presidential election cycle has done much in
America to do the same for Big Media and both political parties. That's what made my
family start listening to alternative media, and thank God for the Internet!!! The truth
about Mr. Putin is out there for anyone who cares to look. I've had to work hard to
convince a friend of Ukrainian descent that he's not the one screwing up their homeland,
but they are beginning to question. I've also shocked several people out of their socks
by telling them Mr. Putin is a devout Christian man. So far, I've found about 3 people
out of 30 or so I've told this who had any inkling. And one of them is a pastor who won't
tell his congregation!!!
The Russian people have a good leader. Would that America had one at least half as
capable. Until then, follow the old adage: "Don't believe anything you hear, and only
half of what you see!!!"
There is a black defence budget on the level on the official one = not American
money
(CAI agent told it. He had cancer and id not care about doing anything "unlegal" by
telling it)
Why bother asking this question now? Russians are fully aware, so is nearly everyone
else. Hence why even with this defemation campaign, Putin hold far more popularity than
nearly anyone else. The others who hold popularity are equally against the US and others
(Fair Russia Party, Communist, etc). Only ones that sing the grace of US BS, Yabloko and
other "liberal" parties/people, are 3%'ers. In other words, hated amongst majority of
their population.
The thing about all these media campaigns that the west tries and does, which the
Saker failed to state, is that they do not work. Essentially, all it will do is rally the
Russians against others. As the newspapers love to demonize Putin, it is all written in
English with few actually being translated. And when it does, it ends up as a laughing
stock of the country. As well, it is barely working here. Yes, there are a few useful
idiots around, we even see them on the comment sections here, but lets be frank - even
westerns do not believe it. But if their intention is to destabilize Russia, then they
are clearly not working. Putin's popularity back in 2011 was 65%. Now it is over 80%.
Clearly, the west is doing him more favors than not.
If he ever even loses popularity, and someone else wins, guarantee it will either be
the communists or the nationalists (fair russia). And that is when the west will be
dealing with people who are going to make sure they go out of their way to hurt the
US.
Clearly it's Putin who has bombed six countries in seven years...or is it seven
countries in six years. Whichever. He isn't bombing sovereign nations, and deciding that
recognized leaders in sovereign states are the latest incarnation of Hitler and thus need
to be sacrificed to the god Pele.
He's a colossal scumbag for not doing what Washington says. He actually thinks that
Russia should be sovereign country outside of the influence of the "exceptional" and
"indispensable" nation. What a loser!
Gorbachev is a traitor and dumbest person ever to walk this planet. The only thing
that is unbelievable is the fact that everyone are buying into "american dishonesty"
story when it is purely visible and understood that no one with a fraction of a brain
would ever allow something of this magnitude to happen.( allowing Germany the country
that wanted to obliterate Russia and USSR not even 50 years ago at that point ) to
reunite based on verbal agreement. He should have been shot in the head the moment he
landed back in the USSR for giving such approval without consultaing in detail Soviet
Army generals and KGB directors.
People stop drinking KoolAid and open your eyes. gorbachev sold the whole USSR for few
private "foundations".
Do you unquestionably believe everything you are told to believe or can you start
someday to think for yourself and look for logic, facts, evidence, multiple and
oppositional sources of information and well founded deduction to make your
decisions?
What war has he started?
What terrorists has he supplied weapons with?
What minorities is he oppressing. Oh, d'ye mean the gays? You obviously haven't spent
much time in the USA if you think everyone here is open-minded about homosexuality. Maybe
in the cities on the coast but in the small towns of the rest of middle America, they are
pretty conservative about that issue and openly so. I've met my fair share of homophobes
in my lifetime and none of them were from Russia. I would say 50 percent of Americans
disapprove of homosexuality, and attitudes have only changed somewhat in the past 10
years. All of those gay marriage bans were passed by voters, even in so-called
"progressive" states like California, as recently as 2008. You think you can't get your
butt beat for being gay in the United States? You think there aren't any anti-gay laws
here? You think the anti-gay propaganda law in Russia is actually enforced? Sure, they
could have a different attitude toward that sort of thing, but so could a lot of people.
If someone is gay and is that concerned about their safety, stay out of Russia the same
way you'd stay out of Utah. You're a person who thinks it's a human right to stage a gay
pride parade, but if some idiot "girls" walk into a church and make fun of someone's
religious beliefs, well they should be celebrated as heroes.
Who did he threaten to nuke? Got proof of that? I mean proof, not hearsay. Do you have a
voice recording of Putin threatening to nuke people?
Stop calling him Putler. His brother was killed by the Nazis. You are ignorant.
You must be confusing Putin with our current president, Obomba, and our last prezzident,
Bushwacker.
Another problem that needs to be fixed is their control over schools and
universities.
An aspiring journalist who went through a lot of effort translating a Putin speech and
commenting on it, then getting an F while watching the lazy guy sitting in the class next
to him getting an A+++ for writing "Putin's speech translates to 'We'll steal Ukraine
because we hate democracy. Heil Hitler! Death to America!' (and any other translation you
may see is Russian propaganda, Russia controls the media worldwide), therefore we need to
strengthen NATO and move troops directly to Russia's border to fight off that threat"
probably learned the lesson before even starting his job.
I'm British and the more the media attack Mr Putin the more I trust him! I think if
Britain was involved in an altercation with Russia the public would not back it. People
in the West feel very down trodden at the minute and if Britain doesn't leave Europe I
think democracy will be questioned! It's time to live and let live and help each other
instead of interfering, for me Mr Putin plays a good game and seems to be more realistic
than our politicians, who knows but people across the world want peace and it's about
time we demanded our governments stopped interfering. Every country has it's problems and
could sort them out if they weren't too busy interfering over seas! War is horrific and
must be avoided at all costs but greed will always motivate war. Someone invent a
non-greedy pill please😀
There is one little item the author is missing.
The USA regards Russia and China as "existential threats to the USA" because they are
existential threats to the USA. Without it's world hegemon and tight control on global trade, the US crumbles and
fades away.
Russia and China are slowly but surely, bit by bit, taking them away. Existential
threat.
All living things, even empires, fight for their survival.
"Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin?"
-------------------
On no. Every word the CIA says is true.
Simple - it's true because they said it!
American logic.
to attack the leader of a country is to attack the country?
No, I don't think so. In the case of o'bama, to attack him is to HELP the country get out
from under a LYING SCUMBAG FRAUD and to go back to following the Constitution!
There are many who believe the MSM and take what they say as Gospel, but there are
also many that have woken from the zombie, media induced diet of the MSM and they are
voicing their concerns and also given a different type of narative to counterbalance the
MSM and that is also working.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public
believes is false."? William Casey, Director of CIA
How much money is the CIA, US, EU and Soros investing in their media disinformation
programme? It is quite frightening when you look at the figures involved. Why do they
need to do so?
This article goes back to 2011, I wonder how far it stretches in 21016?
Ironically, the more the MSM goes into a media frenzy with a story, I now always
question the motives and reasons why and then completely dismiss the story.
"... ( Editors Note : Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975 which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different programs. Wikipedia ) ..."
"... nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute ..."
The latest hot topic in the Russian media. Russian politicians are talking about it. Historical precedent and behavior of Western
media suggests that they are. The Saker Fri, Apr 22, 2016 |
52,080
195 MORE: Politics A major topic in the Russian media is
mystification with how Putin is portrayed in the Western media.
Wildly popular at home, and seen as a decent, modest, an admirable person, and Russians don't understand how there can be such
a disconnect with Western impressions.
Recently, leading Russian commentators and politicians have been suggesting that this can only be explained by a deliberate campaign
to defame Putin, by governments or other groups.
The day before another member of Putin's inner circle, Vyasheslav Volodin,
made similar remarks , telling foreign journalists "an attack on Putin is an attack on Russia." The logic, they argue, is that
by defaming the leader of a country, you weaken his power domestically by undermining popular support for him, and internationally,
by rallying popular opinion to support policies against that country. The ultimate goal, they argue, is to weaken the country itself.
They also talk about regime change. They argue that if one looks at the facts, that there is evidence of ongoing character assassination
which cannot be explained by a vague popular zeitgeist in the West, but is more likely the result of a dedicated effort to introduce
this defamation into the news flow.
Newsweek has been one of the most virulent Putin-bashers for years
The issue of manipulation of news by intelligence services has been in the news recently with revelations that the CIA and German
Secret Service (GSS) have long-running programs to influence how media executives and top journalists convey and interpret the news,
including direct cash payments. Here are some examples they point to:
Portraying him as a scheming dictator trying to rebuild a repressive empire.
Claiming he personally ordered the murder of a number of journalists, and personally ordered a KGB defector to be murdered
with radiation poisoning.
Frequently citing unsubstantiated rumors he is having an affair with a famous gymnast.
Allegations that he has stashed away billions for his personal benefit, without providing evidence.
Recent article in Newsweek claiming he leads a luxurious and lazy lifestyle, sleeping late.
Recent article in NYT focusing on a supposed personal arrogance.
Hillary Clinton mentioning in speech after speech that he is a bad guy, a bully, that one must confront him forcefully.
Mis-quoting him on his regret about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Articles about a supposed super-luxury villa built for him in southern Russia.
The over-the top headlines in the western media (they were worst of all in Germany) portraying him personally responsible
for murdering the victims of MH17.
And soft stuff - magazine covers making him look sinister, monstrous, etc.
RI sat down with The Saker , a leading analyst
of Russia in international affairs, and asked him what he thinks:
-----------------------------------
So, is there any credence to this line of thinking, or is this conspiracy theorists running wild?
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the US is waging a major psyop war against Russia, although not a shooting war, for
now, and that what we are seeing is a targeted campaign to discredit Putin and achieve "regime change" in Russia or, should that
fail, at the very least "regime weakening" and "Russia weakening".
And the Economist has been the very worst of them all...
So this is a US government program?
Yes, Putin is absolutely hated by certain factions in the US government two main reasons:
1. He partially, but not fully, restored Russia's sovereignty which under Gorbachev and Yeltsin had been totally lost Russia then
was a US colony like Ukraine is today and,
2. He dared to openly defy the USA and its civilizational model.
a free and sovereign Russia is perceived by the US "deep state" as an existential threat which has to be crushed. this is a full-scale
political assault on Russia and Putin personally.
So what the Russians are saying, that the constant personal attacks against Putin in the global media are partly the result
of deliberate efforts by US intelligence services, basically, planted stories
Yes, absolutely
It seems like "Operation Mockingbird" all over again Are you aware of other instances aimed at Putin?
( Editors Note : Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually
exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975
which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different
programs. Wikipedia )
Yes, of course. Since this defamation has very little traction with the Russian public Putin's popularity is higher than ever
before .., there is an organized campaign to convince them that Putin is "selling out" Novorussia, that he is a puppet of oligarchs
who are making deals with Ukrainian oligarchs to back-stab the Novorussian resistance
So far, Putin's policies in the Ukraine have enjoyed very strong support from the Russian people who still oppose an overt military
intervention
but if Kiev attacks Novorussia again - which appears very likely - and if such an attack is successful - which is less likely
but always possible - then Putin will be blamed for having given the Ukrainians the time to regroup and reorganize.
Warm and fuzzy...
So you are saying that if the Ukrainian military strengthens its position enough to deliver a serious blow to the East Ukrainians,
the US can use this as a method to strike at Putin's support base
Yes, that's right ... t here are a lot of "fake patriots" in Russia and abroad who will reject any negotiated solution and who
will present any compromise as a "betrayal". They are the "useful idiots" used by western special services to smear and undermine
Putin.
Is it limited to government special ops, or are there other groups who might have an interest in doing this?
Yes, well here is something that most people in the west don't appreciate there is a major behind-the scenes struggle among Russian
elites between what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" (basically, those who support Putin) and what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists"
(those whom Putin refers to as the "5th column).
The western media talks about this as the struggle between Russian liberals and conservatives, reformers and reactionaries,
right?
Well its sort of like that, but not exactly
The former see Russia's future in the Russian North and East and want to turn Russia towards Asia, Latin America and the rest
of the world, while the latter want Russia to become part of the "North Atlantic" power configuration.
The Atlantic Integrationists are now too weak to openly challenge Putin - whose real power base is his immense popular support
- but they are quietly sabotaging his efforts to reform Russia while supporting anti-Putin campaigns.
Regarding the revelations of CIA activities in Germany, do you think this is going on in other countries, in the US?
I am sure that this is happening in most countries worldwide. The very nature of the modern corporate media is such that it makes
journalists corrupt.
As the French philosopher Alain Soral says " nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute ". There are, of
course, a few exceptions, but by and large this is true.
This is not to say that most journalists are on the take. In the West this is mostly done in a more subtle way - by making it
clear which ideas do or do not pass the editorial control, by lavishly rewarding those journalists who 'get it' and by quietly turning
away those who don't.
If a journalist or reporter commits the crime of "crimethink" he or she will be sidelined and soon out of work.
There is no real pluralism in the West where the boundaries of what can be said or not are very strictly fixed.
Ok, but is it like what has been revealed in Germany, similar specific operational programs in France, the UK, Italy, Latin
America, etc.
Yes, one has to assume so – it is in their interests to have them and there is no reason for them not to.
As for the CIA, it de-facto controls enough of the corporate media to "set the tone". As somebody who in the past used to read
the Soviet press for a living, I can sincerely say that it was far more honest and more pluralistic than the press in the USA or
EU today.
Joseph Goebbels or Edward Bernays could not have imagined the degree of sophistication of modern propaganda machines.
If the US is doing it, can't one assume other governments are too? Are the Russians doing it against western leaders?
I think that all governments try to do that kind of stuff. However, what makes the US so unique it a combination of truly phenomenal
arrogance and multi-billion dollar budgets.
The US "deep state" owns the western corporate media which is by far the most powerful media on the planet. Most governments can
only do that inside their own country ... to smear a political opponent or discredit a public figure, but they simply do not have
the resources to mount an international strategic psyop campaign. This is something only the US can do.
So foreign governments are at a great disadvantage in this arena vis-a-vis the US?
Excellent. Another point to grasp is that the Banksters do not want a true capitalism, where inefficiency fails, & competition
trims profits.
They want what we now have in the West : a crony corporatist state, where ever fewer giant globalist multinationals dominate both
commerce & countries, pay no taxes, to the benefit of their CEOs , shareholders & their banksters.
In short, effectively, a Fascism.
Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr. See where those "Atlantic Integrationists" came from.
Russia today is the only power standing up to the world oligarchy. If Russia falls then we will all be living as slaves behind
a barb wired fence, with chips under our skin, etc. etc.
Yes, and Russia has actually been making efforts to keep the dollar afloat, because they know the US hegemons will get even
nastier of their precious dollar becomes worthless. Their goal isn't to integrate Ukraine into the EU. They want to create a failed
state on Russia's border, and also hopefully engage them militarily in Syria and in places like Chechnya.
I've heard tell...Russia's central banking institution does not belong to the state. Does this sound familiar? I do not believe
that the international banking system give two turds about the affairs of Russia, unless...Russia moves to control it's own central
bank, then there would be real war.
Bankers have no allegiance except to money
It is headed by Chicago-school wannabes who follow the dictates of a banking system aimed at preversving the US banks at the
expense of their onw country's economy.
Nabuliana (sp ?), the head of the Russian CB, knows she is on borrowed time but still keep favoring the US over Russia.
What is it they also say about dying Empires. The US did not retain Empire status for long, when you look at Russia and China,
they are just a toddler on the block?
Very interesting perspective.
I'm very curious to hear western comments on Russian conspiracy theories that Fed already owns Russia and current straggle is
a straggle for independence. It seems wild but for people who view Federal Reserve Bank as a direct enemy of humanity it doesn't
seem very far-fetched.
WHEN PUTIN WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT of Russia in 2000, Russia was bankrupt. The nation owed $16.6 billion to the Rothschild-run
International Monetary Fund while its foreign debt to the Rothschild-controlled Paris & London Club Of Creditors was over 36 billion
dollars.
But Putin took advantage of the current boom in world oil prices by redirecting a portion of the profits of Russia's largest
oil producer Gazprom so as to pay off the country's debt. The continual surge in oil prices greatly accelerated Russia's capacity
to restore financial sovereignty.
By 2006 Putin had paid off Russia's debt to the Rothschilds. Russia's financial dependence on the Mafia financiers was now
over. I doubt they've gotten another hold since then.
You need to understand that President Putin's divorce is a private matter. In the Anglo World they stick their nose into these
private matters but in Russia they do not. Who knows; there have been people who got divorced so the spouse would not cop it in
the event of big problems. They even got married again later on. The Anglo World is also dumb, always behaving as if the removal
of ONE man would cure something, e.g. Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad - nah. Or take Myanmar; if only the lady (whose name I cannot spell)
would rule the country, everything would be fine. Nah - she's extremely racist and will not utter the name of one tribe 'Rohingyas'.
There is definitely a campaign against Russia and President Putin. For Germany it's the
Atlantik-Brücke which steers the press, in Australia the Australia-American Leadership Dialogue, something else in the other
countries, just like the late Brian Crozier masqueraded as a journalist but was CIA funded. The campaign needs to be ignored although
it is really peculiar that Bush Sr. was fine as CIA chief, and Putin as KGB officer was not. I'ts just the usual American double
standards.
(I think) .... Putin's divorce is not yours to wonder about or criticise.
'Sides, he said, at his last Q&A, he gets on better with his ex now than he did when he was married. That should be good enough
for you.
I THINK the time has come for RUSSIA to play HARDBALL with teh us gov and cia, nsa. etc...
and that is to OPENLY , REPEATEDLY -- RIGHT AT THE LEVEL OF UN AND INTERNATIONAL FORUMS - RIGHT INTO any ''talks" between EU/WEST/
and relations with other nations
always INCLUDE , INSERT -- part of discussions -- teh CIA/US GOV /ENTITIES
attempts against russia.
MAKE IT very prominent that it can NOT be ignored no matter what the USA TRIES...
in order to puit FRONT AND CENTER in the world the attention on THE CIA.
don't let it remain ''incidental" topic to ''major issues"
rather -- make it A CENTRAL topic in every instance and keep throwing t at the USA so that all international meetings ALWAYS
bring up
\
USA/CIA - USA,/CIA -- sabotage -- oh yet again another CIA operation in macedonia, oh another one in cnetral asia...etc....
let us remember --
2 cia emplyed ''pschiatrist/psychologists" who took care of the ''methodology" of CIA TORTURE are right now being sued in a
US court that is forced to open hearings -- on the suit by former tortured detainees...
the PORTUGUESE AMERICAN woman - SOUSA -- is ordered to appear in an ITALIAN COURT to face her charges for conspiracy to kidnap,
rendition , torture the arab/italian citizen
more and more will come, that is inevitable and the CIA ought to be BROUGHT BEYOND just ''topic of discussion" --but as the
DEEP STATE that it is -- out into the open -- calling out, searchng out its operatives, officers, policy makers, amerifcan officials
-- that' sort of thing...and the only way to do that is make it a WORLD GLOBAL CAUSE TO BRING UP in all matters of international
governance and relations -- in press conferences...assemblies, treaties, etc...
I just want to point out that German media is worst, because Germans need the most convincing to go to war with Russia. The
western media now has to combat the anti-war tendencies they propagated onto Germans ever since the end of WW2. If you read the
comments on all these anti-Putin propaganda articles, you can tell that Germans hate their own media for doing so.
Hey, I`m from Germany (Stuttgart), and i can definitely say, that we Germans hate our media and get the informations we need
from the Internet. Angela Merkel do what Obama says to her and we can do nothing. if we go to the street and make a Demonstration
they say we are nazi or the media say nothing. many People (the old People) in Germany hate Putin and belive the lies from the
media, but we, the young people dont belive the lies. We love Putin and wish Angela Merkel will be a little bit like Putin.
I'm also German (Lahr, Schwartzwald) and totally agree. NEVER watch German TV. It is like for imbeciles. Cooking, singing,
festivals everything to keep us from thinking for ourselves. I also get all my info from sites like this one and many others.
Love Putin and think Ouma Merkel sold out to the US.
Sounds like American tv. But without all the series about serial killers, violence and perversion. What they have done to us
and our collective psyche here is sick, and demonic.
but this is not just a problem IN america -- germane TV as some of our friends here have said - getng shallower -- IS A PART
of the ''influence" of american ''way\" ..
to bring up mostly and primarily shallow past-times...that takes up LIFE HOURS...when you really count it,,,
ONE shallow pastime after another...the WORST imo,,,apart from these silly ''reality shows\" (which ARE copied throughout the
world unfortunately in that desire to be ''more american" -- even in CHINA ) -
are these ''game shows" -- trivia shows..that used to be just CHILD'S play n the backyard and really is where they OUGHT to
stay so children can be children...
but NATIONAL CULTURE? trivia shows? give me a BREAK!
but that's exactly what americana brings to societies..the HIGHLIGHTING AND GLORIFICATION OF SILLINESS and SHALLOWNESS as a
NATIONAL ETHOS.
and a sure-fire way of turning out , reshaping and ''winning hearts and minds" by making them exposed - without choice really
-- to ''the only games in town"
SILLY LITTLE GAMES that 'TRAIN the mind to become STUPID".
this - THIS is the great TRIUMPH of the american society over the world. where everything -- even WAR -- is now ''entertainment"
- to be ''packaged" - promoted sold, and switched around like cotton candy by the powers that be...and deeper critical thought
-- or honest simplicity of thought and discourse is ''NOT ALLOWED".
"... The entire Liberal narratives around Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin are actually political reconstructions of the "Yellow Peril" stereotype of the evil Asian who schemes to conquer the west, a viscous racist caricature straight out of the old dime magazine pulps. ..."
"... Originally Putin was depicted by liberals as merely a fiendish Asian criminal mastermind. After he finally started responding to the endless provocations, he became the terrible Fu Manchu, leader of a secret society of assassins, always plotting to destroy the west. Next to him is Alexander Dugin, a diabolical eastern sorcerer and leader of a fanatical sect. ..."
"... These sterotypes are 100% racist, and of the kind of brutal American "Yellow Peril" racism that justified both the mass internments of the Japanese in concentration camps and the nuclear genocide of two civilian cities. ..."
The entire Liberal narratives around Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin are actually
political reconstructions of the "Yellow Peril" stereotype of the evil Asian who schemes to
conquer the west, a viscous racist caricature straight out of the old dime magazine
pulps.
Originally Putin was depicted by liberals as merely a fiendish Asian criminal
mastermind. After he finally started responding to the endless provocations, he became the
terrible Fu Manchu, leader of a secret society of assassins, always plotting to destroy the
west. Next to him is Alexander Dugin, a diabolical eastern sorcerer and leader of a fanatical
sect.
Now (straight out of a Fu Manchu plotline) Putin is supposedly plotting to install his
puppet as president of the United States.
These sterotypes are 100% racist, and of the kind of brutal American "Yellow Peril"
racism that justified both the mass internments of the Japanese in concentration camps and
the nuclear genocide of two civilian cities.
"... "We believe that at the very least we should wait for the results of the UN inspection commission in Syria. I've already said I find it absolutely ridiculous that [Syrian] government's armed forces, which today are actually on an offense mission and in some regions have already encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that the Syrian army has used prohibited chemical weapons." ..."
In the
New York Times last week, veteran reporter Neil MacFarquhar reminded us Vladimir Putin's "fight" with the
West is isolating Russia. The Middle East expert's latest Russia hate also interpolated that the woeful
isolation is failing to deter Putin. But what is it that Putin is fighting against? What is the so-called
"West" trying to deter him from? Better still, where is the evidence of his cunning plan to destroy all?
I do not know why, but to my knowledge, no one has ever asked these simple questions. Here we are in a
new and bitter Cold War, and nobody I can name has any reasonable explanation of what the fight is about.
There are allegations by the truckload. There's sanctions, proxy wars, terrorists scattered, CIA money
spent, dignitaries tossed out on their ears, and ten thousand news outlets screaming "Putin foul" – but over
what? You can't answer because it's all over nothing. Here's a brief history of the real crimes of Vladimir
Putin.
In the
early 2000s, Vladimir Putin was running a country almost destroyed by corruption, foreign interventions, and
pirates bent on privatizing anything of value for western investors. The advance of the globalist doctrine
had reached the borders of the country; wars were brewed in former Soviet republics where regime changes and
color revolutions were not working.
The notorious Russian mob, the Israeli mob, anybody inside the country that could be bought by western
pirates was taking a bite from the Russian legacy. Putin stepped in and sorted it out. Putin did not sell
Russia out. This was a capital crime.
Later in the decade, Vladimir Putin proposed an initiative known as the "Vladivostok to Lisbon" protocol.
The plan was for one gigantic Eurasian market worth tens of trillions of dollars. The plan was for a full
and fair integration of Russia within the global context. Only the plan made Russia an integral partner
rather than a network of small banana republics like Yugoslavia became.
The
Putin plan would have assured almost unbreakable cooperation, prosperity, and peace. But the suggestion of
such a thing to the existing world order was a heinous crime.
When 2009 rolls around and the world's fascination with then Prime Minister Putin grows. The New York
Times back then questioned the Russian leader's work ethic. Western media reported Putin singing "Blueberry
Hill" and playing the piano. And the Washington Post begins the rail about "Putin, the killer." Then in
2010, the heat was turned up.
US newspapers began the "huge protest" gambit, Putin the arch criminal became all the rage. The Vladimir
Putin legend began to grow during this time. Rumors and speculation became the flavor of the day. Then in
2011, the Russian leader went so far as to criticize the West for the Libya regime change. And we all know
how Libya turned out.
Starting
in 2012 the mainstream media in the West began predicting the downfall of Vladimir Putin. The Economist
titled its prediction. "The beginning of the end of Putin." So much for deep economic analysis and
forecasting. It is in this year that Masha Gessen gets the big headlines for labeling Vladimir a "crime
boss" and a homophobe.
Meanwhile, the real criminals like Mikhail Khodorkovsky gather steam for the lies and mudslinging to
come. NPR and other corporate owned media get readers by labeling Putin a "street thug" and etc. But Putin
won the election that year anyhow. And even though The Slate labeled him "Putin the pitiful," he somehow
managed the biggest country in the world skillfully. Pussy Riot defiles a Russian Orthodox Church snagging
some jail time, and down the rabbit hole we go.
Then in 2013 the world's biggest ever arch villain commits the ultimate sacrilege. At the moment then
President Barack Obama is gathering his forces to invade Syria, Russia's leader pecks out a plea to the
American people in the New York Times.
Then, on the eve of a fateful vote in the US Congress on Obama's decision to launch strikes against
Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, Putin mediates by instigating a proposal for Syria to surrender all chemical
weapons.
This was too much for the gilded world order; the gloves had to come off. Meanwhile, Obama and his CIA
had already created the proxy war against Assad. But the American people were never told.
Funny isn't it, how overt Putin moves are eviler than covert killing by America? But Russia's leader
became the alchemist of truth, look at his words of warning on alleged gas attacks back then:
"We believe
that at the very least we should wait for the results of the UN inspection commission in Syria. I've already
said I find it absolutely ridiculous that [Syrian] government's armed forces, which today are actually on an
offense mission and in some regions have already encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off,
that the Syrian army has used prohibited chemical weapons."
Almost a year passed until I first learned of the "hell bent" onslaught on anything attached to Vladimir
Putin and Russia when the 2014 Sochi Olympics rolled around. The bristling gay globalists had no intention
of letting the Russia people welcome the world to their country. Putin had to pay for his past daring.
So, Russia bashing took on a whole new meaning. Bad sportsmanship was also redefined when a people
created a showpiece and an unparalleled spectacle, only to be insulted and criticized at every turn. Dog
packs, unworking toilets, gay skier hunts, unfinished hotels, an environmental catastrophe once again
wrought by our ghastly arch villain. The world order taught Putin a lesson in those days. "Mess with us, and
we'll piss on your parade."
This was the message. Then the Euromaidan and an illegal regime change in the midst of an Olympics forced
diabolical Putin's hand again. Instead of allowing Russia's most strategic position in the southwest to be
taken over by NATO, he instead chose to secure it without firing a shot. Crimea should have been seeded to
the global hegemony – but Putin dared to resist. For shame.
Since 2014 Vladimir Putin has been blamed for the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 and without a
smidgen of proof. He's had the gall to ask the world order "Do you even realize what you have done?" And
this, before the mighty United Nations and in front of God and everybody else. Our crystal ball at The
Economist proclaimed "Putin declares war on the West," and we believed them.
He revealed the United States was backing terrorism in the Middle East, and then he televised his forces
destroying ISIS. In 2016 NBC News proclaimed; "
US
Officials: Putin Personally Involved in US Election Hack
." Amazingly, no pictures of Putin using his
laptop to hack the DNC emerged.
And the people of the world failed to notice the lack of evidence. For nearly two years now the world has
investigated Putin over alleged tampering in the US election. Can you guess what body of evidence has been
shown officially or in the media?
Damn that Putin for being so flawless and diabolical a villain! His utter control of every evil deed on
planet Earth is being hidden from us. And oh, so skillfully that armies of brilliant private eyes,
investigative journalists, whistleblowers, think tanks, the CIA, the NSA, MI6, GCHQ, Mossad, the Pentagon,
Naval Intelligence, Senate committees, or even David Copperfield can turn over one leaf of evidence.
This, my friends, is Putin's greatest delinquency against humanity. He is guilty as sin of the real
delinquency, the sin of ancient logic. The reason there we cannot see proof of Putin's misdeeds is
stunningly simple.
There is no proof.
Phil
Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he's an
author of the recent bestseller "
Putin's
Praetorians
" and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine
"New
Eastern Outlook."
"... For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want". They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression. ..."
"... Democrats act the same way about different things. When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much. When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male". Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten. ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
I've come to realize that there's a lot of confusion out there due to people using words with very specific definitions.
For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want".
They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression.
Private oppression? Republicans will either deny it exists, or justify it.
When a Republican is "pro-life" it only refers to birth.
Because those very same pro-life people are generally pro-war and pro-death penalty.
Democrats act the same way about different things.
When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much.
When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male".
Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten.
And then there is the bipartisan misuse of words, which revolves around war and wealth.
When they say "humanitarian war" they mean, um, some contradictory concepts that are meaningless, but are designed to make you feel
a certain way.
When they say "socialism" they really mean "state oppression" regardless of the economic system.
As for the many version of socialism with minimal or non-existent central governments? Or when socialist programs work? No one talks
about them.
Let's not forget substituting or mixing up "middle class" for "working class".
"Working class" now equals "poor", which isn't right.
They use "working class" as a smear too.
When you say "working class" some people
automatically insert certain words in front of it, as if it's generally understood.
When many hear discussion of outreach to "working class" voters, they silently add the words "white" and "male" and all too often
imagine them working on a factory floor or in construction. They shouldn't. According to another analysis by CAP from late last
year, just under 6 in 10 members of the working class are white, and the group is almost half female (46 percent).
The topic of the needs and interests of the working class is usually race and gender neutral. Only the dishonest or indoctrinated
can't wrap their minds around that fact.This is important because working class values don't require a race or gender lens.
a new report released today by the Center for American Progress makes a convincing argument, using extensive polling data, that
this divide does not need to exist. As it turns out, in many cases, voters -- both college educated and working class, and of
all races -- are in favor of an economic agenda that would offer them broader protections whether it comes to work, sickness or
retirement.
"The polling shows that workers across race support similar views on economic policy issues," said David Madland, the co-author
of the report, entitled "The Working-Class Push for Progressive Economic Policies." "They support a higher minimum wage, higher
taxes on the wealthy, and more spending on healthcare and retirement. There is broad support among workers for progressive economic
policy."
This shows that it's possible to make economic issues front and center in a campaign platform in a way that doesn't just talk
to working class whites and dismisses the concerns of female and minority voters. It also shows that the oft-discussed dilemma
among Democrats -- whether to prioritize college educated voters or working class ones -- may be a false choice.
Propaganda is all about false choices. To accomplish this, the media has created a world in which the working class
exist only in the margins .
With the working class largely unrepresented in the media, or represented only in supporting roles, is it any wonder that people
begin to identify in ways other than their class? Which is exactly what the
ruling class
wants .
I can't believe I used to fall for this nonsense! It takes a stupendous level of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously celebrate
the fortunes of someone from a specific identity while looking past the vast sea of people from said identity who are stuck in
gut-wrenching poverty. We pop champagnes for the neo-gentry while disregarding our own tribulations. It's the most stunning form
of logical jujitsu establishment shills have successfully conditioned us to accept; instead of gauging the health of the economy
and the vitality of our nation based on the collective whole, we have been hoodwinked to accept the elevation of a few as success
for us all.
Diversity has become a scam and nothing more than a corporate bamboozle and a federated scheme that is used to hide the true nature
of crony capitalism. We have become a Potemkin society where tokens are put on the stage to represent equality while the vast
majority of Americans are enslaved by diminishing wages or kneecapped into dependency. The whole of our politics has been turned
into an identity-driven hustle. On both sides of the aisle and at every corner of the social divide are grievance whisperers and
demagogues who keep spewing fuel on the fire of tribalism. They use our pains and suffering to make millions only to turn their
backs on us the minute they attain riches and status.
It's only when you see an article written by the ruling elite, or one that identifies with the ruling elite, that you realize
just how out-of-touch they can be. The rich really
are different - they are sociopaths.
They've totally and completely bought into their own
righteousness,
merit and virtue .
Class ascendance led me to become what Susan Jacoby classifies in her recent New York Times Op-Ed "Stop Apologizing for Being
Elite" as an "elite": a vague description of a group of people who have received advanced degrees. Jacoby urges elites to reject
the shame that they have supposedly recently developed, a shame that somehow stems from failing to stop the working class from
embracing Trumpism. Jacoby laments that, following the 2016 election, these elites no longer take pride in their wealth, their
education, their social status, and posits that if only elites embraced their upward mobility, the working class would have something
to aspire to and thus discard their fondness for Trump and his promises to save them.
That level of condescension just blows my mind. It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working
class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Russia, than I do with the wealthy elite in my own country. Don't think that the wealthy
haven't figured that out too.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
@thanatokephaloides I have been a worker and an employer for most of my career. I associate with many of the same ilk.
None of us working / employer types can afford to hire the millions of under employed. Maybe a few here and there. We are not
wealthy, nor are we taking advantage of the poor. Try to put this lofty idealism into perspective.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents family,
then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours."
Especially when one considers the chances of that being true are really quite small.
Contrary to the Randian beLIEf, they didn't build what they have all by themselves. Society carried quite a bit of the freight
here.
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents
family, then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
That starts out on disparities in housing, but rounds abouts to the "Elite Class" and the urban gentrification by corporatist
democrats. It points out how the democratic party caters to this elite wing, and how the NIMBY-ism of the elites blocks affordable
housing laws. It ends up with some observations:
"Taking it a step further, a Democratic Party based on urban cosmopolitan business liberalism runs the risk not only of leading
to the continued marginalization of the minority poor, but also -- as the policies of the Trump administration demonstrate --
to the continued neglect of the white working-class electorate that put Trump in the White House."
We really can't afford the wealthy parasite class anymore nor should we suffer their think tanks that make folks worship them
and their lifestyles of indulgence and greed!
I've come to realize that there's a lot of confusion out there due to people using words with very specific definitions.
For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want".
They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression.
Private oppression? Republicans will either deny it exists, or justify it.
When a Republican is "pro-life" it only refers to birth.
Because those very same pro-life people are generally pro-war and pro-death penalty.
Democrats act the same way about different things.
When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much.
When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male".
Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten.
And then there is the bipartisan misuse of words, which revolves around war and wealth.
When they say "humanitarian war" they mean, um, some contradictory concepts that are meaningless, but are designed to make you feel
a certain way.
When they say "socialism" they really mean "state oppression" regardless of the economic system.
As for the many version of socialism with minimal or non-existent central governments? Or when socialist programs work? No one talks
about them.
Let's not forget substituting or mixing up "middle class" for "working class".
"Working class" now equals "poor", which isn't right.
They use "working class" as a smear too.
When you say "working class" some people
automatically insert certain words in front of it, as if it's generally understood.
When many hear discussion of outreach to "working class" voters, they silently add the words "white" and "male" and all too often
imagine them working on a factory floor or in construction. They shouldn't. According to another analysis by CAP from late last
year, just under 6 in 10 members of the working class are white, and the group is almost half female (46 percent).
The topic of the needs and interests of the working class is usually race and gender neutral. Only the dishonest or indoctrinated
can't wrap their minds around that fact.This is important because working class values don't require a race or gender lens.
a new report released today by the Center for American Progress makes a convincing argument, using extensive polling data, that
this divide does not need to exist. As it turns out, in many cases, voters -- both college educated and working class, and of
all races -- are in favor of an economic agenda that would offer them broader protections whether it comes to work, sickness or
retirement.
"The polling shows that workers across race support similar views on economic policy issues," said David Madland, the co-author
of the report, entitled "The Working-Class Push for Progressive Economic Policies." "They support a higher minimum wage, higher
taxes on the wealthy, and more spending on healthcare and retirement. There is broad support among workers for progressive economic
policy."
This shows that it's possible to make economic issues front and center in a campaign platform in a way that doesn't just talk
to working class whites and dismisses the concerns of female and minority voters. It also shows that the oft-discussed dilemma
among Democrats -- whether to prioritize college educated voters or working class ones -- may be a false choice.
Propaganda is all about false choices. To accomplish this, the media has created a world in which the working class
exist only in the margins .
With the working class largely unrepresented in the media, or represented only in supporting roles, is it any wonder that people
begin to identify in ways other than their class? Which is exactly what the
ruling class
wants .
I can't believe I used to fall for this nonsense! It takes a stupendous level of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously celebrate
the fortunes of someone from a specific identity while looking past the vast sea of people from said identity who are stuck in
gut-wrenching poverty. We pop champagnes for the neo-gentry while disregarding our own tribulations. It's the most stunning form
of logical jujitsu establishment shills have successfully conditioned us to accept; instead of gauging the health of the economy
and the vitality of our nation based on the collective whole, we have been hoodwinked to accept the elevation of a few as success
for us all.
Diversity has become a scam and nothing more than a corporate bamboozle and a federated scheme that is used to hide the true nature
of crony capitalism. We have become a Potemkin society where tokens are put on the stage to represent equality while the vast
majority of Americans are enslaved by diminishing wages or kneecapped into dependency. The whole of our politics has been turned
into an identity-driven hustle. On both sides of the aisle and at every corner of the social divide are grievance whisperers and
demagogues who keep spewing fuel on the fire of tribalism. They use our pains and suffering to make millions only to turn their
backs on us the minute they attain riches and status.
It's only when you see an article written by the ruling elite, or one that identifies with the ruling elite, that you realize
just how out-of-touch they can be. The rich really
are different - they are sociopaths.
They've totally and completely bought into their own
righteousness,
merit and virtue .
Class ascendance led me to become what Susan Jacoby classifies in her recent New York Times Op-Ed "Stop Apologizing for Being
Elite" as an "elite": a vague description of a group of people who have received advanced degrees. Jacoby urges elites to reject
the shame that they have supposedly recently developed, a shame that somehow stems from failing to stop the working class from
embracing Trumpism. Jacoby laments that, following the 2016 election, these elites no longer take pride in their wealth, their
education, their social status, and posits that if only elites embraced their upward mobility, the working class would have something
to aspire to and thus discard their fondness for Trump and his promises to save them.
That level of condescension just blows my mind. It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working
class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Russia, than I do with the wealthy elite in my own country. Don't think that the wealthy
haven't figured that out too.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
@thanatokephaloides I have been a worker and an employer for most of my career. I associate with many of the same ilk.
None of us working / employer types can afford to hire the millions of under employed. Maybe a few here and there. We are not
wealthy, nor are we taking advantage of the poor. Try to put this lofty idealism into perspective.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents family,
then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours."
Especially when one considers the chances of that being true are really quite small.
Contrary to the Randian beLIEf, they didn't build what they have all by themselves. Society carried quite a bit of the freight
here.
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents
family, then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
That starts out on disparities in housing, but rounds abouts to the "Elite Class" and the urban gentrification by corporatist
democrats. It points out how the democratic party caters to this elite wing, and how the NIMBY-ism of the elites blocks affordable
housing laws. It ends up with some observations:
"Taking it a step further, a Democratic Party based on urban cosmopolitan business liberalism runs the risk not only of leading
to the continued marginalization of the minority poor, but also -- as the policies of the Trump administration demonstrate --
to the continued neglect of the white working-class electorate that put Trump in the White House."
We really can't afford the wealthy parasite class anymore nor should we suffer their think tanks that make folks worship them
and their lifestyles of indulgence and greed!
Nudge was the title of a book by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein on how to manipulate
people in their supposed best interest, like in cafeteria lines, to put whole fruit before
desserts made with sugar.
If you liked Nudge , you'll love " cognitive infiltration ":
Conspiracy Theories
Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03
Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled
epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best
response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas,
such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to
ignore them, are explored in this light.
Keywords: conspiracy theories, social networks, informational cascades, group
polarization https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
Is not this what discerning MIC's all do these days, via FBI FB?
And of course we mopes have been "nudged" into pretty much that blind serfdom alluded to.
Back in the Cave, with not much chance of dispelling the belief in and subjection to the
shadows projected on the wall we are forced to face
I rather detest the notion of someone or entity 'nudging' me in the direction of some
behavior, especially in a paternalistic mode where the assumption is that they know better
than I what I 'should' be doing or thinking.
On one level, isn't that a working definition of advertising? On another, it smacks of
authoritarianism. Don't we have enough of this kind of thing already? Worse, what's the first
reaction one naturally has when they realize they're being manipulated? Seems to be a
strategy fraught with risk of getting exactly the wrong response.
If I'm to be encouraged to behave in a given way, show me the respect of offering a
conscious, intelligent argument to do so on the merits, or kindly go (family blog)
yourself!
In economics, the single most important thing to understand is debt.
If you understand debt; you won't have any debt.
Debt and freedom are the antithisis of each other.
Without debt; nudges have no influence.
I just posted a link to a Vesti clip at the end of the previous thread, because it seems so
relevant to b's message about the western crackdown on free speech in this information war.
This open thread is coming so close on the heels of that wonderful article, that I want to
double-post here as well as there.
Margarita Simonyan of RT says how she's trying to talk, not to power but to common people,
because there are those among the common people who do speak up and who really do shape public
opinion - not governments. She cited Roger Waters as an example, who was speaking at a concert
and telling the truth about the White Helmets.
She said, someone has to read in order to speak. And someone has to write so someone can
read:
"... The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. ..."
"... Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history. ..."
PCR's latest is really good. I love it when he gets to ripping, and doesn't stop for 2000+ words or so. It reads a lot better
than Toynbee, fersher.
The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as "the Trump deplorables," is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism
has been stood on its head.
The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups
and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming
at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.
The ruling elite favors a "conversation on race," because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will
further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues,"
in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history
with fake history.
All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted [and false] reality. Western peoples are so
propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent
in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes,
Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism
now practice it ten-fold.
The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population -- indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are
incompetent -- and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries
arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing
remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.
Labour calls for the attack on Douma to be "fully investigated". That sounds unarguable.
But then what? Jeremy Corbyn issued the same call after the chemical attack that killed at
least 74 at Khan Sheikhoun a year ago: demanding there be a "UN investigation and those
responsible be held to account". The UN duly investigated and in October concluded
unambiguously that the Assad regime had used sarin gas. But Corbyn greeted that verdict
with silence.
The report that Mr Freedland provides a link to, actually says:
"5. While the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic works to establish
the facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for hostile purposes in the
country, it is not mandated to reach conclusions about attributing responsibility for
chemical weapons use. 1 Following a determination by the FactFinding Mission that a specific
incident in the Syrian Arab Republic involved or likely involved the use of chemicals as
weapons, the Mechanism conducts an investigation to identify, to the greatest extent
feasible, the perpetrators, organizers, sponsors or those otherwise involved. In conducting
its investigation, the Mechanism relies on findings of the Fact-Finding Mission regarding the
use of chemicals as weapons in each incident and pursues a rigorous independent examination
of the available information surrounding such use so as to identify, to the greatest extent
feasible, those responsible."
It doesn't appear to be claiming to be concluding "unambiguously that the Assad regime had
used sarin gas." Am I missing something here?
Mr Freedland's allegation that "Corbyn greeted that verdict with silence" is highly
suspect:
"RT:Today, Moscow says it has evidence that rebels have used sarin gas. Earlier Britain
said that Assad forces were behind the chemical attack. But why didn't Britain and the US
come forward with the same sort of hard evidence that Russia has come forward with?
JC: That's an interesting question. I can't speak for the British or the US
governments, but they made these allegations about the use of chemical weapons – and
there are apparently stocks of chemical weapons being held in Syria, which may well have
fallen into opposition hands, or may still be in government hands, or maybe both – but
the assertion was made that they had been used. But no hard evidence came up, and indeed,
there was a great deal of skepticism surrounding the evidence that was never presented. And
the Russian evidence today appears much stronger, and they said they were going to put that
evidence in the hands of the United Nations - that has got to be a good thing. However,
proving or not proving this doesn't end the crisis, there has to be the rapid resumption of
talks by Geneva too, all parties must be involved – including Iran. If we're to bring
about a settlement, there's got to be involvement of Iran, as well as all the different
parties in Syria."
"... What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered anything that they could. ..."
"... And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. ..."
"... And through that the – this network, this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip, Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. ..."
"... They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of assets that came into Yeltsin's control. ..."
"... Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton. ..."
"... So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. ..."
"... In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Given the depth of the fall, the rise (under Putin) has been remarkable. ..."
Lars Schall: Hello ladies and gentlemen. I am now connected with F. William Engdahl, who has
written a new book, Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. Hi William.
F. William Engdahl: Hello, Lars. Good to be with you again.
LS: Great to have you with us. And first off, let me read something to you and our audience
that was written by the economist Dean Baker earlier this month.
As a long-term columnist at the NYT, Thomas Friedman apparently never feels the need to
know anything about the topics on which he writes. This explains his sarcastic speculation that
Putin could be a CIA agent since he has done so much to hurt Russia.
For all his
authoritarian tendencies, it is likely that most Russians think primarily about Putin's impact
on the economy, just as is typically the case among voters in the United States. On that front,
Putin has a very good record.
According to data from the IMF Russia's economy had plunged in the 1990s under the
Yeltsin presidency. When Putin took over in 1998, per capita income in the country had shrunk
by more than 40 percent from its 1990 level. This is a far sharper downturn than the United
States saw in the Great Depression. Since Putin took power its per capita income has risen by
more than 115 percent, an average annual growth rate of more than 3.9 percent.
While this growth has been very unequal, that was also the case even as Russia's economy
was collapsing under Yeltsin. The typical Russian has done hugely better in the last two
decades under Putin than they did in the period when Yeltsin was in power.
For this reason, there are probably few Russians who would have sympathy for Friedman's
speculation about Putin's ties to the CIA. The same would not be the case for Boris
Yeltsin.
Now, I think this is a good starting point for our discussion William because in your book,
you have a chapter entitled The Rape of Russia, the CIA's Yeltsin Coup d'état. Why do
you talk about rape related to Russia?
FWE: What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together
with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the
looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health
system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered
anything that they could.
And what you just read from Mr. Friedman is of course horse rubbish but the real CIA asset
of this whole collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was in fact Boris Yeltsin and the
so called Yeltsin Family, the Yeltsin Mafia. And in my book, the Manifest Destiny book I
document and detail at great lengths the relation of a handful of KGB very, very senior persons
who worked with the Bush Senior old boys CIA networks in the West and their banks to create a
group of oligarchs around Yeltsin, you know the famous Russian oligarchs, well, The New York
Times and other Western Media portrayed them as Russian Mafia. They were kind of mafia but the
real point was that they were a CIA-run mafia. They were run by the West. They betrayed their
own country, their own people and literally stole billions and billions and billions of dollars
of assets. And that's the reason for the title in that chapter.
LS: And Boris Yeltsin was very essential for this.
FWE: He was the key figure. He had been selected as a regional governor and brought into
Moscow and a certain point Gorbachev saw him as a rising star and someone that could help with
a little bit more liberal image as [unclear] was – the Russian economy was running into
serious trouble in the '80s, the Star Wars of Reagan, the Nicaragua and above all the war in
Afghanistan which is a CIA project with the Mujahideen, that took 10 years long that was
bleeding the Soviet economy, the Soviet Union's Vietnam, as Brzezinski used to call it.
And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who
literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. You
remember, I'm sure many people remember the picture of Boris Yeltsin standing there
courageously on top of a Soviet tank in front of the Russian White House or Soviet House, the
Supreme Soviet building and reading a speech defying Gorbachev and so forth. Well, that was a
KGB CIA-engineered coup d'état in June 1991. And through that the – this network,
this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip,
Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB
Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. And he later joined the [#inaudible 00:06:40-0#]
oil and to this day he's still a member of the State Duma giving him prosecution immunity.
So, some of these people are still around after some 23, 25 years and incredibly enough but
others of them have died off, have been killed, or murdered or whatever. But the operation that
was done with Yeltsin, this corrupt KGB network working with the CIA financed Yeltsin's the
silent seat of the presidency of the Russian Federation. And once they had their man in
controlling the Russian Federation which is the largest of the former Soviet Union, the
Socialist Republic, they were able to engineer through the international monetary fund that was
mandated to oversee the transformation of the Soviet economy.
They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called
today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such
that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the
other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were
within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the
nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of
assets that came into Yeltsin's control.
LS: But those assets were sold to a price that was rather ridiculous.
FWE: Someone estimated that that gets into the whole coupon privatisation that was set up
under Yeltsin in the '90s. The coupon privatisation issued one coupon to every single Russian
man, woman and child 140 million in total. And the value of those coupons was such someone
estimated that the totality of Russian Soviet's Fed assets or Russian Federation assets now was
equal to the value of the stock at that point of General Electric Company on the New York Stock
Exchange. I mean that's just laughable. Russia had financial bankruptcy because the shock
therapy, the Jeffrey Sachs and others from Harvard and elsewhere brought in, George Soros and
his pals. That created bankrupt companies that couldn't stand on their own and suddenly they
had no, no resources. But the assets, the assets on the ground, the nickel, the aluminium, the
uranium that Hillary Clinton knows more than a little bit about them, all of these were
estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. And this is what the Bush operation aimed at. And
they used NGOs, they used the National Endowment for Democracy, they used, George Soros' Open
Society Foundation and so forth to bring this about.
LS: You've mentioned already the coup d'etat attempt of August 1991. Highly important for
things to come was something that took place in early 1991 and that was the theft of the Soviet
gold. Please tell us about this.
FWE: The, under the Soviet Union, this is a very crucial point about the transition that
Washington forced on the Russian Federation because Yeltsin was, I think as long as he was
well-supplied with vodka he didn't protest very much. But under the Soviet system and the
Russian Federation took this over, there was a state bank, not a private central bank like the
Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank today but a state bank that was an entity of the
Russian State apparatus and that was called the Gosbank. And a man named Viktor Gerashchenko
was the chairman of Gosbank at the time of Yeltsin's early start in 1991.
And Gerashchenko made a speech around that time in November of '91 to the Russian Duma or
the parliament such as it was and said, "I have to report to you ladies and gentlemen that of
perhaps 3,000 tons of Gosbank state-owned gold reserves, we have an estimated less than 400
tons that we can account for." And then he had to go to tell, shock members of parliament that
he had no idea what happened to the missing gold, which of course was a lie. And Gerashchenko
had created right after 1989 to prepare this coup d'etat coup, which was the CIA and Bush's old
boys, he had created something called [unclear] on the Channel Islands in the Island of Jersey
to handle the Russian foreign currency reserves.
And the Jersey was exempt from European supervision, so this was a perfect place to hide
money, dirty money or stolen money and they managed something like $37 billion between 1993 and
1998. The Gerashchenko and the Gosbank even went to the lengths of hiring a New York Financial
Detective firm called the Financial CIA back then called Jules Kroll Associate. And they were
told to track the Soviet gold, find out what happened to it and something like $14 billion of
communist party assets that were missing as well. And the Cruel which was tied with the CIA
linked AIG Insurance Group Hank Greenberg whom you remember from the 2008 to the bail out of
Henry Paulson.
LS: Yes.
FEW: The Kroll Associates after a few months announced that they had no results in the
attempt to find the missing Soviet Gosbank gold. Then to add insult to injury, the IMF came in
and rewrote the constitution of the Russian Federation under Yeltsin and took the power of
money creation just like the Federal Reserve took the power of money creation from the congress
in 1913. They took the power of money creation from the state and created the Russian
Federation Central Bank, the Russian Central Bank and gave it a mandate for two things. One, to
control inflation and the other to create currency stability.
Now, in Russia that day that meant stability of the ruble against the US dollar. So it
effectively hammer-locked the Russian money creation into the US dollar. And unfortunately that
constitution amendment holds until the present day. It's one of the difficulties that Vladimir
Putin has been having to try to persuade the Independent Central Bank to lower interest rates
more rapidly as inflation is simply managed as a problem in Russia in the last two years.
So, they looted the gold so that there would be no stability to the ruble. If you don't have
any gold-backing, then western investors are going to lack confidence which is sort of what
happened. And then they began working with very select western bankers to get their money out
of Russia.
LS: And instrumental to get money out of Russia were Valmet and Riggs. Can you tell us
please about some crucial personnel that was employed there at Valmet and Riggs?
FWE: Valmet Riggs was kind of a fusion of a Swiss bank and Riggs Bank of Washington D. C.
And Riggs Bank, this is really quite a fascinating and very little discussed aspect of the
reign of Russia back in the '90s.
So you have something called Riggs Bank in Washington and they were set up decades earlier
since the 1960s CIA Bay of Pigs operation, they were known as the CIA tied bank. They invested
the assets of people like Marcos of the Philippines until when he was close to the CIA. And
there was a former NATO Ambassador named Alton Keel and in 1989 when the Soviet KGB generals
and they had a group of protégés called the 'Kids' by George Bush Senior. The
protégés were in their 30s and a couple of them were in their 40s but rather
young. And they were the ones who were nominated to become the oligarchs, the frontal men for
taking these state assets the aluminium, the oil assets and other things and looting the
Russian Federation.
And Alton Keel just as the Russians were setting up men at a bank for the oligarchs to
funnel their stolen assets, de facto stolen assets, Keel went from NATO and the National
Security Council to become a head of international banking of Riggs Bank in Washington and its
deputy chairman.
Now, it gets even more interesting because the international banking group of Riggs included
a new entity that had been created called Riggs Valmet SA in Switzerland, and Riggs Valmet was
set up by a man named Jonathan J. Bush, a private banker, who just happened to be the brother
of George Herbert Walker Bush. So, Bush brother and Alton Keel set up Riggs Valmet, there was a
money laundering apparatus in Geneva and Riggs then through their help bought the major share
in Geneva Valmet to create Riggs Valmet.
So, you have the brother of the president of the United States up to his eyeballs in this
whole Yeltsin CIA money laundering operation. And then Jonathan Bush was created CEO of
something called Riggs Investment in Connecticut where he lived and at that point the looting
and taking of the dollar assets out of Russia was just unstoppable. It was in the billions and
tens of billions of dollars.
LS: William, there is one guy who was working closely with those people and he was working
on Wall Street but later on he was personally recruited by George Tenet then the Director of
CIA to become the number three at the CIA, and this is Alvin Bernard "Buzzy" Krongard.
FWE: Yes. We meet "Buzzy" Krongard at Bankers Trust, which bought up Alex Brown, and
Krongard became vice chairman of Bankers Trust along with another charming character named
Carter Beese. And at the time of the 1998 collapse of the ruble, Krongard was formally made, as
you've pointed out, number three, the executive director at the CIA under George Tenet. So,
it's a CIA network from beginning to end, from the banking side to you know the direct CIA
side. You have Carter Beast, you have "Buzzy" Krongard, Jonathan Bush and Alton Keel and they
were the ones working with Valmet as the Riggs Valmet Bank in Geneva to pull this money out
through shell companies.
And the oligarchs, this is an interesting part of this whole thing that you know right now
Theresa May and the foreign secretary Boris Johnson in the UK are accusing Putin of murdering
almost everybody since the birth of Jesus Christ. And one of them was the person who had been
the trusted bodyguard of one of the oligarchs living in London Boris Berezovsky.
And Berezovsky was one of the dirtiest of these oligarchs. He'd financed the Ukrainian
Colour Revolution back in 2003, 2004 as a revenge against Putin because he at first thought
Putin could be bought like Yeltsin and suddenly he realized that he was up against the faction
of nationalists within of what had been the KGB but wanted to stabilise and preserve Russia as
a functioning nation today. And so Mikhail Khodorkovskyi, Roman Abramovich, who is listed on
the sanctions list yesterday, and Berezovsky were some of the leading oligarchs that were created
by this Bush operation.
LS: And to jumpstart all of this, we have to talk about something that is well, that is
stranger than fiction and that is something called for example "Yamashita's Gold". If our
audience is interested in this, they could for example look for an article written by Chalmers
Johnson, the famous Asian expert, The Looting of Asia, which was published at the London Review
of Books on the 20 th of November of 2003 because then they can find something on
this topic of Yamashita's gold on an instant basis in the internet ( https://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/chalmers-johnson/the-looting-of-asia
). I think this is just fair
FWE: Yeah.
LS: because no one really is aware of this whole story. Please tell us about this.
FWE: The Yamashita Gold story is one of the, as you've said really incredible stories of
post-World War II. During the Second World War, the Japanese Imperial Family looted the gold of
occupied Arch of China, they looted the gold of all the parts of Asia that they had
conquered.
LS: Basically from 1895 to 1945.
FWE: Yeah, yeah. And because they had no guarantee that Japan was going to win the war, the
emperor ordered the gold to be hidden away in, mostly in the Philippines as far as we know and
literally untold tons of gold were buried so deep underground in tunnels around the Philippines
and the people who dug the tunnels in many cases were later shot you know so that they couldn't
tell. But Marcos who was a CIA asset initially, the dictator of the Philippines through much of
the '70s and into the '80s, yeah through the '70, Ferdinand Marcos somehow came upon some of
this gold. So, the Japanese looted war body was buried in the early '40s before the end of the
war on orders of Emperor Hirohito should they lose the war.
And at some point in the 1970s, Marcos discovered some of the sites where Hirohito's
soldiers had buried the gold and the gold was stolen from China, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia
and other countries occupied by the Japanese forces. And Marcos, and I think this is the major
reason the CIA dumped him, got a little bit greedy and took that gold and started selling it
under the market through selective secret Swiss banks. But he used the CIA asset, the Saudi
billionaire named Adnan Khashoggi to help them get the gold under the market. And what he
didn't realise was that Khashoggi would double cross him. He got a better deal from Bush Senior
and the old boys.
LS: We have to say Khashoggi is a figure who is involved for example in B.C.C.I. and in
Iran-Contra.
FWE: Back in the '70s he was involved in everything dirty that Bush and the CIA were
involved in. B.C.C.I. Bank, the money laundering bank of the CIA, the arms deals, Khashoggi was
a huge arms dealer during the Iran and Iraq war the CIA was feeding. He was involved in almost
every dirty thing the CIA was doing.
LS: He was aware of this gold.
FWE: Supposedly he was helping Marcos to sell the gold out of the market. So he was not only
aware of it, he was right in the middle of it. But then once Marcos was tackled by the CIA Bush
got rid of Marcos in 1986. Then someone named Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage and Khashoggi
began to work with someone in Canada to create something called – Peter Munk was his
name, a rather dubious businessman there – to found something called Barrick Gold of
Canada and later it went on to become the world's largest gold mining company.
But Barrick Gold, all available evidence is that buried gold was used to melt down the
– I don't want to get too much into the details of this but basically to melt down the
Emperor Hirohito's gold that had been discovered by Marcos in the Philippines, to melt it down
and use that as collateral for derivatives that would be the collateral used to take over the
Russian Federation assets.
LS: The money was basically transformed into bank loans into Russia so that the would-become
oligarch people could buy up those assets
FWE: Yes, exactly. So, Yegor Gaidar, the economic privatisation adviser of Yeltsin and his
sidekick Anatoly Chubais privatisation had kind of guided this whole process together with
Jeffrey Sachs and a group from Harvard University. #00:28:37-8#
LS: Yeah. Let us talk about this. This is known as Harvard Shock Therapy.
FEW: Well, the Jeffrey Sachs Shock Therapy, but the Harvard shock therapy is – well,
what happened, the next phase of this incredible story and it's important to keep all this in
mind, this is one reason that I wrote the book because of what was clear after the CIA coup
d'etat of 2014 in Ukraine and all the sanctions against Putin's Russia and so forth, that if
you don't understand what really happened in the '90s, the deep-seated hatred there is on these
neoconservatives around Washington and their think tanks as well as, the US political
establishment for Putin's Russia and the nationalism behind group Russia. You can't make much
sense out of what's going on today with all these incredible lies and accusations against
Russia for every crime under the book.
So, what happened is the, as I mentioned the IMF, the International Monetary Fund which had
done a beautiful job for Washington in terms of, and George Soros and others in terms of
looting the assets of the dead economies of Latin America, Yugoslavia, Poland and others during
the oil crisis in the 1970s. The IMF was used and a group of economists around Jeffrey Sachs, a
young professor at Harvard University then to impose what Sachs called shock therapy.
And the idea was that Sachs convinced Yeltsin, let prices rise through western market prices
and this will increase the supply of goods, you know the stores had a paucity of goods back in
the Soviet Times and get rid of trade barriers so foreign commodities could flow in to fill the
shelves of Russian stores. The problem was that was a lie. The shops had been full. Okay, you
could say it wasn't Kellogg's Corn Flakes and Fried Perdue Chickens or whatever, but they were
full of Russian food products until November of '91 when Yeltsin announced that the exact date
on December 31 st of 1991, that price controls would be suddenly lifted. So, shop
owners immediately hid their goods and waited for December 31 st . So, suddenly the
shops were empty and rationing was imposed and so forth. It's just unbelievable.
So, into this, this was Jeffrey Sachs on shock therapy and a group of Harvard University
under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International Development, a group of, among
other things later documented CIA agents set up shop in Moscow and worked with Yeltsin's
economic team Gaidar and Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais and themselves got in on the thunder
the Russian East Harvard economist working. Now we have a transition in '93 through the Clinton
Administration and there former Harvard professor and former World Bank Chief Economist
Lawrence Summers became the deputy secretary of treasury responsible for the looting of Russia,
effective and responsible for the gold economic transition in the Russian Federation.
And all of the key actors were named by Summers and they were all involved in the
privatisation of Russia. They were all from this Harvard Mafia. For example of David Lipton, a
former consulting partner of the Jeffrey Sachs, became deputy assistant secretary of treasure
for former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and Sachs himself was named Director of Harvard HIID
that oversaw the looting of Russia through the voucher privatisation and so forth. And they got
grants from the USAID, AID works very closely with the CIA in different parts of the world,
this is documented. And so it was really a tight-knit cabal around Lawrence Summers that
oversaw this complete theft through these pieces of paper called privatisation coupons.
And what you had was the economic situation under Yeltsin had become so severe I mean people
literally they had no jobs because of the freeing up of prices, they could afford to buy little
or nothing. So, most people, millions of Russians sold their privatisation vouchers on the
street corners to the highest bidder. And of course the would-be oligarchs were the ones with
hard currency dollars that they could buy these things up as you pointed out earlier when we
talked about them. So, they had credits from their friends in the West, the Riggs Valmet and so
forth to buy up these vouchers and therefore they were able when the cost came up, were able to
simply steal the property titles, the ownership titles of some of the most valuable investor
assets and mineral assets in the world.
LS: And we can talk about this as a classical case of leveraged buyout – even though
it was a covered leveraged buyout, if it was?
FEW: Well, you could call it a leveraged buyout. I know Anne Williamson has used that term,
the earlier descriptions of it. I think it was simply legalised theft, leveraged buyout gives
it too much dignity. That was a term that was quite popular in the financial world back in the
'80s and the early '90s. But whatever name you want to give it, it was certainly not a
conventional leveraged buyout, it was bizarre in every sense of the word.
LS: An influential figure in this was mentioned by you already, George Soros. And in 1994,
as you point out in your book, he was described with the following words from The Guardian in
London, "Soros extraordinary role not only as the world's most successful investor but now
possibly fantastically as the senior most powerful foreign influence in the whole of the former
Soviet Empire, it tricks more suspicion than curiosity." What was he doing back then in
Russia?
FWE: Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a
shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton.
And in 1993 already the opposition inside what was left of Russia when the old communist party
was in the Duma and so forth and the population generally was such that the opposition
threatened to get out of hand and Yeltsin was forced to agree to hold a national referendum on
the entire privatisation. So, this was in April of '93 and the referendum that was given to the
population had four questions, yes or no. Do you support Yeltsin? Yes or no? Do you support
Yeltsin's economic policy? Yes or no? Do you want early election for president? Yes or no? And
do you want early elections for parliament? Yes or no?
So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy
arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf
of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some
accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. And so the media
campaign and by this time most of the national media had been bought up by the oligarchs around
Yeltsin so they were able to exercise undue influence. So they barely squeak through and got a
yes to the privatisation scheme that Harvard, Jeffrey Sachs and George Soros and others had
going on. And then of course Soros' company himself benefitted enormously from this
privatisation just a little bit later when the auctions took place.
LS: A figure that connects yesterday with today is Vladimir Putin who came to international
attention first in 1998, the same year when the ruble crisis took place.
FWE: This was 1999 and in August '98 you had the collapse of the ruble. This was part of the
Bush "Operation Hammer's" original design. You had a huge scam going on in the GKO Russian Bond
market where the interest rates were just unbelievably high. So, you had all sorts of hot money
coming in, making profits and pulling it up including Soros Fund, quantum fund and so
forth.
And finally, Yeltsin was getting near the end of his ability to hold this thing together. And he appointed in August '99, he
appointed a young former KGB officer who served
during the Cold War in East Germany named Vladimir Putin. And briefly Putin had been a deputy
mayor in St. Petersburg and briefly had been the head of the successor to the KGB called FSB
and the oligarchs around Putin, I've heard various Russian accounts have had this happen but
Berezovsky, Brzezinski and other, the Yeltsin oligarchs thought they could take this young guy
Putin and do business with him and you know that he was young and had no political base.
So, at that point Putin gave the ultimatum to Yeltsin, resign or face serious consequences
and it turned out that Putin which has later been confirmed was the spokesperson for a
nationalist faction within the intelligence community, a patriotic faction, call it what you
want but Russian nationalist. And so Yeltsin was told, "If you resign and just get out of
politics, we'll leave you alone." So he took the offer and ran. And before he did that he named
Vladimir Putin as acting president until elections in March the following year.
So, Putin then came into power and called a meeting as it were of the most powerful
oligarchs who had made staggering fortunes at the expense of Russia and he called them creators
of a corrupt state through insider dealings and began criminal prosecution against oligarchs
like Vladimir Gusinsky and Media-Most, a financial group led by Vladimir Potanin who is in the
newspaper today and soon left an oil company controlled by a Roman Abramovich and Boris
Berezovsky. So, at that point Putin began the uphill battle of trying to stabilise Russia as a
functioning economy. And the recent re-election of Putin indicates that the Russian people by
and large support that effort of Putin's.
LS: Meanwhile he also had to react to something new that was taking place then and that was
NATO was marching east.
FWE: The negotiations and this is, has been confirmed by former US Ambassador to Russia Jack
Matlock and that was the negotiations between the Bush administration in 1991 Germany and
Gorbachev included a solemn guarantee as Jack Matlock, Ambassador Matlock who was in Moscow in
'87 until '91 in this period. He said that we gave a categorical assurance to Gorbachev when
the Soviet Union still existed that if United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not
move eastward. So, of course that pledge like so many pledges of Washington under Bush
successor governance was honoured in the breach and the newly created National Endowment for
Democracy that I write about quite a bit in the Manifest Destiny.
You had, Vin Weber was the chairman of the NED at that time and he took US taxpayer money
through the NED to supposedly bring democracy into former communist states. Then Weber was also
a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocon think tank which really
shaped the personnel of George W. Bush in the year 2000 and 2001. And Vin Weber was also a
lobbyist for the largest military industrial conglomerate of the US Lockheed Martin.
So, he was instrumental together with another military industrial Lockheed Martin, former
Vice President for Strategy named Bruce Jackson, Bruce P. Jackson to promote back democracy in
former communist countries including Russia. And they started the process of expanding NATO to
the east in strict violation of the pledges that had been given back in the early '90s. So, by
2003, they had begun this whole expansion of NATO into Poland, into Hungary, all the former
communist countries.
LS: And the countries at the Baltic Sea.
FWE: So, at the Baltic Sea right on the doorstep of the Russian Federation, and Poland,
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and so forth. And you began to see a very
definite NATO encirclement of Russia. And then in 2003-2004, the National Endowment for
Democracy, George Soros' Foundation, the whole arm of the fake democracy NGOs of Washington,
began to create the so called Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and also the Rose Revolution in
Georgia next door. And if you look at a map, if you bring a pro NATO government into power in
Ukraine, this they did under Viktor Gerashchenko in 2004, then you're presenting a pretty
formidable military threat to the national security of Russia.
Now, at that time 2003, Russia was in no shape to do much more than feebly protest as loud
as they could but of course they were ignored. Then you had something quite dramatic in 2006,
the end of 2006. The George W. Bush administration Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defence
back then announced that they were installing ballistic missile defence now I'll get to that in
a minute but it's anything but defensive. In Poland, in the Czech Republic and that those
anti-missile defence installations which included missiles would be aimed at a rogue nuclear
attack from Iran.
In early 2007, Vladimir Putin personally came as president of Russia Federation to the
Munich Security Conference, the International Security Conference held here in Munich Germany
and gave a speech which really defines the security position of Russia right up to the present
date. He said of course this is not aimed at Iran or North Korea as Washington says. That's a
lie. It's like taking your right arm to scratch your left ear we say in Russian. It's aimed at
Russia. And we consider this intolerable as a threat to our national security and we will be
forced to respond.
LS: And it is aimed at Russia as a first strike possibility.
FWE: Yeah. Well, the point about the missile defence is I – in connection with the
book, I interviewed, in an earlier book I wrote, I interviewed Colonel Robert Bowman who had
been briefly the head of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars or missile defence programme. And became a
very, very severe critic of the Bush administration's reckless policies withdrawing from the
antiballistic missile ABM Treaty and so forth, said that missile defence is the missing link to
Nuclear Primacy. First strike capability.
And that's something that Pentagon planners had been opting for since the 1950s. And he
said, "If you can block the counterattack from your opponent and you then have this possibility
to make a first strike and wipe them out because they can't simultaneously fire an effective
counterstrike." So, that in a nutshell destroys the whole cold war doctrine of mutual and sure
destruction that kept nuclear options off the table up until that time. And the Russians
understand military strategy rather well I would say. And said, "This is simply intolerable. We
have to respond and we will respond but in our own way and you will see."
LS: And the Russians have reacted.
B: The Russians have reacted, and if we can go for a minute up until the present
LS: Please
FEW: On March 1st Putin gave an address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow televised to the
nation. The beginning part of the speech, his annual speech there, was about the Russian
economy and plans for the future. This was shortly before the Russian elections that
overwhelmingly gave him a new term. But the crucial part of that speech to the Federal Assembly
was Russia's military technologies and this is as he put it. He referred to that 2007 speech in
Munich and he said, "We said at that time that Russia would have to reply and since the
expansion of NATO to the east which really to be honest that's – see there is no reason
after 1991 or certainly after 2000 for the existence of NATO other than the reason given when
NATO was created by the first secretary general of NATO to keep the Russians out the Germans
down and the Americans in."
But Putin's speech talked about nuclear primacy and the Russian response and he outlined the
military are the developments that they had quietly brought online since Washington tore up,
unilaterally tore up the ABM Treaty in 2002/2003. So he outlined an awesome array of missiles,
hypersonic low flying stealth missiles carrying nuclear warheads, unpredictable trajectories,
invisible against perspective missile defence and air defence systems, unmanned submersible
vehicles to great depth that could go many times higher than the speed of submarines cutting
edge torpedoes just and commentators in the West like CNN. They said, "Oh, this is just bluff
and so forth."
People who know Russian military technology and the intensity of the kind of research and
development that's focused on defending the nation confirm that this is no joke. Hypersonic
aircraft five times the speed of sound, that's hypersonic and they have something called the
[unclear] which goes 10 times mark 10 and as Putin described it, "This missile flying 10 times
faster than sound can manoeuvre in all phases of the flight trajectory, overcome all
prospective and aircraft county missile defences in a range of 2000 kilometres."
He outlined about six or seven of these I would call them not even cutting edge, bleeding
edge military technology and as The Saker commented in his blogpost after the speech, it's
indeed set marching game over for the empire. There's no more military option against
Russia.
This all is to make a point that the entire history up until now, these fake accusations of
Putin would have an interest or Russia would have an interest to meddle with the US elections
when you have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to accuse Putin and Russia of
international violations of law by allowing a referendum to take place in Crimea after the CIA
coup d'etat in Kiev and now it's come out from actual mercenary snipers that were brought in
from Georgia under [#inaudible 00:55:08-0#] umbrella that they were paid by the CIA or promised
to be paid by cut outs to the CIA to create the Maidan Square February 2014 chaos that led to
the collapse of the government and the coup d'etat.
So, you know, this is not Russia is the arch Evel Knievel looking for a fight every corner
of the world. It's not Russia doing bad things in Syria. It's Russia trying to stop a NATO and
Saudi and other embedded destruction of the Middle East and create some kind of peace and
stability. And anyone modest to take the slightest bit of care and follow this, they can read a
running commentary on my website williamengdahl.com but not only there, it's all over the
place. You realise that the fake media is the media that dominates and is guided by NATO public
relations strategy in the West and it's not the so called critical media that's being
sanctioned and censored right now.
LS: Let's talk further about the present, William, by closing one circle of our interview.
As we've discussed the Russian gold vaults were empty since the early 1990s. This has changed
since basically the financial crisis broke out in 2007, 2008, 2009. Since then the Russian
Central Bank is buying gold like basically no other nation in a very rapid tempo.
FWE: Since the financial crisis and especially since the opposition of sanctions after the
annexation of Crimea in 2014, it's been the policy of the Russian Central Bank and the Russian
Federation to buy as much gold for reserves of the ruble as they can get their hands on. And
they are now I think number five or number six in the world in terms of gold reserves and
correct me if I'm wrong but just slightly behind the people's republic of China which has also
been vigorously adding gold towards Central Bank reserves for the yuan.
So, what Russia is doing is creating a buffer gold, by the way in my view has never ceased
being an object of value to stand behind currencies. If you have currencies like the dollar
after all this 1971 when Nixon took the dollar off the bread and wood, gold exchange [unclear],
then if you have a military you might or manipulate the oil price petrodollar and so forth, you
can create money if you have the reserve currency you can create money without them. So what
the Russia is doing is creating a security in terms of its currency and now that security is
probably going to be tested by the economic warfare division of the US Treasury in these new
sanctions.
But Russia is merging together with China. Interestingly enough after 2014 when the CIA coup
d'etat Ukraine took place, Putin responded not by getting bogged down in the destructive war
inside the Eastern Ukraine but he responded by turning east, strengthening his relationships
with China, with the new president of China then Xi Jinping bringing the Asian economic Union
which Russia is the leading economy in, together with Belarus and Kazakhstan, Armenia and
others, bringing that in a coherence with Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative One Belt, One
Road to link the infrastructure, the energy pipelines, the high-speed rail networks, the deep
water ports and so forth to create a Eurasian, some people call it the land bridge but it's an
economic space in Eurasia that would have the majority of the world's population, would have
every raw material resource that the world needs including rare earth metals that China is
world's leading supplier of at the moment.
And Russia has vast oil and gas reserves and military technology, civilian technology, an
educated labour force that is probably one of the finest in the world and scientific country
and so forth. And independent of the bankrupt economies of Britain and the United States and
very rapidly of the European Union where this banking crisis has, since the crisis of 2008 has
just been swept under the rug but it's ready to explode on a moment's notice. So, you have a
depth loaded western NATO world. Let's call it a NATO world, a world of the NATO member
countries and you have Russia together, which by the way, Russia has unbelievably small
LS: Debt.
FWE: National debt.
LS: Yes.
FWE: Something like 13 to 17% of the gross domestic product.
LS: And now they have this huge stock of gold relative to very little sovereign debt. It's
almost ideal.
FWE: Yes, and that's by design. That is by Putin's intention to create this independence.
And one thing, I am very often in Russia, have a very, very dear special friends in Russia over
the years, the first time I was there was 1994. That was a vastly different, that was in the
middle of the Yeltsin and the insanity. The Russians are very not only proud people but they
are very determined and they protect their existence and have done that I would say for well
over 1000 years going back to the great schism between the Western church in Rome and the
Eastern Church in 1054. I think that was a pivotal date in modern history, the division
there.
But certainly the Russians have gone through two World Wars and the rape of Russia under
Yeltsin, unbelievable trials and tribulations and they are not shying away from defending their
existence. That's something I think the west or certainly Washington with these neocons really
doesn't have a sense of.
LS: One thing that I would like to ask you about as my final question is the following. You
are a renowned expert for the geopolitics and the history of oil. And since this month we have
a future's contract in Shanghai, denominated in yuan for oil and we also hear that the Chinese
are planning to price oil that they import in yuan which is safe for this buying of oil
internationally via yuan, Russia would be the candidate number one as the exporter?
FWE: Definitely. Most definitely and Russia and China are connecting their financial markets
ever closer. The Russian government is the in the process sometime this year of issuing Russian
bonds denominated new Chinese yuan. The announcing of the petrol yuan, the oil futures
contracts being sold in Shanghai, ultimately it won't happen overnight but it's certainly off
to a positive start in the marketing acceptance. That has the basis for taking oil sales.
Let's step back a moment to the 1970s and I document this at length in two of my books,
Myths, Lies and Oil Wars and A Century of War. In the early 1970s when Nixon took the dollar
off of gold, the dollar relative to the German mark and the Japanese yen dropped like a stone,
something like 40% over a period of five or six months. And in order to stop that because the
New York Banks were hurting quite a bit from that, there was a oil price shock that was
orchestrated. I won't go into the details it's documented quite extensively in those two books
of mine.
LS: And Sheikh Yamani had said something about this, too.
FWE: Yes. He invited me after reading my book to his annual energy retreat in London in
2000, September 2000. And then called me to a private dinner discussion at his home outside of
London to talk about what I wrote about in the book. And he later went on CNN on an interview
and mentioned my book by name. In the written transcript it's in there and in the television
version they spliced it out so that you couldn't realise that it'd been in there. But Sheikh
Yamani told me you are the first journalist or the first person outside of myself that writes
correctly what happened with that oil shock. And that was manipulated by among others Henry
Kissinger, the Secretary of State and by a group in the Atlantic establishment called the
Bilderberg meeting in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden back in May of that period before the Yom
Kippur War.
In any case, the US circles around Rockefeller, who at that point was the chairman of the
board of USA Incorporated, I would say. They had engineered a 400% price rise in oil and to
make sure that Germany and Japan and other countries wouldn't make deals to buy oil in German
mark but keep the dollar demand high and the dollar value high. They send a delegation from the
US Treasury to sign an agreement with the Saudi Arabian monetary agency for a new relationship
taking surplus Saudi petrodollars or OPEC petrodollars and buying US government debt.
LS: Yeah, and outside of the normal auction to privileged conditions.
FWE: Yes. In return, Washington agreed to give the Saudis tens and billions of dollars of
defence equipment.
LS: Yeah, and Saudi Arabia would use its status as a swing producer in OPEC that it would
only accept dollars as a pricing for oil.
FEW: And the quid pro quo was after 1975, this was formalised that Saudis would as swing
producer in OPEC guarantee that OPEC sold its oil only in dollars and that held up until the
time of Saddam Hussein during the sanctions shortly before the US invasion and Saddam Hussein
began buying oil through a French bank denominated in Euros and not in dollars.
LS: And he made a plus, he made a net plus because he did sell his oil in Euro.
FWE: Yeah, yeah. And so this, what that has done up until the present is prop up the US
dollars despite the fact that the internal industrial economy import activity of the United
States went down the tubes over the past 40 years since the taking the dollar off of gold and
the, putting of English dollars for the world economy. So, the idea than China and Russia would
trade in energy and that other economies would begin to sell oil to China, Iran for example is
a prime candidate in the petro yuan not in petrodollars, this began slowly like acid drops
begins to erode the reserve currency status of the US dollar. And if that goes, it's end game
for the US as a financial global power.
LS: We have to make clear to our audience. The fact that you have to buy oil in dollar makes
sure that you need dollar, that you acquire dollar in order to buy oil.
FWE: Yeah.
LS: And so if this mechanism goes, well then the US has a problem because the dollars that
are floating around internationally would find their way back into the homeland of the US.
FWE: Well, the other thing is that in order to sell now you have under this wonderful
Trumponomics as I call it, you have projections that the US annual government deficit, shortage
of tax income from tax outgo, spending outgo will by 2020 exceed one trillion dollars a year
for every year as far as the eye can see. And by end of 2020, 2028 I think was figured by the
congressional budget office, the US public debt is estimated to be well over $33 trillion, it's
20 now, 38 maybe, it's just out of control. So, if the ability of the US dollar to command use
in the world economy is severely undermined, you're going to have to raise interest rates so
high to sell this debt and it just becomes dysfunctional.
LS: Yes, but you have already in the last few years interest rates payments on this already
existing that of per annum $400 billion.
FWE: Yeah.
LS: And if interest rates go up
FWE: Yeah and that was under zero interest rates, but now, you know, if they have to put up
interest rates to five, six, seven, 8% like it was in the 1980s. the whole thing just blows up
sky high.
LS: And so coming back to gold, gold has the advantage relative to bonds or shares or the US
dollar or other Fiat currencies that there is no counterparty risk. If you have the gold in
physical form, there is no counterparty risk.
FWE: Right.
LS: So would you say that gold will be one of the ultimate winners of the ongoing financial
crisis when it goes into full gear?
FWE: Well, it's documented that J. P. Morgan, Chase and other select banks with this
collusion of the Federal Reserve have been artificially depressing the price of gold for years.
Every time there's a new financial crisis, they intervene and keep gold within a very tight
range. At a certain point that's not going to work anymore and then some people estimate to
follow the gold markets much more than I do but it could quickly go up to $10,000 an ounce or
even beyond that.
Be that as it may, gold as you point out has no counterparty risk and it's a historic store
of value. It's one of the beautiful commodities out there and it has a special – the
other just being special significance economically and historically, the other thing is that
China is the number one mining producer of gold in the world today, not South Africa. South
Africa has fallen far behind
LS: Yeah, and Russia is number three.
FWE: Russia is number three.
LS: And a lot of member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are producers or are
buying gold.
FWE: At the rail connections of the circle of the China Belt Road Initiative in part are
aiming to go in the areas where there are known gold reserves but no infrastructure during the
Soviet era to bring that gold down to market. So, we have an extremely fascinating prospect,
not just for China and Russia, for the world really to build up instead of tear down, destroy
and burn and bankrupt which is the only policy that Washington seems able to follow these
days.
LS: Yeah. To sum it up with a famous Chinese proverb. "May you live in interesting times"
– you and all the others.
FWE: We certainly do.
LS: Okay. great. Thank you very much, William, for this interview.
In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer
program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the
Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the
ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major
energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union.
Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and
corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative in the Bush regime, President
George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of "national security" and
concealed the records of past presidents, especially his father's spurious activities
during 1990 and 1991.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses
immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a
Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution
centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal.
The rise has been astounding and all because they have a leader that can't be bought ,
not corrupt and loves his country. That is why he literally was swept in in the last
election. The Western leaders will not admit it but I am sure they are terribly envious
.
It open eyes on how the West political elite are a criminal rotten cancer syndicate
and Georg Bush Sr. shows up to be even worse than the disgusting profile he already has
in media and Georg Soros bad reputation gets confirmed.
No police or court are available to take this out. We only have John Connor or The One
to count on.
Choice is the problem now. We will have to make a choice.
France used to produce some pretty fine leaders, but lately, it's like a different place.
Hollande was the most ridiculous, gutless thing we ever saw. He was laughably pompous and ineffective and dishonest and even
cowardly, vis a vis the US.
Macron probably ranks second worst. He's making a mess of France, he's blubbering all kinds of nonsense about the EU, he's
busy putting troops in Syria against all international law, he is not liked by the people, and he is virtually a French doormat
for America.
Sarkozy showed the odd bit of promise, but he was largely talk with no worthy efforts. And he was immensely corrupt. Imagine
taking 20 million euros from Qaddafi and then participating in the scheme to kill him? Or the case of the senile woman who was
France's wealthiest woman, from whom he took many millions for his campaigns, doing so in private without other members of the
family or strict legal supervision.
Hard to see the same country we saw in de Gaulle's time and that of his immediate successors.
'I am an equal of Putin' - well, he's right in a way - they're both leaders of a country. Beyond that, there is NO comparison.
Maybe he admires Putin - which is good, if he tries to emulate him, even better because Putin, after all, is one of the few great
current leaders of the world. Macron has a very long way to go, but with many years experience, if he gets the chance, MAY become
a better leader than some, but never will be the match of Putin.
Trump's actions have not matched his election rhetoric. Just like faux populist Obama. Obama also "caved" to pressure, and
even set himself up for failure by emphasing "bipartisanship".
That is how the political mechanism of faux populism works.
Obama: Change you can believe in
Trump: Make America Great Again
Obama: Most transparent administration ever
Trump: Drain the Swamp
Obama: Deceiver: "Man of Peace" engaging in covert ops
Trump: Distractor: twitter, personal vendettas
Weakened by claims of unpatriotic inclinations:
Obama: Birthers (led by Trump who was close to Clinton's) - "Muslim socialist"!
Trump: Russia influence (pushed by 'NeverTrump' Clinton loyalists) - Putin's bitch!
"... "Interesting that the PTB cannot keep and maintain a coherent storyline. There is no penalty for backtracking, lying, recanting, revisions." ..."
"... All that is required for the defeat of propaganda is historical memory. Hence, one purpose of the media--particularly the so-called news-cycle -- is to destroy historical memory. This is done in several ways. ..."
"... This destruction is then effected in the minds of the media audience as the inevitable cognitive result of their daily exposure to its "news." People who watch the news are people being daily reindoctrinated into a present that is cut off from and independent of anything that happened in the past--whether fifty years ago, ten years ago, or even yesterday. ..."
"... wonder why suicides and military suicides in particular are at unprecedented levels? ..."
The disinformation is so deep, thick and pervasive that there is no way to discern fact from
fiction. This is the fruit of Operation Mockingbird and its continuation and addendums.
Interesting that the PTB cannot keep and maintain a coherent storyline. There is no penalty
for backtracking, lying, recanting, revisions...
Just move on to the next event.
Karl Rove was correct (was it 15 years ago?)
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities,
which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and
you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
"Interesting that the PTB cannot keep and maintain a coherent storyline.
There is no penalty for backtracking, lying, recanting, revisions."
All that is required for the defeat of propaganda is historical memory.
Hence, one purpose of the media--particularly the so-called news-cycle --
is to destroy historical memory. This is done in several ways.
1. The destruction of historical memory is "performed" by the media itself. This
is what the Guardian does when it publishes six breathless Skripal stories on
six successive days no one of which is consistent with the details of any other,
but all of which tell us "Russia did it, Russia did it, Russia did it."
2. This destruction is then effected in the minds of the media audience
as the inevitable cognitive result of their daily exposure to its "news."
People who watch the news are people being daily reindoctrinated
into a present that is cut off from and independent of anything that
happened in the past--whether fifty years ago, ten years ago, or even
yesterday.
3. This is why, for example, the media and its audience, while being able to
acknowledge that the intelligence agencies lied in 2001-2003 for the sake
of a predetermined war, are unable or unwilling to accede that this truth is
relevant to our situation *today*. Because "today" is somehow always
self-standing and unique. The truth of "today" is never related to the
recent and more distant historical past as its complex analogue and consequence.
4. Because propaganda is not about truth but about current state-corporate interests
it requires the destruction of any historical memory strong enough to test today's
propaganda
against the measure of the past so as to arrive at a true (or more nearly true)
understanding
of present politics.
Interesting that the PTB cannot keep and maintain a coherent storyline
they don't have to. the psychosis of the state, its unwritten manifestos, its bent cultural inculcations, is running at
full tide, unrestrained and seemingly immune to resistance, of which there is very little anyway. wonder why suicides and
military suicides in particular are at unprecedented levels? ...
Ed Schultz: I was fired from MSNBC because I supported Bernie SandersThe
former anchor claims the network was in the tank for Hillary Clinton
MSNBC anchor-turned-Russia Today host, Ed Schultz, told National Review Monday that he believes
he was fired from the left-leaning cable news network because he openly supported Bernie
Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary. The network, he claims, was in the tank for
Hillary Clinton.
The interview itself is fascinating and a shocking look at the inner workings of MSNBC, even if
Schultz isn't exactly a reliable narrator. Schultz claims that MSNBC took a heavy hand in
dictating what went on air, and that he was often pushed in the direction of a story by
higher-ups, even if he felt his audience wouldn't be interested.
Schultz says his trouble at MSNBC started when he informed his bosses that he planned to cover
Bernie Sanders' campaign announcement live from Vermont, and that he would be airing the first,
exclusive, cable network interview with the progressive presidential candidate. They objected,
and even went so far as to tell Schultz to drop the story.
He refused. And was forced to cover a boring news story in Texas, he says.
Schultz is clear on whom he blames: Hillary Clinton.
" I think the Clintons were connected to [NBC's] Andy Lack, connected at the hip, "
Schultz told NRO host Jamie Weinstein. " I think that they didn't want anybody in their
primetime or anywhere in their lineup supporting Bernie Sanders. I think that they were in the
tank for Hillary Clinton, and I think that it was managed, and 45 days later I was out at
MSNBC. "
Schultz's stint at MSNBC came to a screeching halt in July 2015, just as the Democratic
primaries were heating up. That same week, the network also axed other underperforming shows,
but Schultz maintains that he was given the boot because they didn't want him speaking out
against Clinton in the heat of the primaries.
We have moved way beyond the Skripals case now. Simply put, if US shoots in Syria, Russia
will shoot back this time, yes back at US. USS Donald Duck has been placed as a bait to be
sent to the bottom of Mediterrenain sea by the Russians, similar to Arizona et al at Pearl
Harbour.
Many dissenter websites are currently under attack by the cyber forces of the Western
regimes and Israel, one of them being this one. Another site under attack is my favorite
johnhelmer.com. In addition to saying that he is under attack, the current message from John
is:
WHEN THE RULE OF LAW WAS DESTROYED IN SALISBURY, LONDON AND THE HAGUE, AND THE RULE OF FRAUD
DECLARED IN WASHINGTON, THAT LEAVES ONLY THE RULE OF FORCE IN THE WORLD. THE STAVKA MET IN
MOSCOW ON GOOD FRIDAY AND IS READY. THE FOREIGN MINISTRY ANNOUNCED ON SUNDAY "THE GRAVEST
CONSEQUENCES". THIS MEANS ONE AMERICAN SHOT AT A RUSSIAN SOLDIER, THEN WE ARE AT WAR. NOT
INFOWAR, NOT CYBERWAR, NOT ECONOMIC WAR, NOT PROXY WAR. WORLD WAR.
The West is utterly bankrupt, morally as well as financially and we are experiencing the
Western remedial plan and actions – war!
"In 2016 an official British government inquiry determined that Bush and Blair had indeed
together rushed to war. The Global Establishment has nevertheless rewarded Tony Blair for his
loyalty with Clintonesque generosity. He has enjoyed a number of well-paid sinecures and is
now worth in excess of $100 million."
– The character of Blair and the Establishment is well established: Blair is a major
war criminal supported by the major war profiteers. His children and grandchildren are a
progeny of a horrible criminal.
What is truly amazing is the complacency of the Roman Catholic Church that still has not
excommunicated and anathematized the mass murderer. Blair should be haunted and hunted for
his crimes against humanity.
With age, Blair's face has become expressively evil. His wife Theresa Cara "Cherie" Blair
shows the same acute ugliness coming from her rotten soul of a war profiteer.
Keep in mind how long ago all this is:
Skripal was recruited around 1990 and arrested in 2004. Guess that the Russian attitude
towards Skripal took the chaos of the 90′s as mitigating circumstances into
account.
Skripal served his sentence of only 13 years till 2010 when he was pardoned and given the
option to leave. Russia did not revoke Skripal's citizenship. The UK issued Skripal a
passport too. On arrival in the UK Skripak was extensively debriefed by UK intelligence
services. Skripal has lived for 8 years in the UK now.
And now out of the blue this incident nicely dovetailing with May ratcheted up anti Russia
language only a few months before this false flag incident and the rapidly failing traction
of the Steele/Orbis/MI6 instigated Russia collusion story on the basis of that fake Trump
Dossier. By the way Orbis affiliated Steele and Miller have been among Skripal's
handlers.
Paul Craig Roberts is correct when quoting The Saker:
"The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an
infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified." -- The Saker
White Helmets was the greatest war propaganda invention since Goebbels "big lie"
The sheeple might realize that they were duped only when it's too late... It's all very darwinian: Elite is too nasty and common
people are too stupid and too busy with surviving in economic uncertainty to decipher lies
Notable quotes:
"... "the West is ruled by a gang of thugs" ..."
"... It is depressing to see that there are very few people in the MSM speaking out for reason. One of the few ones is Tucker Carlson. ..."
"... The US, British etc. taxpayer funded propaganda arm of Islamists, the media trained "white helmets" are delivering videos that look almost as real as Hollywood products and most of the sheeple in the western world don't question their propaganda narrative. ..."
"... Well here you go Dutti. Both Glen Greenwald and Amy Goodman are out there in media land championing the 'truth' for good old Isramerika. ..."
It is depressing to see that there are very few people in the MSM speaking out for reason. One of the few ones is Tucker Carlson.
Unfortunately, even among friends and acquaintances, the story about "evil Assad killing Children" is often readily believed.
The US, British etc. taxpayer funded propaganda arm of Islamists, the media trained "white helmets" are delivering videos that
look almost as real as Hollywood products and most of the sheeple in the western world don't question their propaganda narrative.
"... Without sufficient domain knowledge, you have no immunity from MSM narratives. And, to acquire that knowledge you need to read non-MSM sources (or know people with first-hand experience). ..."
Reasonably intelligent people? Like this Iranian woman (in US) whose postings during the war
for Aleppo was full of righteous indignation for the rebels. when I told her that the people
whose fate she was bemoaning would do many evil things to her as a Shia Iranian woman; she
would not hear of it.
Couldn't agree with you more Babak. My dad is a 78 year old Orthopedic physician here in the
US. He would be considered intelligent by most people. And he is. Except when it comes to
Geopolitics. He believes everything the MSM parrots and I gave up long ago in voicing my
opinion to him. It's hopeless. And consider the vast majority of the citizens of my country
are far less intelligent than him. In my opinion, the forces that push for war know they are
lying and don't care if a small percentage are on to them. They have the microphone and we do
not.
Yes, people like that. Without sufficient domain knowledge, you have no immunity from MSM
narratives. And, to acquire that knowledge you need to read non-MSM sources (or know people
with first-hand experience).
The Brits blinked and did not punish the criminal liar Blair. Since then, the war
profiteering based on false flag operations has become a national British pastime.
Notable quotes:
"... The problem for governments using false flag operations like this is many more people are no longer trusting their own governments and quite rightly so. ..."
Hi, I am from the government. I am here to lie to you. I have so many lies on top of other
lies that sometimes they are true. Even the government has lost track. I am not sure if even
MIC or Israel knows anymore.
The problem for governments using false flag operations like this is many more people are
no longer trusting their own governments and quite rightly so. Human minds are reinforcing
the concept of untrustworthy governments that actually lasts far longer than the elected
period of time of those who purport to represent the population we now know to be a
deceit.
As example, take Blair ex-UK prime minister who concocted the whole Iraq dodgy dossier in
the UK who most people I know now call him a war criminal but nobody will put on trial in the
Hague. He has not been PM since 2007 but nobody forgets the criminal acts he instigated and
supported and will be remembered for a long time for this. So how do you make Blair appear
human again to the population?
You can apply this concept to so many elected criminals in the west ... join it up those
that rule us are in fact criminals not ordinary people. The psychos rule over us and to them
we are no more than dead meat.
Good institutions that limit cheating and rule violations, such as corruption, tax evasion
and political fraud are crucial for prosperity and development. Yet, even very strong
institutions cannot control all situations that may allow for cheating. Well-functioning
societies also require the intrinsic honesty of citizens. Cultural characteristics, such as
whether people see themselves as independent or part of a larger collective, that is, how
individualist or collectivist a society is, might also influence the prevalence of rule
violations due to differences in the perceived scope of moral responsibilities, which is
larger in more individualist cultures.
If cheating is pervasive in society and goes often unpunished, then people might view
dishonesty in certain everyday affairs as justifiable without jeopardising their self-concept
of being honest. Experiencing frequent unfairness, an inevitable by-product of cheating, can
also increase dishonesty. Economic systems, institutions and business cultures shape people's
ethical values, and can likewise impact individual honesty.
I described Gachter and Schultz's work in April 2016, and thought I could immediately see a
problem with the interpretation that the authors placed on the results. Putting forward a
different perspective took a few days. Getting that new approach published has taken 2 years.
For how long will researchers put up with these absurd delays which impede the prompt
assessment of arguments?
The authors of this very interesting study, having revealed the cheats, interpreted the
national differences as being due to cultural factors, particularly whether there were
institutions in each society which encouraged honesty. Of course, this leaves open why one
society would have such institutions and another would not. Culture must come from somewhere. A
reasonable hypothesis is that the institutions of a county are built by the people who live
there. Here is our reply:
Honesty, rule violation and cognitive ability: A reply to Gächter and Schulz
Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, James Thompson.
Intelligence, Volume 68, May–June 2018, Pages 66–69.
Our argument is that both institutions and honesty are determined by the intelligence of
people, and that bright people can see the long-term benefits of honesty and of institutions
that support honest behaviour. Any institution with a code of conduct leads its members toward
probity, and shows prospective applicants what standards are expected of them. However, those
institution do not arise randomnly.
Gächter & Schulz assumed that institutional rules affect individual honesty.
We added cognitive ability as further factor explaining national differences.
Stronger effect of IQ (total 0.55) than of rule violation (total −0.34) on honesty.
Stronger effect of IQ (total −0.68) than of honesty (total −0.26) on rule
violation.
________________________________________
Abstract
Gächter and Schulz (2016) assumed an effect of institutional rule violation on
individual honesty within societies. In this reply we challenge this approach by including a
nation's cognitive ability as a further factor for cross-national variations in the
prevalence of rule violations and intrinsic honesty. Theoretical considerations,
correlational and path analyses show that a nation's cognitive ability level (on average
β = |.62|) better explains and predicts honesty and rule violation. While
institutional and cultural factors are not unimportant, cognitive factors are more
relevant.
The paper argues that there is a causal link between intellectual development and moral
awareness: the individual process of development represents an advance from cognitive
egocentrism to de-centered thinking, from ethical egocentrism to the consideration of the
interests and rights of others.
Cognitive ability seems to have the strongest causal effect on the honesty of a society:
The same pattern holds true if you assume that social levels of honesty intermediate
individual levels of honesty as shown by rule violation.
Either way, it seems that intelligence explains whether some societies cheat at games and
cheat in real life.
Society rots from top and doesn't matter who is at the top. It still remains valid even when
the so called least intellectually developed honest poor people get shafted for hundred of
years by so called high IQ nations who bring cheating,dishonesty,and violations of existing
laws and destruction of existing institutions without replacing them nationwide. Often these
newly created institutions are nothing but vehicle to whitewash the corrupting and corrupted
new system.
Public moral status has a lot to do with corruption at the top -both local and
international in these days of neoliberalism and post -colonization. It sounds painful and
hurtful though.
Interesting work! I am amazed academics have the patience to deal with such a long lag time
for letting arguments play out.
Is there any chance of you publishing a scatter plot matrix of the variables you used
and/or the data itself?
Do you have the correlation matrix for your variables? By any chance did you try single
and multiple variable models to try to predict rule violation from the other variables? It
would be interesting to see how much variance an assortment of those models explained.
Has anyone explored the idea of "cheater fraction" (analogous to smart fraction) to
explain dishonesty in societies?
It's an interesting question. Some years ago The Economist did a "European Honest Test "
leaving a wallet with a fair amount of cash in it (but also including clear contact details
of the owner), in capital cities around Europe.
The test was to see how many wallets were returned – and they found that the
Scandinavians returned almost all of them, and the Italians returned almost none – with
a clear North/South gradient in the results.
By coincidence, at about the same time, I found a wallet beside some rubbish bins with
€ 400 in it and some credit cards (one from my own bank). So on my next visit, I told
them about it and soon got a call from the owner ( a Spanish carpenter working in Germany).
His reaction was 1) to check that the money was still in the wallet 2) say that not many
people would return a wallet with € 400 in it 3) leave 2 bottles of wine at my front
gate.
I checked this reaction with my secretary at the time, and asked her what she would have
done, with the answer that it would be a "Regalo de Dios" (Gift of God), i.e. it was not
going to be returned to the owner, so there seems to be some anecdotal evidence for the
result.
China's position on the Intrinsic Honesty chart is puzzling both at the macro level
(remarkably honest, competent policy-makers) and at the individual level (above average IQ).
The Edelman Corporation, which has a lock on international surveys of personal and
institutional honesty has consistently found the Chinese to be among the most trusting people
on earth, as have World Values Surveys in their own, independent polls of the Chinese.
The source of the discrepancy appears to be the source of the data: "a n indicator of
political rights by Freedom House that measures the democratic quality of a country's
political practices; the size of a country's shadow economy as a proxy for tax evasion; and
corruption as measured by the World Bank's Control of Corruption Index (Supplementary
Methods)".
Relying on George Soros' Freedom House for information about China is akin to relying on
the neighborhood fox to keep an eye on your chickens while you go on vacation. Garbage in,
garbage out
I would rate Japan pretty high for getting things returned, but this ethic has eroded over
the past three or four decades.
Also, in the past you'd see adult males scolding unrelated misbehaving teens in public,
who'd slink away with their tails between their legs. This you do not currently see: men are
less masculine and assertive and some teens at least are more beligerant.
I think, David Perkins' findings about high IQ-people being also very tribal would make for a
nice addendum here, to better understand how IQ and honesty are related.
I refer to Jonathan Haidt's argument, that he bases explicitly on Perkins' findings, that
because of the tendency of high IQ-people to be even more tribal than the lower IQ ranks, ist
is so crucial, to understand with J. S. Mill's On Liberty (and I add: with Kant and
– – the Kantian Habermas' "Theory of Communicative Action"), that the core
achievement of modernity is the institutionalization of disconformation in the
democratic/liberal rational discourse and liberal public sphere (universities, the media,
etc.).
Here's Jonathan Haidt, referring to Perkins and Mill to make clear, how important the
institutionalization of disconformation actually is:
Correlation≠causation. Maybe honesty leads to brighter minds. Is it your knowing the right
answer that makes you follow it, or is it you looking at the situation, as it is, considering
evidence and proof, and getting the right answer through correct deductive reasoning, which
is then to be followed? You can't be honest and act ideologically, because by definition you
follow your observations of the world, not your ideas of the world. An honest person is bound
to direct observation, an intelligent person is not. Honesty is probably primary to an
accurate understanding of the world.
I think that 16 per cent is a bit arbitrary. In a class or caste dominated society you
might, if of a class which can choose to avoid countries, decide that it really doesn't
matter if your butler and housekeeper have to terrify the lower orders to stop them ripping
you off (and the butler and housekeeper have enough relations they want to place in
employment to keep them to the rules as to how much they cheat you).
I recently lost my wallet for a short time in a supermarket-plus-other-shops complex as I
wheeled my trolley to the car park. I thought my pocket had been picked so went to a nearby
poluce station to see if they could accelerate access to CCTV. Mr Plod was useless and
unhelpful. (Fortunately I didn't start cancelling credit cards immediately as he pretty well
demanded). Back in the shopping centre I was directed to a caretaker's office where a 30 ish
man of Pakistani origin had my wallet that had fallen out of my pocket as I went up a ramp.
He had taken the trouble to count the cash and wrap it separately with a note on it that the
amount was $915 or whatever. I never bothered to count it myself or even unwrap it for
several days. What does that say about the standard of civilisation in one of Australia's
biggest cities?
As anyone who has seen how inadequate religion is today to form moral young people may have
thought, the obvious starting point is to ask oneself how I bring up my children and what
moral rules I rub in (preferably by example as well as preaching). One knows children are not
going to be cunning ruthless sophisticates by nature – unless psychopaths – and
will not benefit from being taught to think immediately how they can get away with some theft
or lie. So you bring them up with rules which will help to make sure they are both trusted
and trustworthy – seeing you return the small amount of change over paid for exsmple to
rub in the message about rules they should still be obeying without thought when they have
children. Morality is about the customs of the tribe, its mores, and children are rarely done
any sort of favour by not being trained to be strictly moral (even if taught Christian
forgiveness, especially for the "poor in spirit"). However ..
It occurs to me that the place of intelligence in this may extend to what hss been called
Divergent Thinking (does this overlap with Lateral Thinking? Or imagination?)
A quick imaginative laterally thinking brain may think of several ways some dishonest
subterfuge may go wrong almost st the moment temptation arises. So honesty for him he quickly
concludes is the best policy. And so down the speculative path on which little evidence is to
be found. After all what is one to make of the arrogant lawyer that one reads about in the
big tax case who thought arrogantly he could get away with something and the Mr Plods of the
tax office would never sus him out and prove his wrongdoing to a court?
I was guided by my recollection of the modelling of neighbourhood crime risk, but it is a
sliding scale, I agree. I assumed, years ago, that at the 16-20% level one would begin to
notice a difference from base rate. See, in this particular example, Fig 2 and Fig 3
What does that say about the standard of civilization in one of Australia's biggest
cities?
It doesn't really say anything. You need some standardized parameters and a reasonable
sample size. Then you can draw some conclusions and assess the level of accuracy – like
The Economist did with their wallet test – quite a good experiment.
However , at the individual level, a continuing positive outcome would be the wallet owner
saying thank you, and being more inclined to return the favor one day.
It occurs to me that 5 per cent might be a horrible worrying prospect if you, as a lawyer
or doctor, thought it applied to the five or ten thousand you might come across as fellow
professionals in your city or state. But then it could be that you rarely gossip about others
and only regard as liars and cheats those who have done it to you (apart from the few who
have been busted for insurance fraud). Maybe 16 per cent sometimes fudge or fiddle something
but you don't know so you remain happily (and honestly) complacent, and proud of your
profession.
More intelligent people may be more adept at calculating the possible negative consequences
of personal dishonesty and they are likely to have more to lose. However, put them in a
corporate situation and no doubt they will be as gung-ho as anyone to figure out ways to rip
off customers.
I've lost a wallet once and then I was visited home by shop owner, who carefuly tracked
where I could live by using data from the wallet. She wanted nothing in exchange.
On university, I also was also given back a wallet once; I got back also a cellphone
(which was quite expansive at the time) I left somewhere few years ago.
OTOH once I left a wallet with cash at university and it was not returned.
So, here you are my anecdotal evidence from Poland: three wallets and one cellphone, one
time not returned, two plus one times returned.
More intelligent people may be more adept at calculating the possible negative
consequences of personal dishonesty and they are likely to have more to lose. However, put
them in a corporate situation and no doubt they will be as gung-ho as anyone to figure out
ways to rip off customers.
The purpose of the institution in question is to "figure out ways to rip off customers."
It's neither dishonesty nor cheating. The trick is not to have a culture that puts
corporate/employer concerns first.
Obviously smarter people are going to tend to be more moral; you need to
know what the fuck morality and ethics even are, and assess the circumstances, before
you can make your decisions. Retards can't even get to the point of making a decision. Stupid
people are great at missing the moral implications of their behavior. Smart people are the
ones who need to come up with rationalizations.
All "honesty" begins with the self. Lying to your self, about your self is the basis of
delusion and
in-authenticity. How can you know reality when reality is constantly reinterpreted to fit the
needs of a run-away ego ?
The general point, that intelligence is linked to long term thinking seems sound to me.
Dishonestly is often about immediate gratification: a question of gaining or avoiding
immediate pleasure/displeasure. Honesty is a strategy that "pays off" over the long term.
Honesty, or truth telling (in so far as one can) is also a factor in an Honour culture. The
liar is a "base" person, a person who has no sense (or no care about) their own social (self
conscious) standing. Honesty also has a close correlation with such things as "loyalty",
"promising" etc.
Oh yes !
That's the joy of the corporate structure: no one is responsible. EVERYONE acts because they
"owe" obligations to another. (Executives to higher executives; Higher executives to the
Board; the Board to Shareholders) Personal, moral responsibility becomes entirely lost in
this deliberately confected ethical melange. The Large organisation is the perfect
environment for crafting crimes safe from individual consequence.
It says you are damn lucky. If I had $ 915 in my wallet I'd super-glue the damn thing to
my chest. Rather lose a couple layers of skin than that kind of dosh.
Self honesty is a long tortuous process.
Ideology is a relief: it removes the constant anxiety of needing to "question".
Science is -- should be -- the strictest form of public honesty.
Its frightening how many reports we so often get now about the systemic "dishonesty" in the
scientific realm. (Dishonesty driven usually (not exclusively) by the demands of corporate
profits)
Sublime opportunism, entwined inside collective incentives, converges into supreme ethics,
moral behaviour.
Sadly, the convergence is beyond the gradients of our elites.
The why of hard-wired human elites as are, cannot transcend to long term survival strategies,
and society resembles a chicken coop.
To add another factor randomly, embedded into the above, it does not matter, how
intelligence plays out between individuals, because individual opportunity feeds back into a
pool of extended family, group, tribe, waves of culture and ad-hocs, lastingly and durably
not encased in cognitive ambition, itself a consequence of cognitive genetic effort. Colleges
and universities worldwide are a better example of petty games.
The "truth" and other concepts of "honesty" are a psychological, relative variant,
depending on context. The agnostic concept of real and it's pursuit is unknown to our
archaic, analogue brain without the preposition of a limited context, opportune in the
now.
I would be interested in how honesty was explicated. And the valuation of cross cultural
rules that note the value of said rule equally across cultures. Now perhaps, these are fully
layed out in the study, but I was unable to access the sight provided.
I would also be interested how the study rated honesty as a national value. Thus far the
model looks to be applied by survey data. As I was reading I kept thinking of the multiple
national scandals in which dishonesty played a central role. Once one figures out the
definition and meaning of what constitutes honesty among individuals and or societal groups
as agreed upon by those groups, then a model of measuring said honesty is built. This is
essential because the article indicates that the difference in variable is largely cultural.
So I have to conclude that a standard was established that recognizes what honesty is across
cultures.
Because even withing culture, honesty varies. If intelligence is the key demarcation than
one would expect those groupings with supposedly higher intelligence to have a higher degree
of honesty. But again, even withing culture an agreed upon understanding of honesty is
required.
Assuming intelligence matters to some set post of morality, in this case honesty -- could the
model replicate supposed intelligence to honesty withing a given system in which the rules
are more readily identifiable and agreed upon. Assuming that the students at the US military
academies rank higher in intelligence than say the students at any comparable sized
university would the students among the military academies rank higher or lower as to the
being or practicing honesty. Considering the value placed on meritocratic institutions such
as Harvard when measuring that intelligence grouping demonstrate a higher degree of honesty
than a comparable public university.
Assuming we agree what the rules are,
"The paper argues that there is a causal link between intellectual development and moral
awareness: the individual process of development represents an advance from cognitive
egocentrism to de-centered thinking, from ethical egocentrism to the consideration of the
interests and rights of others"
it could be interesting whether said tested data is measuring awareness verses
adherence.
Here are a bare list of some developed nation's honesty issues regarding rule
adherence.
Again assuming that the players agree on what the rules are across countries or cultures a
comparison of honesty across varying fields as to scandals and or practices might tell us
something regarding the impact of intelligence to honesty across said cultures.
Found the article interesting and just expressed to thoughts on the read.
Well, I'll speak (honestly) from the other perspective.
I used to ride my bike of a Sunday morning on a scenic route that boasted a few first
class restaurants. Twice I found wallets lying on the pavement just downstream from these
establishments. Apparently, the owners, a little tipsy, had set their wallets on top of their
cars while they fumbled for their keys and then drove off.
The first I took to the local police station. The second I took home and called the owner
(who lived in Canada) using their credit card number to pay for the call and left a message
reassuring her that her wallet (and money) was safe and sound, not to worry (because I knew
she would, having lost it outside her home country). I didn't want to take it to the police
because I figured they'd begin to suspect me of stealing the wallets if I kept showing up
with them.
She and her husband drove down to a prearranged place to meet me for the return. She was
very grateful.
The owner of the first lost wallet called me and asked if they could donate $100 in my
name to my favorite charity.
Another time I found a perfectly nice fleece-lined, leather aviation jacket lying in the
road just outside a golf course. Luckily there was a receipt from his fee for 18 holes in the
pocket. I called him and arranged to return the coat. We met. He treated me as though I had
stolen the jacket from his car. Not so much as a thank you.
I don't know if I'm inclined to honesty because I'm bright, it's just that I've lost my
wallet in the past and it's such a pain in the butt that I feel sorry for anyone who shares
that fate. Credit cards, ID etc. the money is the least of it.
"Good institutions that limit cheating and rule violations, such as corruption, tax
evasion and political fraud are crucial for prosperity and development."
I'd argue that these institutions derive from a well-functioning, high-trust society and
are rarely a catalyst for more honesty in other societies.
As for the connection to intelligence, look at India and China to test your
hypothesis.
"Another time I found a perfectly nice fleece-lined, leather aviation jacket lying in the
road just outside a golf course. Luckily there was a receipt from his fee for 18 holes in the
pocket. I called him and arranged to return the coat. We met. He treated me as though I had
stolen the jacket from his car. Not so much as a thank you."
TC, yep. I found a wallet stuffed with cash and credit cards on the campus of our local
state university. A campus policeman was nearby so I turned the wallet over to him. He
cautioned me that people who recover lost or abandoned property are sometimes blamed by the
owners of that property for any real or imagined loss, damage, or inconvenience to the
owners.
My rough rule of thumb is that if the property can be readily linked to an owner, I return
it. If not, and the property has trivial value, say under USD $100, it's a judgment call.
Found a few bottles of liquor, seals unbroken, in a trash can. Kept them. Found an untagged
but well-kept dog once, which I judged to have strong sentimental value to its owner, so I
placed an ad in a local newspaper, got a response, and returned the dog. His children were
very grateful.
The Gachter experiment on rule violation is based on die throwing in sterile experimental
conditions where the financial incentives are trivial and more seriously there are no
competition between the participants and there are no mechanism to identify specific
individual cheating and no resulting blemish to ones' reputation. So how much of that are
relevant to real life situations?
Real life cheating data where there are great advantage to be gained and also with
consequences that might affect ones future are more appropriate to be studied. One aspect of
the OECD TALIS project dealt with real life cheating in 8645 schools and over 100K? teachers
globally,
Table 2.20.Web. School climate – Frequency of student-related factors
(cheating)
Percentage of lower secondary education teachers whose school principal reports that the
following student behaviours occurred 1 Never, 2 Rarely, 3 Monthly, 4 Weekly, 5 Daily in
their schools.
Answers 3, 4 and 5 are considered to be serious indicator of cheating in schools. With the
intention to mash the TALIS data with the PISA 2012 data, the primary school data were
excluded.
Many popular pre-conceived ideas about cheating in schools were not proven by the data. In
fact considerable efforts were needed to find any significant statistical trend. For example
at the national levels cheating were not correlated to the average PISA scores,
fraction of top or bottom PISA scores, teachers' practice of spliting the class to teach and
to test part of the class differently, etc.
The factor that show statistical significance is the proxy factor for competition or
meritocracy. Countries have adopted various shades of "no child left behind" policy and that
is reflected in the age profile of the class. In country that practice strict "no child left
behind", the students are automatically promoted to the next grade in the next academic year
regardless of the ability of the students with the results that the student will be exclusive
of the same 'academic age'. When meritocracy is practiced, poorly performing students might
have to repeat the same grade one or more times resulting in 'academic age' distribution in
class. Since the PISA project has data of percentage of 15 yo for that grade, the idea can be
tested. To be polite, the marked datapoints are not labelled. Two countries separated by a
narrow channel can have drastically different cheating levels.
The school cheating levels is statistically significant to be linearly dependent on the
percent of the 15 yo in class. The levels of cheating is dependent on the level of
meritocracy practiced. With automatic promotion to the next academic grade there is little
need for the students to cheat. The governments are doing the cheating instead. The
out-criers of cheating in other countries do not realized that they are in countries with
lesser meritocracy.
The paper argues that there is a causal link between intellectual development and moral
awareness: the individual process of development represents an advance from cognitive
egocentrism to de-centered thinking, from ethical egocentrism to the consideration of the
interests and rights of others.
This is what Jean Piaget concluded from his studies of Swiss children. He believed that
empathy was an integral part of a child's intellectual development. It doesn't follow,
however, that there is some kind of genetic linkage between intellectual capacity and the
capacity for empathy. These are two different mental traits. It's more likely that the same
selection pressure that favored an increase in intellectual capacity also favored an increase
in the capacity for empathy.
It's impossible to build an advanced society unless most of its members have a high
capacity for both intelligence and empathy. On an individual level, however, high
intelligence can co-exist with low empathy. There have been many cases of ruthless sociopaths
who are very intelligent and yet totally self-centered. Such people can be very successful as
long as they aren't too numerous. Otherwise, they'll destroy the very society that makes
their existence possible.
An advanced society requires a combination of high intelligence and high empathy, although
this may come about in different ways. In northwest Europeans, a high intellectual capacity
co-exists with high capacities for guilt proneness and affective empathy. In East Asians, a
high intellectual capacity co-exists with high capacities for cognitive empathy and
pro-social behavior. In other words, there is more emphasis in East Asian societies on
learning correct moral rules.
I am not following the credit gift of empathy to East Asians, or the connection of
morality and intelligence to the obeying of complex rules, because of the stolen oranges in
the Book of Rites and the counterfeit antiques that impressed the Emperor. The Chinese
literally explain how to lie in their moral teachings. "Lying" is right there among the
morality-guaranteeing complex rules. There are examples in the Talmud I will not specify, or
regard as unreasonable, but I will note that nobody saw the Talmud as less than a downright
complex system of rules. Some African tribes have rules so stringent (eg, no wet dreams) that
nobody could possibly obey them. If anything I would expect that systems of compelled
obedience to complex rules guarantee dishonesty. The only alternative is Billy Budd getting
the captain to take his side.
What I would start with is power. In China, even in periods of decay or civil war, power is
always centralized to a degree only approached in Europe by a few temporarily competent
monarchs, and with an effectiveness that has never been accomplished in Europe. I think this
and not math scores or cheap shoes is the basis of the elite adoration of the Han. The man
who observes that a cow is not a nightingale, or that two and two are four, when the opposite
is being claimed by an officer of the government (be it communist, imperial, or partisan) is
an idiot. He, and probably his family, maybe his hamlet, will be exterminated with efficiency
the European Enlightened Despots could only dream of. Truth, insofar as it is objective, is
the hair of Liberty. It cannot exist at all except in the empty space left by the rolling
back of power. The trick here is embracing negativism instead of falling into the
positivistic trap. We in the West accidentally stumbled across Liberty and Truth and Science,
not because we are good, objectively not because we are smarter, but because we just couldn't
get that mandate of heaven thing together, despite the unambiguous desires of numerous
monarchs. I predict that this will be an unpopular answer but it will not go away.
(but the Japanese are massively more ethical than the Chinese. Yeah. And they are also all
but European, especially in a lot of their political history. They dreamed of imitating
Chinese centralization but never came close.)
Also, how soon can we expect an update to that graph, now plotting IQ (or PISA, or tetris
scores, etc) against something like the Transparency Index? Apologies if this has already
been done and I missed it.
What can we learn about ourselves from the things we ask online? US data scientist Seth
Stephens‑Davidowitz analysed anonymous Google search results, uncovering disturbing
truths about our desires, beliefs and prejudices
Have no idea where the data come from, but scandals with Dutch politicians seem to increase
all the time, most with Rutte's VVD.
Condemned politicians for fraud etc., a novelty.
But until now just one behind bars.
But about honesty, our prime minister Rutte is nicknamed Pinocchio for his lies.
The VVD quickly rid itself of the chairman Keiser, who manipulated himself into possession of
the crematoria of the organisation he advised.
The Dutch tax authority presented him with a claim of € 12 million, our FIOD, the
authority for fiscal crimes is investigating him.
Condemned business men for fraud, more than we like.
Even the former Philips CEO Boonstra was condemned for trade with foreknowledge.
Solicitors also are not above suspicion any more.
At the recent municipality elections measures were applied to prevent criminals being
elected.
Unreliable policemen, also a novelty, the first serious conviction was a short time ago,
he sold information from police data bases to criminals.
How he was not discovered earlier, unbelievable, police salaries are insufficient for driving
Porsches.
Catholic bishop Fulton J. Sheen said it best: "It is much easier for an educated person to
rationalize evil".
All one has to do is look at abortion supporters who insist that abortion merely removes "a
clump of cells", when they damn well know better, that it is HUMAN LIFE that they are
destroying.
The old "ends justifies the means" excuse also comes into play, which is used by communist
societies to purge millions of those who oppose them, not unlike the purges in the old Soviet
Union, China, Cuba, and other communist "paradises".
I would state that it is easier for an educated person to rationalize evil–this
including dishonesty
Do I detect a matter of class? The golfer seems not to have been a gentleman belonging to
a golf club where proper behaviour was de rigeur, very likely passed from father, uncle and
club pro to son. The sort of chap who pays green fees could be a wannabe upwardly mobile
agent for subdivided swamp land
PS I gave up golf after my father died 20+ years ago. Not so much that I couldn't match
his ethical standards but that after two heart attacks and hip replacements he was still a
scratch golfer and all I could do was occasionally outdrive him if my slice or pull
allowed.
1. Perhaps smart people are just better at not getting caught?
2. Overall, there is one major factor in the honesty of a society, and that is poverty.
When an overpopulated third-world society is crushed into misery, when people cannot earn a
half-way decent living – or indeed, any living – through honest effort,
eventually they come to cheat. This has been demonstrated in all cultures and all races.
Does integrity promote prosperity? Surely. But the reverse is if anything more powerful:
poverty promotes corruption and nepotism. For people to behave honorably, yes there must be a
culture of this, but it must also be the case that behaving honorably is not cutting your own
throat. Because few people are saints.
"Found a few bottles of liquor, seals unbroken, in a trash can. "
Dumpster-diving is a different thing than keeping lost goods. I think you're *morally* in
the clear, there, even if sorely lacking in judgement. This doesn't seem very wise. Did it
not occur to you that they were probably in the TRASH for a reason? Probably not poisonous or
anything, since the seals were on. Probably some alcoholic decided to quit drinking. But do
you want to take the chance that this wasn't a bootleg batch full of lead? Obviously the
answer was yes. Your butt, I reckon
We have been flooded here at the University of Chicago by Mainland/Communist Chinese
students. There are lots of accusations that the Chinese Communist government assists these
students by cheating, getting other English language proficient students to take the English
part of the SAT tests.
There appear to be lots and lots of Mainland Chinese/Communist China students here who
supposedly aced the English SAT test but can't seem to speak English.
"like The Economist did with their wallet test – quite a good experiment."
But, The Economist is hardly a bastion of truth. I would tend to dismiss their entire
story of the wallet experiment as a fabrication, having caught their writers in so many
lies.
But certainly that accounts for the fact that politicians are dull, ignorant, dissemblers
at best.
In many governments the candidates for the highest stations are above the law; and, if
they can attain the object of their ambition, they have no fear of being called to account
for the means by which they acquired it. They often endeavour, therefore, not only by
fraud and falsehood, the ordinary and vulgar arts of intrigue and cabal; but sometimes
by the perpetration of the most enormous crimes, by murder and assassination, by rebellion
and civil war, to supplant and destroy those who oppose or stand in the way of their
greatness.
Honesty to me seems a cultural phenomenon.
Once people get away with dishonesty, others think 'why not me ?'.
The Dutch erosion, in my recollection, already began in the seventies, with leftist
people, at the time social democrats.
It was said then 'thinking left, filling pockets at the right'.
People as my father, life long socialists, left the party in great numbers.
It took a long time for THE socialist party, PvdA, to disappear, until the last parliamentary
elections.
The self destruction had much to do with EU support, socialism is at odds with globalisation,
even within the EU.
Few in the USA will have followed all the French scandals before the last presidential
elections.
Even Macron was accused of not declaring all his possessions.
And indeed, I also cannot understand how he spent or lost the millions he got while working
for the Rothschild bank.
Another well known politician, presidential candidate, cannot now remember the name,
disappeared after gifts for suits for some € 50.000 were published, there was also a
very expensive watch, the job his wife had, what she in fact did, nobody understands, and the
temporary jobs for his children.
When one sees the small castle where the family lives one understands that he could not buy
his suits himself.
Now at last there seems to be sufficient proof against Sarkozy.
Now many French presidents were persecuted after their immunity ended, when they no longer
were president.
But the frauds etc. they seem to have perpetrated seem worse and worse, in the Sarko case,
intimidating a judge, among other things.
When Hollande will be persecuted, I wonder.
He had a reputation for sacking editors in chief.
Ask Ghandi, alas he does not live, when Britain was an ethical country.
Just a few years ago, in BBCW Hard Talk, I saw an Indian minister getting quite angry 'the
British did not have to teach the Indians anything'.
Cindy, both gut and butt survived my "rescue" hooch. I did some due diligence: examined
the bottles, carefully tasted the contents, etc. My guess was a domestic quarrel in the
parking garage over the high-end vodka and liqueurs, perhaps over someone's drinking problem,
and the quarrel was settled by chucking the booze.
" . . . [S]orely lacking in judgment." Not really. My judgment turned out to be okay,
because I was informed by the totality of the circumstances and then made my call. Had the
booze been low-end stuff found in an unfamiliar location, etc., I might have judged
differently.
BTW-I didn't dumpster-dive. The booze was clearly visible at the top of the trash can.
How did they measure such 'honesty index' ?
Placing 100 wallets in a park and observe how many are returned to the owners ?
But when the anglos lie, they always lie big time !
Goebel famously oberved .
The English follow the principle that when one lies, it should be a big lie, and one
should stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous
Waging wars by false pretexts surely is the highest form of duplicity ?
They dont call them perfidious albions for nuthin you know !
How does the author explain the link between the supposed highest IQ group – the Jews,
and their reputation for utmost dishonesty, greed and lust throughout history? Same goes for
the Chinese.
Propensity for Honesty is the biggest reason why we need to restrict immigration from low
trust cultures, i.e. all 3rd world countries. It's why they're 3rd world, because they are
low trust, everyone is dishonest from the top down, the few honest ones are called "stupid"
and get ripped off left and right. The more we import from these cultures, the more dishonest
our society will become, this includes all of Asia, Latin America, Middle East, Africa,
Southern & Eastern Europe esp. Russia. The only truly honest people in the world are
Northwestern Protestant Europeans, and maybe the Japanese. All other groups are
dishonest.
Interesting work? This article is a pure misuse of statistics, a fabrication and a classic
work of evil minded Eurocentrist attempting to give a new lease of life to their declining
rotten Eurocentrism in facing of the rising progressive, peaceful, and pragmatic East.
Look at the graph, its racist Eurocentrism is glaring, all the Western nations are on the
good side while rest of the world on the bad side. History has shown all those on the good
side are liars, cheaters, murderers, bandits, and pirates, while those on the bad side are
the victims of those perpetrators on the good side. The missing of the USA in the chart makes
this article an unapologetic white supremacy lie.
To study the link between brightness and honesty, it should pull data from the same pool
of population who are in the same environment, i.e. within a nation, then we even can study
whether cognitive ability, intellectual development, moral awareness, culture factor, and
institutions have any effect on honesty and their relationships.
Besides in spite of being bright, and having cognitive ability, intellectual development,
moral awareness, culture factor and strong institutions, the West still bombs, kills and
waterboards others on the fabricated phantom allegations as humanitarian intervention without
showing remorse; and recently the West lied about the poisoning episode in UK, and brought
the world to the edge of anther world war crisis, those evidences prove the Western societies
are not honest despite the qualities they processed as prerequisite for honesty, it seems it
proves the West is either hypocritical or innate psychopathic.
Ask Ghandi, alas he does not live, when Britain was an ethical country.
Exactly. What a pack of criminals. They were much worse and for a longer period of time,
than what they accused the Nazis of doing.
Churchill refused to divert supplies away from already well-supplied British troops at
the same time he allegedly blocked American and Canadian ships from delivering aid to India
either. Nor would he allow the Indians to help themselves: the colonial government forbade
the country from using its own ships or currency reserves to help the starving masses.
Meanwhile, London pushed up the price of grain with hugely inflated purchases, making it
unaffordable for the dying and destitute. Most-chillingly of all, when the government of
Delhi telegrammed to tell him people were dying, Churchill allegedly only replied to ask
why Gandhi hadn't died yet.
If all this is true -- and documents support it -- then Winston Churchill may well
have starved to death as many innocent people as Stalin did in the Ukrainian genocide.
Could the man who held out against Hitler really be capable of such an atrocity? Judging by
the rest of this list, it wouldn't be surprising.
I cannot play golf without committing a certain amount of larceny. In my mind a mulligan
is a reasonable option to excuse a particularly poorly played shot. And I have been known to
sweeten my lie on the not rare occasion, which, of course, is a form of lying.
I have often wondered if my ease at dishonesty on the links might suggest a propensity
towards darker deeds?
And don't even ask me about gimme putts. That for sure must reflect a lower
intelligence!
Who decides who cheats or being dishonesty? Is misleading advertising cheating? Is empty
campaign promises cheating? Is abusing legal loopholes cheating? Is putting one's
self-interest ahead of the ones they supposed to serve cheating? Is price fixing cheating?
Are cartels of all kind cheating? Are selective reporting, wrongful labelling, and spreading
ideology cheating? . . .
Mind you, the people involved in the above activities are all bright, well educated,
intelligent, having strong institutions, within well-functioning societies, and a sense of
moral responsibilities too, would they be more than 16% in the western societes?
The assumptions behind this are so fragile and unsupportable.
Honesty, as with most of the Judeo-Christian values, largely serves to keep the compliant
majority self-correcting while the predatory and parasitic top and bottom of society maintain
a more productive relativistic approach – long term dishonesty for the elites, short
term dishonesty for the undesirables. In-group honesty is always far more valued than
universal honesty – whether you're talking about stockbrokers or Romani.
The most intelligent in any class or group are far more likely to utilize dishonesty when
it best serves their needs. To do otherwise would be a clear sign of lack of
intelligence.
The idea that intelligent people are more likely to see the purpose of honesty in the long
term is not only an unsupportable assumption, it's also ignoring the countless undeniable
historical instances of intelligent leaders deploying adaptive fictions to achieve positive
social goals (anything from religion to the concept of inalienable rights).
Anyone who uses the phrase "speaking truth to power" can absolutely be counted upon to be
utterly dishonest when that power comes knocking.
As a boy I had the privilege to attend a Catholic grade school. Part of the education was to
go to confession. Admitting to a third party your wrongs, is very powerful. Forgiving the
past frees one. Being truthful builds character, and getting over the past is a blessing. It
was a struggle to be totally truthful all the time. As a mid to late teen, I fell away from
Catholicism.
In my early twenties I came back to believing that truthfulness is the best policy. I
attribute that to the Catholic culture and the confessional. I would not say that it was my
intelligence that led me.
Confession has nothing to do with honesty; it breeds psychopath, unrepentance,
irresponsibility and repeat offending. The churches use confession to cleanse perpetrators'
sins, so the perpetrators can repeat their crimes without moral burden; this is not
hypothesis, history bear witness of such fact. This is the trait of the Western culture, it
reflects in all aspects of the westerners' behaviour. Most common expression of such morally
defunct mentality is that the western governments and officials have no trouble to apologize
the wrongs they have done, but they keep on doing the same wrong over and over again after
apologizing. The Native Americans are the most abused victim of such morally defunct
practice.
The churches use confession to recruit and dominate its members (mentally colonized
serfs), expand their domains. Confession is one of the most effective mechanisms that corrupt
the basic decency of humanity.
Adam Smith apparently had their number when he was alive. It seems that little has changed
in the quality of politicians between the 19th and 21st centuries. If anything, today's
politicians are even more dimwitted and venal. The average Congress member is a moron, and
nearly inarticulate in unscripted speaking.
I really enjoyed reading Henry Mencken's observations on political campaigns of the early
20th century. He also seemed to enjoy making those observations as well. It comes through in
the way he describes the candidates.
The government of the UK seems completely unconcerned with ethics, in the same way the US
government is. Most members of both governments seem, to me, to be morally retarded.
Flash! Flash! Flash! Stop the press. This is not yet 1st April.
Currently there are a lot of news about cheating in sports, e.g. cricket. Out of a whim
the relationship of sports with academic cheating is tested. The OECD PISA project has data
on the percentage of students who exercise before or after school PctExercise, and
PctCheatRpt=+1.044*PctExercise-46.25; #n=29; Rsq=0.234; p=0.007889 ** (V Sig)
It is very statistically significant that PctExercise is positively highly correlated
to academic cheating. The effect is more than double that for the other percentage
variables whether they are statistically significant or not. If students spend too much time
on tracks and fields and little time at home studying the results can easily be inferred. Now
you know those loud mouths screaming about cheating in another countries and that the
students there spend too much time studying, they are on average themselves doing most of the
academic cheatings and they might be trying to divert attention away from them.
To be fair, the situation for the nerds should also be checked. The OECD PISA has data on
the percentage of students who have more than 4 hours per week of off-school maths tuition
PctMathTuitGt4hr,
It is statisticaly not significant. What about those academically very competitive, the
percentage who wanted to be the best PctWantBest,
PctCheatRpt=-0.445*PctWantBest+54.07; #n=29; Rsq=0.222; p=0.009944 ** (V Sig)
It is statistically very significant that PctWantBest negatively correlated with
cheating, i.e, on average the more academically competitive they are the lesser they will
cheat.
It is intuitively that most self-confident students will not cheat. The OECD data can be
transformed and normalized into confident quotient CQ similar to the IQ scale where CQ ≥
115 is considered to be over-confident. However,
Most common expression of such morally defunct mentality is that the western governments
and officials have no trouble to apologize the wrongs they have done, but they keep on
doing the same wrong over and over again after apologizing.
Amen!
What's even worse is the goofy idea that one is automatically "forgiven" if s/he's a
"believer." It's the works vs faith idea. Some of those people feel free to break every rule
in the book (even the 10 supposedly written in stone) with complete impunity.
Those people routinely engage in behavior that's as disgusting as those from the the tribe
who think they're "chosen."
G-wd's special ones, goy and non-goy, are forgiven in advance I guess.
If anything, today's politicians are even more dimwitted and venal. The average Congress
member is a moron, and nearly inarticulate in unscripted speaking.
True.
I think much the same could be said for all hierarchical systems and that includes
religious as well as academic ones. I've always been as much amused as amazed at how
dimwitted and venal priests and professors usually are.
Rereading this reaction comes to mind
Edward W. Said & Christopher Hitchens, ed., Blaming the Victims, Spurious scholarship and
the Palestinian question', 1988, London
How did these two 'ethical' countries keep churning out world class psychopaths as
leaders .since 1600 ?
Beg no longer, fine sir! This dude may have an answer.
Henceforth, Britain will do the bidding of her real masters ; she has
become the tool of the schemers against all she holds dear, namely, her
faith, her patriotism, traditions, civilisation. She grants the " returned "
aliens equality of civil rights ; they may and do become mayors over
Christian population, and within a short time Britain is ruled by a
Jewish Prime Minister, Disraeli, first and foremost a Jew and the
flunkey of the powerful Rothschild financiers.
One of the consequences of this disastrous political mistake is the
transformation of the national attitude of Great Britain and her
colonies into that of the British Empire. Disraeli who inspired it
knew what he was scheming for, the British people did not. But with
him, Zionism is carried up to the very heights of the British Throne, a Zionist World Empire is on the high road to realisation.
-Leslie Fry, "the Jews and the British Empire," 1935
In the light of what Jonathan Haidt in the above linked video says with regards to David
Perkin's findings, I tend to say this question of yours
Do Brighter Minds Incline to Honesty?
has to be answered: "Yes. But ."
The But has to do with the the history of the term "honesty".
People might say wrong things, while being (and feeling!) honest, because honesty is not
necessarily rooted in speaking the truth.
Honesty is a social category alltogether (with close ties to knighthood, chivalry and the
like). It therefor is a category, which in it's very core hints at obedience and fellowship,
and that's at times what keeps people away from speaking the truth – cf. David
Perkins and Jonathan Haidt above (ok – full circle).
Hit-and-run is common all over the world not just in China, it is a sign of moral decay,
confusion, and irresponsibility. Those perpetrators must be denounced.
But if one follows the West or the unrepentant war criminal Japanese, it is easy to white
wash those hit-and-run crimes by saying the percentage of such crime in China is way lower
than in the US though the absolute number might be higher, so Chinese is more honest than
average in the world.
On the other hand killing people with car faces less consequences in the West, most
perpetrators in the West get slap on the wrist for such crime, such as suspension of driving
license, insurance company paid compensation, short term imprisonment, or get way free by
claiming medical conditions, but in China the perpetrators may have to pay their lives for
their crimes. It seems the West does not have a balanced morality, harsh on the victims and
lenient on the criminals.
In the honesty index graph,
Germany is higher than China, OK, thats fair.
As for the five eyes lies , their rightful place is right at the
bottom.
UK [half of fukus] the ethical country ? hehehehhe
Web Of Deceit: Britain's Real Foreign Policy
by Mark Curtis
In his explosive new book, Mark Curtis reveals a new picture of Britain's role in the
world since 1945 and in the 'war against terrorism' by offering a comprehensive critique of
the Blair government's foreign policy. Curtis argues that Britain is an 'outlaw state',
often a violator of international law and ally of many repressive regimes. He reasons not
only that Britain's foreign policies are generally unethical but that they are also making
the world more dangerous and unequal.
Why do you condemn over 100,000 years of homo sapiens behaviour. Destroying human lives
has been continuously the most effective natural way to achieve important utilitarian ends
tight up to today. And given the ancient Hebrew enthusiasm for genocide is it surprising that
God's Ten Commandments not only said nothing about abortion but assumed that limiting killing
was about the best that could be hoped for.
Did I mention the top 100 hoaxes of the century chart, kid ?
Here's a partial list,
Iraq WMD
IRAQ babies incubators
Racak 'massacre'
RUSSIAGATE,
Chinagate,
Indo./China war 1962
Indon genocide 1965
GCHQ fake foto
Tibet fake foto,
Tibet genocide,
Libya
Syria
Sinking of the Maine,
Gulf of Tonkin,
911
War OF terror,
R2p[lunder]
TAM 'massacre'
Tibet 2008
Xinjiang 2009
100 reasons why fukus should be at the bottom of the 'honesty' chart !
These are not just hit and run. In China you do not run until you make sure the victim is
dead. And if the victim is not dead you hit them second time to make sure he/she is dead and
then you run. This is very pragmatic and congruent with all Chinese philosophical systems.
That's why I suggested to your compatriot (denk) here that a bit of Christian mercy and
compassion would do Chinese some good.
As Amryata Sen has pointed out. The problem in Bengal was not a lack of food but the lack
of purchasing power by the poorest peasants. Hoarding by merchants is a traditional driver of
famine in India. The Punjab actually had a good harvest but Bengal ate rice. Churchill's
nvolvement was ncidental. India was governed com India, often by Indians. Churchill was an
outrageous racist but by no means representative of the British of the time. He lost the post
war election.
I am surprised that you posted that first link. Its 1500 tested people (selected how?)
from 15 countries simply reminded me that the "Climategate" emails also belonged to the
University of East Anglia.
I didn't take the time to understand WTF PUBG was all about (third link).
As to the second link it is indeed interesting to learn of what appears to be a formal
recognition by the Chinese Communist Party that part of what contributed to the earlier
economic success of the West was trust and comparative honesty (as Amy Wax might point
out).
First of all Christians have no mercy, and they only have crusade and conversion.
Christians are cult. The Christians have been committing crimes against humanity, crimes
against peace and war crimes using evil and sadist inquisition methods for a very very long
time. Their forte is racial and culture genocide. Before Columbus time they only did their
carnage between themselves and Muslims within the European continent and ME. After Columbus
they spread their plague all over the world.
The most unfortunate victims are the Americans (from North to South). Christian not only
took the American's land, and killed them into nearly extinct, they also burnt all books of
South Americans, so that there is no indigenous South American civilization left to tell
their history and to refute what the Christian casted them as savages.
In China during the late Qing time, the Christians treated Chinese culture and traditions
as witchcraft, backed by their governments' guns they used extraterritorial right to expand
their control of people and land with organized violence and insidious crimes. Their
unscrupulous activities forced Chinese to resist thru Boxer movement because Qing Court was
incompetent. The West labelled Boxer as terrorists and crashed them with Eight Nations
Alliance armed intervention, Christian was a major force that caused China Century
Humiliation.
Since WWII all wars were led by the Christians, their false Christian mercy calls paved
the way for the Western governments and war mongers to bomb, kill and waterboard on moral
high ground just like their barbaric Christian forebears who have done to the native South
Americans and rest of the world.
That kind of morally defunct drivers are not unique to China, they appeare in the West
too. In some incidences the driver in the West made sure nobody survives in the other car by
pushing the car over the road side, so they have better chance not to be convicted due to no
witness.
While guys using assault rifles mowing down tens of school kids for no reasons and claim
it is their constitution rights to do so, and tens of millions of killed, tortured and maimed
by the NATO false flag wars, why don't you suggest your compatriots in the USA and other NATO
nations that a bit of Christian mercy and compassion would do their souls some good? Is it
because Christian mercy is myth, fantasy and snakeoil?
You are being racist, propagating the pink skin pigs' trashes in HK irresponsibly. You
should know those noxious racist trolls in the SCMP are posted by the pink skin pigs and
their mentally colonized wannabes in HK out of resentment and frustration, because they lost
their colonial privileges in HK and they are being rejected as uneducated unscrupulous
colonials back home. They fell from master caste to the bottom of the society and become
worthless trash.
Japanese are unrepentant war criminals, their whole society are liars and they have been
lying since WWII about their war crimes, their past, their present and their future, they
even are lying about the massive toxic nuclear leaking in the Fukushima cripple nuclear power
plants that are causing millions of people died of cancer and extinction of marine creatures.
While the British is the mentor of the Japanese.
Britain was a ruthless global tyrant and liar, but you seem to believe that all the crimes
against humanity and peace and war crimes British committed around the world can be forgiven
and glossed over by claiming Britain a democracy; what a lie and morally defunct double think
evil psychopathic expression. People said British imitates the Romans and the American is
born out of the British, no wonder the American is adopting the same double think logic to
white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and peace they have been
committing around the world.
Winston Churchill was a classic imperialist with no moral bearing, he believed for the
empire everything goes. WWII is nothing but a dog-eat-dog play rough over the monopoly to
plunder the rest of the world; they squandered all the wealth they obtained thru stealing,
looting and murdering hundreds of millions of people all over the world in that
scrabbling.
About cheating in the exams you must have never seen what the Greeks and Indian are
capable of. PUBG is sour grape, they cannot beat the Chinese so they banned Chinese on the
fabricated allegation, just like the Opium Wars, the British could not beat Chinese
manufactured goods, so they used Opium and wars to steal and cheat Chinese wealth.
Why do you waste time displaying your prejudices without even acknowledging what question
was asked? Your English is up to it – just – so you have no excuse.
All Utu was pointing out is that deliberately killing someone with a car to escape
prosecution is pretty heinous behavior and does suggest something really wrong with the
Chinese culture at a fundamental level.
And the treatment of animals in China is generally deplorable compared with Western
standards with little concern for their well being. How does this obvious cruelty fit on the
ethical plane?
Ethical behavior among human beings is probably more unusual than we would like to believe
and we can all be better people. The Chinese are no exception to that rule. If Christian
ethics or Buddhist ethics can advance that cause, I support this.
I was intrigued to find on the listverse.com site some readable and/or intriguing stuff,
e.g. on Charles Darwin, but your particular, well debunked, choice of anachronistic and
inaccurate story to believe and post suggests to me that anyone whose intellectual standards
allow them to rely on one of those list (usually of 10) sites should not pollute UR. Are you
aware that people are paid $100 (with possibility of bonuses) for those lists?
You are wrong, not everybody demands the same quality, and Chinese provides different
quality for different needs in the market. Besides you get what you paid for, it is
fundamental principle of capitalism if you don't count the first principle of capitalism
which is monopoly which is charge as much as you can bear and cost is irrelevant, that is not
only cheating and it is also blackmailing and looting.
The video just claims but shows no proof what the guy claims. Chinese machinery and parts
are taking more markets around the world, this simply fact proves the video is made out of
bad faith, and pure propaganda.
Coins can stand up on Chinese High Speed Rail running more than 300km/hr, no German,
Japanese or any other nation can do that, it proves the bearing quality in China HSR is
unprecedented, it further proves the guys in the video is a troll out of jealous, resentful
and fear Chinese achievements.
In China you do not run until you make sure the victim is dead.
cuz you watch some videos from youtube, forchrissake !
Can you give me some credible statistics , the percentage of such alleged crimes in
China ?
How does such alleged crimes stack up against fukus state terrorism like double
tapping , sniping at women and chidlren, obliterating the whole neighborhood of a suspect
hideout just to make sure, ?
And .
How does this elevate fukus from its rightful position at the bottom of that honesty
chart, thats all I wanna know ?
It is propaganda. People tell me that the same stories were circulated when Japan
was becoming a tech powerhouse. It will probably take another 5-10 years before it
dissipates.
I merely point out the misconception about Christians supported by historical facts.
Indian treats animals even worse while China has humane protection laws, it seems you are as
impartial as utu.
Your first paragraph comes over as so silly that perhaps it shouldn't surprise that your
second paragraph is, to say the least, extremely puzzling. Where did Anonymous [216] say or
suggest that China eould collapse? The post you are replying to implies no such thing.
After every of your visit by you at unz.com I keep wondering to what degree your primitive
chauvinism is representative of China. How many millions primitive and hateful Joe Wongs are
there? Then I wonder that perhaps you are not Chinese. That you are employed by enemies of
China. That Chinese are too smart to show their cards that early in the game. If they really
hate they would not show it because only fools show hate.
You, see I carry a positive stereotype of Chinese which is supported by my personal
experience with them but you and your sidekick deng do everything possible to undermine it
and change it into: Yes, Chinese can be really stupid and thus more dangerous than we
thought. Watch, out for stupid and dangerous Chinese. Go to the Plan B: Poke NK and the
Rocket Man more to the point that Japan get so paranoid that it starts arming itself with
nukes. If there is to be a war let it start with the yellow races killing each other. They
hate each other anyway. Ask Joe Wong if you have any doubts.
So what is it? Are you Chinese or an agent of revanchist militarist unreformed Chinese
hating interests of Japanese imperialism? And then, if you are Chinese, how many more stupid
ones like you are there?
It seems your only defense for the Christians is denying historical facts, and stating
something that Christians are not.
Naïve? Are you saying the crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war
crimes committed by the Christians were carefully planned, deeply thought through, determined
and maturely decided like holocaust?
Bible is zero-sum based narrative, the fundamental dogma of Christianity is "you are
either with us or you are with the devil" therefore all Christians have a mission to convert
everyone else into "one of us" on the moral high ground with whatever means necessary,
Christians believe whatever the Christians do it is necessary with good intention, even
bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated allegations is humanitarian
intervention.
Christianity assumes humans are primitive and born evil, they need divine force to
threaten (go to hell) them not to do harm, and it is tribal. While some other civilizations
believe humans are sane, rational, intelligent and compassionate, humans do not need divine
force to tell them how to behave properly in order to achieve peace, harmony, cooperation,
development and mutual benefits, just logical explanation and some directions will be
suffice.
If the past can be any reference, the crimes have been committed against humanity in the
name of Christianity, it is doubtful that Christians have any morality, mind you it does not
mean the Bible does not have good points in it, there are other way better ways and means to
serve as a framework to guide human behaviour for the good.
Chauvinism is someone claims what he is not and based that false claim to demonize others
what they are not on the moral high ground, this is what the West has been doing since
1492.
Stating facts does not involve emotion, so please refrain yourself from sensationalize any
topic unnecessary that makes dialog on difficult issues impossible, Theresa May and Nikki
Haley are not your role model to follow.
For over seventy years the US has dominated Asia, ravaging the continent with two major
wars in Korea and Indo-China with millions of casualties, and multiple counter-insurgency
interventions in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Timor, Myanmar, Pakistan and
Afghanistan. The strategic goal has been to expand its military and political power, exploit
the economies and resources.
Before WWII, the American is just one of the Western imperialists ravaged and wreaked
havoc of Asia with barbaric wars, illicit drugs like Opium, slavery, stealing, robbing,
looting, plundering, murdering, torturing, exploiting, polluting, culture genocide, 'pious'
fanaticism, unmatchable greed and extreme brutality. In fact it is hard to tell the
difference between the American and the unrepentant war criminal Japanese who is more lethal
and barbaric to Asians until the Pearl Harbour incident.
If the past can be any reference, the crimes have been committed against humanity in
the name of Christianity, it is doubtful that Christians have any morality
Do you really believe this???? No morality in any Christians?
You are even more locked into hate and racism than I thought possible.
Have you attended any of the lectures by the anti-racist Tim Wise??
You might get some talking points from him that can help you in your future postings.
And keep up the good work, you have a bright future in any number of our MSM outlets.
And you have not even met the hardcore commies, who would like to explain that the only
thing that Mao did wrong, terribly wrong was that he did not kill nearly enough people.
And the answer to your question is that there are idiots in every country and race, though
in China they are mostly excluded from political positions(because insanity is not welcome),
so they troll online message boards within and without China.
Like various other fanatics and crazies, they can be entertaining in the appropriate
context. If you've been to Finland, he's the equivalent of the old drunk men yelling
propositions at girls in some train stations of the small towns. Entertaining in small
doses.
So you couldnt even give one good reason why UK should be on top of that 'honesty
chart' eh ?
well I can give you 100 why UK should be right at the bottom,
Perfidious albions
exhibit one
How to ethnic cleanse an entire island ? Declare the residents as tresspassers !
'What the files also reveal is an imperious attitude of brutality. In August 1966, Sir
Paul Gore-Booth, permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: "We must surely be
very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain
ours.
There will be no indigenous population except seagulls." At the end of this is a
handwritten note by DH Greenhill, later Baron Greenhill:
"Along with the Birds go some Tarzans or Men Fridays " Under the heading, "Maintaining the
fiction", another official urges his colleagues to reclassify the islanders as "a floating
population" and to "make up the rules as we go along".
@joe Wong You are a foolish, ignorant person. At least in regard to Christianity. The
perpetrators of the holocaust and genocide are Christians? You absolutely have no clue about
Christianity. Yes, they came from a Christian based culture but Nazis (and American war
criminals) have nothing in common with Christianity. The best countries in the world are ones
based on Protestant Christianity, meaning Christianity that is the closest to the Biblical
teachings. I admire Chinese culture and history (especially the technology which benefited
the West) but you need the ability to admit the faults of your culture which has some serious
problems.
Though I am convinced that honesty is more rational in the long term than lying, I definitely
don't believe that people with high IQ are more honest than those more modestly gifted with
intellectual talent. Smart people just know better to juggle with fallacies so they are more
likely to get away with it than dummies, that's all.
Logic does say that truth is lower maintenance, as it exists per se and is always consistent,
and lies so they are not exposed need to be cared of constantly, as they are always
intrinsically inconsistent with reality, but people are people, driven by the seven sins, of
which greed and vanity are possibly the worst, with the former being more evenly distributed
while the latter tends to affect the bright rather than the dim.
Logic and ethics are different categories. Equating them is a sign of, well, vanity.
Only a moron equate honesty = quality using ball bearing as example. There are countries
may be very honest like Bhutan, yet they don't produce high quality product.
The US top elites are very intelligent, are producing lots of quality products like Boeing
plane & precision weapons for murdering everywhere, yet their politicians & bankers
are known habitual liars, with British & French close behind, and Germans
reluctantly.
Japanese is producing high quality products, look how frequently their politicians are
caught outright lying, corrupted & nepotism, and researchers are now caught recently in
their published papers using fake data, with big corporates like Toshiba, Nissan, Steel
factories caught cheating systematically for long period.
Its true Germany make top notch quality, undisputed, better than Japan imo.
But look at the chart, beside Germany, who else is producing better ball bearings than
China, or precision tools that run aerospace, manned space craft, rockets, 5th gen J20,
satellites, nuclear plants(light water pebble), nuclear sub, FSR, a long list to go yet they
are rated more honest than China.
Fyi, only 2 countries are able to produce precision steel ball bearings for tiny ball
point pen tip, Germany & Japan. So China is importing billion of them for its ball point
pen production annually.
Why can't China factory produce it? There was some uproar in China media over this last
year. Guess what? Within a mth, some factory is churning out perfect ball bearings, but in
better material – ceramic that is cheaper & longer lasting. And the producer
explained, its not economical worth the effort & machining to produce those bearings as
they cost only $200K p. a. to import. But for national pride, they do it.
And i highly suspect you are either from HK or Taiwan with some bad memory of old China
that you simply like to smear China without taking a fairer stand that, out of 1.4B Chinese
how many % is doing those crimes, vs 400M murkans more serious crimes.
The new generation Chinese should not be continuously viewed through old communist color
lens & West propaganda, they are not responsible for the history but the future. Pres Xi
is a good example, he is leading China to their peaceful rise now. He suffered in culture
revolution, do you want to blame him for those history?
This chart simply look so questionable. Why not include US, France, Oz, Canada, Bhutan,
India, Brazil, Agentina, Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar, HK, Japan, Korea, HK, Taiwan, to give
a wider comparison. And how the author do his samplings to derive this graph is very much
questionable.
And to say brighter mind = honesty, just look at how honest are most world politicians
that are generally top intellectuals of their cohort. I would say more wise = more
honesty.
To use wallets returning as a test of honesty is also overly simplified. When a country is
poor, these are godsend present unless they are true perfect communist.
As a country get wealthier, their people generally get better education & well off,
become indoctrine with social norm of what is so called good behavior(persuaded by praise
& blame). They are more inclined to return a wallet found with money that aren't so
attractive to them compare to poor. But that can never be equate to genuine honest, im sure
most US Pres & UK PM will return wallets.
Take UK as the most glaring example, with its brightest in parliament are consistently
been outright shameless liars, such as Blairs lies for Iraq WMD war, and now May's lies of
Skripal case, which all getting near unanimous support from their parliament members speak
great volumes.
There is a Unz article written on how UK has been the mecca of paedophiles, global capital
in grooming children for sexual exploitation, with systematic covered up over decades by
their politicians because they & those powerful elites were all involved.
Their police chief even suggested not to criminalize Britons watching/owned child porno as
so high a proportion of their nation are doing will overwhelm their prisons & judicial
system.
So what honesty are we talking about here, UK as over 60% honest? Even their moral value
is highly questionable if you ask most UK white people.
And Malaysia getting 3rd highest honesty of near 80% is a great joke just shy from UK. Its
one of well known highest crimes & corruption that the West themselves criticized much,
even Spore ex-PM LKY openly condemn as violent crime infested. I never know violent criminal
is honest, may be yes for the author country when compared to their politicians.
After the Skripal affair, is any more proof required that nothingin neoliberal MSM can be taken at face value? Looks like their
motto is "if at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again."
Notable quotes:
"... So politically devastating is the exposure of Britain's lies that yesterday the Foreign Office deleted a text it sent out on March 22 declaring that the "analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down made clear that this was a military-grade novichok nerve agent produced in Russia." ..."
"... The emergency session of the OPCW called at Russia's request received no answers to the serious questions Moscow insisted Britain had to address. Instead, the UK's representative said Russia could not take part in a joint investigation with Britain into the Skripal affair, as it was "a likely perpetrator." This was given unqualified backing by an EU spokesperson, who demanded that Russia respond to the UK's "legitimate questions" about its alleged continued production of novichoks. ..."
"... No less implicated in this criminal affair is the corporate media, especially the New York Times, which has spent the past month disseminating the raw propaganda issued by London and Washington and baying for Moscow's punishment. At no point did the Times raise a single question about the reliability of the claims of the May government. And now its response to the refutation of the lies is to ignore and bury Aitkenhead's statement. The role of the corporate media in the Skripal provocation confirms the political purpose of the hysterical campaign it has been leading against "fake news," and its insistence that social media be regulated, restricted and monitored. ..."
On Tuesday, Gary Aitkenhead, chief executive of the UK's chemical weapons facility, the Porton Down Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory, told Sky News that scientists had "not verified the precise source" of the material used in the attack in Salisbury on
March 4. Aitkenhead's statement came on the eve of the convening at Moscow's request of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) at The Hague, which would have exposed the UK government's case. But this resort to damage control only underscores
the monstrous hoax perpetrated by the British and American governments and their European allies.
May told parliament on March 12 that Porton Down was "absolutely categorical" that the "nerve agent" used on the Skripals had
come from Russia. "Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at Porton Down," she said,
"the government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible" for an "attempted murder" on British soil.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle on March 20 that "the people from Porton Down"
were "absolutely categorical" that the source of the nerve agent used against the Skripals was Russia. "I asked the guy myself,"
he said, "and he said 'there's no doubt.'"
So politically devastating is the exposure of Britain's lies that yesterday the Foreign Office deleted a text it sent out
on March 22 declaring that the "analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down
made clear that this was a military-grade novichok nerve agent produced in Russia."
... ... ...
The emergency session of the OPCW called at Russia's request received no answers to the serious questions Moscow insisted
Britain had to address. Instead, the UK's representative said Russia could not take part in a joint investigation with Britain into
the Skripal affair, as it was "a likely perpetrator." This was given unqualified backing by an EU spokesperson, who demanded that
Russia respond to the UK's "legitimate questions" about its alleged continued production of novichoks.
No less implicated in this criminal affair is the corporate media, especially the New York Times, which has spent the past
month disseminating the raw propaganda issued by London and Washington and baying for Moscow's punishment. At no point did the Times
raise a single question about the reliability of the claims of the May government. And now its response to the refutation of the
lies is to ignore and bury Aitkenhead's statement. The role of the corporate media in the Skripal provocation confirms the political
purpose of the hysterical campaign it has been leading against "fake news," and its insistence that social media be regulated, restricted
and monitored.
"Boris Johnson continues to convince everyone the British side supposedly sent Russia a list
of questions to which it still hasn't received any answers. Everything in fact is completely
the opposite. As I said, we never received any list of questions and I turn to the British
side, if you have such a list of questions, please tell us, please list those questions," he
said.
Regarding the UK's insistence that Moscow coordinated the attack, he asked, "Couldn't you
come up with a better fake story?"
The UK is engaged in a propaganda war against Russia, Nebenzya asserted, aiming to discredit
the country globally. But even propaganda wars are dangerous.
If he fails to keep his mouth shut I wouldn't be surprised to learn in the tabloids in the near future of his (sadly fatal)
penchant for auto-erotic asphyxiation.
""Johnson also said that "none of us have forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago.""
Translation: "none of us have forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago "which was done by
our Al Qaeda and ISIS proxies with the help of our special forces stationed in Syria."
that's all they learn in boarding schools - how to lie and lie and be good psychopaths: charming, fake, easy to bribe and natural
traitors, obsessed with money and status.
And above all how to develop that exhagarated catatonic accent so valued by Anglosheeple
I know many of these Public school boys - from Malborough, Harrow etc
Look no further than you local electric and gas suppliers who are likely publicly traded with a monopoly on the most traded
commodities in the world. Why does a human necessity have a monopoly - follow the money.
Lol....that's what I think, from my experience with dealing with retarded psychopaths. They just don't back down until you
directly address them and call them out on their bullshit, or just plain fucking slam them against the wall.
So err...is it going to be an "accidental" nuclear launch or dirty bomb, or I don't know.....a Russian ISIS attack? The possibilities
are endless with these slimey limey cunts. They're barely out of the European Union, yet are already faltering like a mule loaded
with lead.
Agreed, and some just go nuts when called out. It's worse than just the Brits. Trump is clearly somewhat on board, and Macron
seems to want a distraction, too.
Trump is in love with himself, Macron is in love with a granny, and Boris Johnson belongs to the fucking zoo with the gorillas.
What a world we live in, when the voices of reason are coming from Russia, China and Iran, and the irrational tantrum turd
throwing is coming from the West.
I might also politely remind you and others of Russia's ability to disable the US Aegis missile system, including the Raytheon
Tomahawk missile using a highly advanced electronic warfare suite known as Khibiny.
You do not need due process to hang him now neither :-) Ain't that cute when the process of law finally breaks down. Happens
when you support banksters operating a ponzi scheme to rob people...
Stupid cunt is a better description. He is supposed to be the number 1 diplomat but he is a classic attention seeking snowflake
who wants to be PM.
He blamed Russia immediately. Then tells everyone not to be Russiaphobic and then the stupid cunt compares attending the WC
the same as Hitler's 1936 Olympics.
Guy is out of his depth and making Britain look stupid.
Portland Down say they do not know where the nerve agent was manufactured (Portland down would have the records of OPCW to
check). Maybe Russia would have the data relating the nerve agent to a NATO stockpile. Note: If the nerve agent was so deadly
how come the person delivering it; is not ill?
Given this talk about "military-grade", it sounds more like something an American MIC manufacturer would make. Overpriced and
ineffective when used.
Three people affected. Hours after contact. Yet all three survived, in spite of the lack of antidote, as the BBC has reported.
Doesn't sound pretty "military-grade" to me. And if it is "military grade", should we even be shitting our pants at the constant
fearmongering over WMDs? If this is what military grade is capable of for terrorism, we're clearly spending way to much money
for this particular threat, now aren't we?
I don't buy the 'no antidote' business. Nerve agents work by blocking receptors in the nervous system. Atropine breaks this
block restoring normal nervous system action. The cop who was affected was talking within days yet the Skirpals were unconscious
for weeks, until Julia Skirpal made a 'miraculous' recovery. Did the cop get atropine?
Fifteen countries voted against Russia's bid, while six voted for it and 17 abstained.
"Unfortunately, we haven't been able to have two-thirds of the votes in support of that decision. A qualified majority was needed,"
Russian ambassador Alexander Shulgin told reporters, adding " Russia as well as other states that are members of the Executive Committee
have been pushed aside from this investigation ."
UK's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson brushed aside Russia's request, calling it a "ludicrous proposal" designed to "undermine"
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) investigation.
"Russia has had one goal in mind since the attempted murders on UK soil through the use of a military-grade chemical weapon -
to obscure the truth and confuse the public," Johnson said. " The international community has yet again seen through these tactics
and robustly defeated Russia's attempts today to derail the proper international process ." Johnson also said that "none of us have
forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago.
"After the OPCW-UN investigation found that the Syrian regime was responsible, Russia blocked that body from doing any more work,"
he said.
Russia wants to discuss a letter sent by UK Prime Minister Theresa May to the UN Security Council which says it's "highly likely"
that Moscow was behind last month's nerve agent attack.
Meanwhile ,
as we reported yesterday , the chief scientist from the UK's Porton Down military laboratory facility, Gary Aitkenhead, told
Sky News that they had been unable to prove that the novichok nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal came from Russia.
"We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify that it was military-grade nerve agent," Aitkenhead said. " We have not
identified the precise source, but we have provided the scientific info to government who have then used a number of other sources
to piece together the conclusions you have come to. "
**PAGING COLIN POWELL. IS THERE A MR. POWELL IN THE BUILDING?**
The Porton Down chief scientist said that establishing the Novichok's origin required "other inputs," some of which are intelligence
based and which only the government has access to.
Aitkenhead added: " It is our job to provide the scientific evidence of what this particular nerve agent is, we identified that
it is from this particular family and that it is a military grade, but it is not our job to say where it was manufactured ."
So whose job is it to determine where the Novichok was manufactured?
That said, it was also noted that the nerve agent involved required "extremely sophisticated methods to create, something only
in the capabilities of a state actor," and that there is no known antidote to Novichok - nor was any administered to either of the
Skripals.
Aitkenhead would not say whether the Porton Down facility had manufactured or maintained stocks of Novichok - long rumored to
be the case.
" There is no way anything like that could have come from us or left the four walls of our facility ," said the chief.
Boris Johnson has come under fire since the Porton Down chief's statement, as Johnson lied, saying in an interview two weeks ago
that Porton Down officials told him there was "no doubt" that the nerge agent came from Russia .
The Foreign Office told Sky News that Johnson "misspoke," which is apparently UK officialspeak for "he totally lied, but nobody
will hold him accountable for it."
Perhaps Johnson "misspoke" in his rush to locate a hairbrush?
The evil people, Theresa May, Stoltenberg, Trump and the rest, are damming Russia with obvious lies.
The Novichok nerve agents probably don't even exist.
HERE IS THE PROOF:
The Novichok nerve agents are supposedly much more toxic than the nerve gases VX or Sarin.
Mirzayanov's book, published in 2008, contains the formulas he alleges can be used to create Novichoks. In 1995, he explained
that "the chemical components or precursors" of Novichok are "ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical
companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides."
Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve agents.
So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then spray it all over the little Satan.
Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of information that could lead to thousands
of deaths in Israel?
Do you really think they would protect the publisher of such information by giving him residence in the United States?
Remember, Mirzayanov was given residence in the United States after he was kicked out of Russia.
There are also a number of "people who should know" that have stated that there is zero solid evidence for the existence of
the Novichok nerve agents. For example: Robin Black in Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents (2016):
"In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed
in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian
military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published."
And, Alexander Shulgin, Russia's representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (2018):
"There has never been a 'Novichok' research project conducted in Russia,... But in the West, some countries carried out such
research, which they called 'Novichok,' for some reason."
CONCLUSION: The Novichok nerve agents don't even exist.
The use of the "projection" technique (essentially accusing your opponents of doing the very things you yourself are doing)
in official circles has become widespread. It's biggest proponent is, of course, Shitlery who, as an example, recently accused
Trump of using his position to enrich himself and his family (Um....?). Now BoJo has the chutzpah to accuse Russia of obfuscation
and lies. Same technique. Specifically:
" Russia has had one goal in mind since the attempted murders on UK soil through the use of a military-grade chemical weapon
- to obscure the truth and confuse the public," Johnson said. " The international community has yet again seen through these tactics
and robustly defeated Russia's attempts today to derail the proper international process ."
And, of course, psychopaths actually believe their projections which allows them to speak with a straight face. And the MSM,
naturally, just blindly "reports" what they say. The internet is the only source of real information and the true investigative
journalism of any integrity. Which is, of course, why they are trying so hard to censor and close the sources of truth.
you can see here their modus operandi - one of the first NSA leaks by Snowden/Greenwald. There is a slide there called the
Gambits For Deception - all the tricks are there - how to never admit when caught lying, how to cover the small move by the big
one - basically all the BS this fat ugly clown is using are there:
projection is everything. America banned the Huwawie Chinese cell phone because they thought it was a threat. What are all
those Apples in China? Not even to speak about domestic use.
You will gain a better understanding of Vladimir Putin if you study his career as a
sportsman, 3rd degree blackbelt Judoka than by sifting through his career as an ex-spy.
First of all, Judo is a sport. It's not a "martial art". It's not meant to maim or
injure–though of course, people do get injured because they get thrown. Every
particular technique that could inevitably result in injury has been culled from the sport.
You don't "practice" Judo, you "play" it–literally, that's what they say when talking
about participation.
Practice sessions are democratic. Everyone practices against everyone else. Of course,
this results in mismatches as rank beginners will at some point be paired up with advanced
players. But this mismatch doesn't result in humiliation because the advanced take special
pains to play cleanly, pull their throws i.e. execute them perfectly so the person thrown can
land without injury to themselves and it also is an opportunity for every good Judoka to
teach the novices.
There are some people who come to Judo who don't fit in. They standout because they can be
seen really playing rough with those who are lower in rank than them. But this doesn't go
unnoticed. As people cycle through opponents during the practice session, the bully will
eventually be paired up with someone who is better than they are. And they will be taught a
lesson. Either they learn and conform to the rules or they never show up again. Judo weeds
out opportunistic bullies.
Now I hope the above helps people better understand Putin. To sum up: he is competitive
but will try to win fairly, within the prescribed rules. He won't tolerate bullying by the
stronger over the weaker, will, in fact, come to the aid of the weaker. Has a strong sense of
tradition, of belonging to a school of thought and action that is greater than himself and
that is worth preserving for its own sake, believes and more importantly, knows through
experience, that belonging to such a school improves individual character. He is competent.
I've seen film of him in practice and his technique is quite good. His third degree black
belt was honestly earned, it wasn't an honorary award.
From the above it can be seen why he would have little respect for the current crop of
weak, cowardly, politicians who rule America, lacking as they are in discipline, integrity
and dedication to a larger, noble cause. He would, in fact, find it hard not to hold them in
contempt but, keeping his eyes on the long-term goals of what's good for his country, masters
his emotions when dealing with them face to face.
Authored Among
Western political leaders there is not an ounce of integrity or morality . The Western print
and TV media is dishonest and corrupt beyond repair. Yet the Russian government persists in its
fantasy of "working with Russia's Western partners." The only way Russia can work with crooks
is to become a crook. Is that what the Russian government wants?
Finian
Cunningham notes the absurdity in the political and media uproar over Trump (belatedly)
telephoning Putin to congratulate him on his reelection with 77 percent of the vote, a show of
public approval that no Western political leader could possibly attain. The crazed US senator
from Arizona called the person with the largest majority vote of our time "a dictator." Yet a
real blood-soaked dictator from Saudi Arabia is feted at the White House and fawned over by the
president of the United States.
The Western politicians and presstitutes are morally outraged over an alleged poisoning,
unsupported by any evidence, of a former spy of no consequence on orders by the president of
Russia himself. These kind of insane insults thrown at the leader of the world's most powerful
military nation -- and Russia is a nation, unlike the mongrel Western countries -- raise the
chances of nuclear Armageddon beyond the risks during the 20th century's Cold War. The insane
fools making these unsupported accusations show total disregard for all life on earth. Yet they
regard themselves as the salt of the earth and as "exceptional, indispensable" people.
Think about the alleged poisoning of Skirpal by Russia. What can this be other than an
orchestrated effort to demonize the president of Russia? How can the West be so outraged over
the death of a former double-agent, that is, a deceptive person, and completely indifferent to
the millions of peoples destroyed by the West in the 21st century alone. Where is the outrage
among Western peoples over the massive deaths for which the West, acting through its Saudi
agent, is responsible in Yemen? Where is the Western outrage among Western peoples over the
deaths in Syria? The deaths in Libya, in Somalia, Pakistan, Ukraine, Afghanistan? Where is the
outrage in the West over the constant Western interference in the internal affairs of other
countries? How many times has Washington overthrown a democratically-elected government in
Honduras and reinstalled a Washington puppet?
The corruption in the West extends beyond politicians, presstitutes, and an insouciant
public to experts. When the ridiculous Condi Rice, national security adviser to president
George W. Bush, spoke of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction sending up a
nuclear cloud over an American city, experts did not laugh her out of court. The chance of any
such event was precisely zero and every expert knew it, but the corrupt experts held their
tongues. If they spoke the truth, they knew that they would not get on TV, would not get a
government grant, would be out of the running for a government appointment. So they accepted
the absurd lie designed to justify an American invasion that destroyed a country.
This is the West. There is nothing but lies and indifference to the deaths of others. The
only outrage is orchestrated and directed against a target: the Taliban, Saddam Hussein,
Gaddafi, Iran, Assad, Russia and Putin, and against reformist leaders in Latin America. The
targets for Western outrage are always those who act independently of Washington or who are no
longer useful to Washington's purposes.
Orchestrations this blatant demonstrate that Western governments have no respect for the
intelligence of their peoples. That Western governments get away with these fantastic lies
indicates that the governments are immune to accountability. Even if accountability were
possible, there is no sign that Western peoples are capable of holding their governments
accountable. As Washington drives the world to nuclear war, where are the protests? The only
protest is brainwashed school children protesting the National Rifle Association and the Second
Amendment.
Western democracy is a hoax. Consider Catalonia. The people voted for independence and were
denounced for doing so by European politicians. The Spanish government invaded Catalonia
alleging that the popular referendum, in which people expressed their opinion about their own
future, was illegal. Catalonian leaders are in prison awaiting trial, except for Carles
Puigdemont who escaped to Belgium. Now Germany has captured
him on his return to Belgium from Finland where he lectured at the University of Hesinki
and is holding him in jail for a Spanish government that bears more resemblance to Francisco
Franco than to democracy. The European Union itself is a conspiracy against democracy.
The success of Western propaganda in creating non-existent virtues for itself is the
greatest public relations success in history. Tags Politics
"... According to the British spy tale, a former Russian military intelligence colonel, Sergei Skripal, who spied for Great Britain in Russia from the early 1990s until 2004, was poisoned, along with his daughter, on March 4 in Salisbury, England, using a nerve agent "of a type developed by Russia." In 2010, Skripal had been exchanged in a spy swap between the United States and Russia. He had served six years in a Russian prison for spying for Britain. He had been living in the open in Britain for the last eight years. Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele's British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the London Daily Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was removed from the profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked directly on that dossier. ..."
"... Rather than following the protocols of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which require that evidence of the alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May instead delivered an ultimatum to Russia, and whipped up war fever throughout the UK. She now seeks to pull Donald Trump and NATO into ever more aggressive moves against Russia. ..."
"... A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London Daily Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who rants: "We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia and China. Such an alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China. Britain needs a new role in the world; building such a network would be our perfect mission." Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China. ..."
"... China's "Belt and Road Initiative" now encompasses more than 140 nations in the largest infrastructure-building project ever undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future. At the same time, the neo-liberal economies of the trans-Atlantic region continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by the massive piles of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. ..."
"... Just look at the events of February and March from this standpoint. It is no accident that Christopher Steele turns up, smack dab in the middle of the Skripal poisoning hoax. ..."
"... None of the true facts about the actual motive for, and sponsors of, the DOJ applications involving Carter Page were revealed to the FISA Court in the filings made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI Director James Comey, or current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf. The campaign involves journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job against Trump. Books by Luke Harding and Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild Steele's reputation. ..."
"... A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker, as implausible as it is long, has been foisted on the public for the same reason. ..."
"... Steele described his business to Luke Harding as primarily providing research and reports to competing and feuding Russian oligarchs, many of whom use London as a base of operations. This is obviously a perfect cover for intelligence operations. It is also a very violent theater of operations. The oligarchs intersect both Western intelligence operations and Russian organized crime. They engage in deadly gang warfare. ..."
"... Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous "sexing up" and fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, ..."
"... Steele had been tasked to claim that Russia was interfering in Western elections during the entire post-Ukraine coup time-frame, when this black propaganda line began to be circulated widely. ..."
"... The background to Porton Down's reluctance, is of course former Prime Minister Blair's phony dossier on Iraqi WMD, which Lyndon LaRouche fought, alongside the late British arms expert David Kelly, who exposed the "dodgy dossier," at the time. ..."
"... Thus, after being disclosed by a dissident Russian chemist living in the United States, novichoks have been widely copied by other countries, according to the press accounts. ..."
"... The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want to find Skripal's poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture first. The field of play involves the British intelligence services and the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs, each of which services the other, acting on behalf of British strategic objectives. It is no accident that the coup against Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the entire world in peril, absolutely intersect one another. ..."
March 18 -- In this report, we will explore the strategic significance of major events in the world starting in February 2018.
Our goal is to precisely situate British Prime Minister Theresa May's March 12-14 mad effort to manufacture a new "weapons of mass
destruction" hoax based on the alleged Skripal poisoning, using the same people (the MI6 intelligence grouping around Sir Richard
Dearlove) and script (an intelligence fraud concerning weapons of mass destruction) which were used to draw the United States into
the disastrous Iraq War.
The Skripal poisoning fraud also directly involves British agent Christopher Steele, the central figure in the ongoing coup against
Donald Trump. This time the British information warfare operation is aimed at directly provoking Russia, while maintaining the targeting
of the U.S. population and President Trump.
As the fevered, war-like media coverage and hysteria surrounding the case make clear, a certain section of the British elite seems
prepared to risk everything on behalf of its dying imperial system. Despite the hype, economic warfare and sanctions appear to be
the British weapons of choice -- Vladimir Putin, as we shall see, recently called the West's nuclear bluff. With the British "Russiagate"
coup against Donald Trump fizzling, exposing British agent Christopher Steele and a slew of his American friends to criminal prosecution,
a new tool was desperately needed to back the President of the United States into the British geopolitical corner shared by most
of the American establishment. The tool they are using to do this is an intelligence hoax, a tried-and-true British product.
According to the British spy tale, a former Russian military intelligence colonel, Sergei Skripal, who spied for Great Britain
in Russia from the early 1990s until 2004, was poisoned, along with his daughter, on March 4 in Salisbury, England, using a nerve
agent "of a type developed by Russia." In 2010, Skripal had been exchanged in a spy swap between the United States and Russia. He
had served six years in a Russian prison for spying for Britain. He had been living in the open in Britain for the last eight years.
Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele's
British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the London Daily Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was removed
from the profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked directly on that
dossier.
Theresa May and her foreign minister, Boris Johnson, insist there is only one person who could be responsible for the poisoning
-- described as an act of war -- and that person is Vladimir Putin. No evidence has been offered to support this claim. No plausible
motive has been provided as to why Putin would order such a provocative murder now, ahead of the World Cup, when the Russiagate coup
in the United States has lost all momentum.
Rather than following the protocols of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), which require that evidence of the alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May instead
delivered an ultimatum to Russia, and whipped up war fever throughout the UK. She now seeks to pull Donald Trump and NATO into ever
more aggressive moves against Russia.
Thus, as with Christopher Steele's dirty dossier against Donald Trump, the British claims against Putin are an evidence-free exercise
of raw power. The Anglo-American establishment instructs us: "trust this, ignore the stinky factless content presented in this dossier
-- just note that it is backed by very important intelligence agencies which could cook your goose if you object."
A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London
Daily Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who rants: "We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia
and China. Such an alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight
back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China. Britain needs
a new role in the world; building such a network would be our perfect mission." Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational
statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at
securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China.
Russia and China have embarked on a massive infrastructure building project in Eurasia, the center of all British geopolitical
fantasies since the time of Halford Mackinder. China's "Belt and Road Initiative" now encompasses more than 140 nations in the
largest infrastructure-building project ever undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future.
At the same time, the neo-liberal economies of the trans-Atlantic region continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by
the massive piles of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. This debt is now on a hair trigger for implosion.
It is estimated by banking insiders that the City of London is sitting on a derivatives powderkeg of $700 trillion, with over-the-counter
derivatives accounting for another $570 trillion. The City of London will bear the major impact of the coming derivatives collapse.
In this strategic geometry, President Trump's support for peaceful collaboration with Russia during the campaign, and his personal
friendship with China's President Xi Jinping, have marked him for the relentless coup-drive waged by the British and their U.S. friends.
On top of that, President Putin delivered a mammoth strategic shock on March 1, showing new Russian weapons systems based on new
physical principles, which render present U.S. ABM systems and much of current U.S. war-fighting doctrine obsolete, together with
the vaunted first strike capacity with which NATO has surrounded Russia. Not only is the West sitting on a new financial collapse,
its vaunted military superiority has just been flanked.
It is very clear that a strategic choice now confronts the human race. In 1984, Lyndon LaRouche wrote a very profound document,
"
Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. " In it, he developed the concrete basis for peace between the
two superpowers at the moment when the United States had adopted the LaRouche/Reagan doctrine of strategic defense. Both Reagan and
LaRouche had proposed that the Russians and the United States cooperate in building and developing strategic defense against offensive
nuclear weapons, based on new physical principles, thereby eliminating the threat of nuclear annihilation.
According to the LaRouche Doctrine, "The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) the unconditional sovereignty of each
and all nation states, and b) cooperation among sovereign states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate
in the benefits of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all."
Both China, in President Xi's October Address to the Party Congress, and Russia, in Putin's March 1 address to the Federal Assembly,
have set a course to produce technological progress capable of being shared in by all. They both outline major infrastructure projects
and dedicating massive funding to exploring the frontiers of science, technology, and space exploration. Donald Trump, in both his
campaign and his presidency, has embraced similar views. The British and their American friends, however, are devotees of a completely
different and failing economic system, a system soundly rejected in Brexit, in the election of Donald Trump, and most recently in
the Italian elections.
Just look at the events of February and March from this standpoint. It is no accident that Christopher Steele turns up, smack
dab in the middle of the Skripal poisoning hoax.
Exposure of British as U.S. Election Meddlers Weakens Anti-Trump Coup
On Feb. 2, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a memo demonstrating that the Obama Justice Department
and FBI committed an outright fraud on the FISA court in obtaining surveillance warrants on Carter Page, a volunteer for Donald Trump's
2016 presidential campaign. The bogus warrant applications relied heavily on the dirty British dossier authored by MI6's "former"
Russian intelligence chief, Christopher Steele, who had been paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee
to paint Donald Trump as a Manchurian candidate -- as a pawn of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
According to the House Intelligence memo and other aspects of its investigation, Steele confided to Bruce Ohr, a high official
in the DOJ, that he, Steele, hated Trump with a passion and would do "anything" to prevent Trump's election. Steele was using the
fact of an FBI investigation of his allegations as part of a "full spectrum" British information warfare campaign conducted against
candidate Trump with the full complicity of Obama's intelligence chiefs. (See Peter Van Buren, "
Christopher Steele: The Real Foreign Influence in the 2016 U.S. Election? " The American Conservative, February 15, 2018.)
None of the true facts about the actual motive for, and sponsors of, the DOJ applications involving Carter Page were revealed
to the FISA Court in the filings made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI Director James Comey, or current
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The House Intelligence Committee memo was quickly followed by a declassified letter on Feb. 5, in which Senators Chuck Grassley
and Lindsay Graham referred Christopher Steele to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution, based on false statements
he made to the FBI about his contacts with the news media. No doubt the criminal referral sent chills down the spines not only of
Christopher Steele and his British colleagues, but also of those former Obama officials conspiring against Trump.
In the same week, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes announced that he would be conducting investigations into the role of
the Obama State Department and intelligence chiefs in the circulation and use of Christopher Steele's dirty dossier. These investigations
have been widely reported to focus on John Brennan and James Clapper -- Brennan for widely promoting the dirty British work product,
and Clapper for leaks associated with BuzzFeed's publication and legitimization of the dirty British work product. Remind yourself
every time you hear media explosions against Trump by either Clapper (congressional perjurer and proponent of the theory that the
Russians are genetically predisposed to screw the United States) or Brennan (gopher for George Tenet's perpetual war and torture
regime and Grand Inquisitor for Barack Obama's serial
assassinations by baseball card). They are next in the barrel, so to speak.
The January 11, 2017 BuzzFeed publication of the Steele dossier was meant to permanently poison Trump's incoming administration,
and is the subject of libel suits both in Florida and London. In the London case, the British are ready to invoke the Official Secrets
Act to protect Christopher Steele. In the Florida case, Steele has been ordered to sit for deposition despite numerous delays and
stalling tactics.
The Congressional investigation of the State Department is focused on John Kerry, Kerry's aide Jonathan Winer, Victoria Nuland,
and Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Nuland utilized Christopher Steele as a primary intelligence source while running the U.S. regime
change operations in Ukraine in alliance with neo-Nazis. She greenlighted Steele's initial meetings with the FBI about Donald Trump.
Winer deployed himself to vouch for Steele to various news publications collaborating with British agent Steele and his U.S. employer,
Fusion GPS, in Steele's media warfare operations against Trump.
On March 12, the House Intelligence Committee announced that it had completed its Russia investigation. It stated that it
found "no collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia." Its draft final report was to have been
provided to the Democrats on the Committee on March 13 for comment and then submitted to declassification review.
On March 15, four U.S. Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Thom
Tillis, called for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ and FBI with respect to the Russiagate investigation.
They particularly focused on the use of the Steele dossier, FISA abuse, the disclosure of classified information to the press,
and the criminal investigation and case of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Separately, House Oversight Chairman
Trey Gowdy and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte have asked the Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel on similar
grounds.
On March 16, James Comey's Deputy FBI Director, Andrew McCabe, was fired as the result of recommendations by the FBI's Office
of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The OPR recommendation resulted from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's
investigation of McCabe's actions with respect to the Clinton email investigation and the Clinton Foundation. McCabe claimed that
this was part of a plot against himself, Comey, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Michael Horowitz, however, is an actual Washington
straight shooter appointed to his post by Barack Obama. The OPR is the FBI's own disciplinary agency. Horowitz's report is expected
to be extremely critical of McCabe, citing a "lack of candor" (i.e., lying) with respect to the investigation. Whatever the corrupt
media might claim, the facts here have been thoroughly investigated by McCabe's former FBI subordinates. They think his lies and
other actions disgrace the FBI and don't entitle him to a pension.
Horowitz's report on the Clinton investigations -- which have already unearthed the texts between former Russiagate lead case
agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, proclaiming their hatred of Donald Trump and the need for an "insurance
policy" against his election -- is expected to be released very soon. According to the House Intelligence Committee, the Strzok/Page
texts also reveal that Strzok was a close friend of U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras. Contreras sits on the FISA court,
took Michael Flynn's guilty plea, and then promptly recused himself from Michael Flynn's case for reasons which remain undisclosed.
Despite its exoneration of the President and thorough discrediting of the British Steele operation, the House Intelligence Committee
dangerously accepts the myth that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
and the emails of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta, and then provided the hacked information to WikiLeaks for publication.
Its final report states, however, that Putin's intervention was not in support of Donald Trump, as previously claimed by Obama's
intelligence chiefs. The Senators seeking a new Special Counsel also salute this dangerous fraud.
As we have previously reported, the myth that Putin hacked the Democrats and provided the hacked emails to WikiLeaks, has been
substantively refuted by the investigations of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). In summary, the evidence
points to a leak rather than a hack in the case of the DNC. Further, the NSA would have the evidence of any such hack or hacks, according
to former NSA technical director Bill Binney, and would have provided it, even if in a classified setting. It is clear that the NSA
has no such evidence. It is also clear that the United States and the British have cyber warfare capabilities fully capable of creating
"false flag" cyber war incidents.
North Korea Talks Planned, While Russia and China Continue to Create the Conditions for a New Human Renaissance
In addition to the fizzling of the coup, the Western elites suffered through February and March for additional reasons. To the
shock of the entire, smug Davos crowd, Donald Trump, working with Russia, China, and South Korea, appears to have gotten Kim Jong-un
to the negotiating table concerning denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Substantive talks have been scheduled for May. The
breakthrough was announced by President Trump and South Korea on March 8.
On March 1, President Putin gave his historic two-hour address to the Russian Federal Assembly and the Russian people. Like President
Xi's address to the Chinese Party Congress in October 2017, Putin focused on the goal of deeply reducing poverty in Russian society.
Xi vowed in October to eliminate poverty from Chinese society altogether by 2020. In addition, Putin emphasized that Russia would
undertake a huge city-building project across its vast rural frontiers and dramatically expand its modern infrastructure, including
Russia's digital infrastructure. He put major emphasis on directing funds to basic scientific and technological progress. He emphasized
that harnessing and stimulating the creative powers of individual human beings is the true driver of all economic progress.
China's Belt and Road Initiative also continued to advance. Great infrastructure projects are popping up throughout the world,
including most specifically in Africa, which had been consigned to be a permanent, primitive looting-ground for Western interests.
Among the recent breakthroughs is the great project to refill Lake Chad, a project known as "Transaqua," involving the Italian engineering
firm Bonifica, the Chinese engineering and construction firm PowerChina, and the Lake Chad Basin Commission, which represents the
African countries directly benefiting from the project. But the biggest strategic news of the last six weeks was contained in the
last part of President Putin's speech. He showed various weapons, developed by Russian scientists in the wake of the U.S. abrogation
of the ABM treaty and the Anglo-American campaign of color revolutions and NATO base-building in the former Soviet bloc. These weapons,
based on new physical principles, render U.S. ABM defenses obsolete, together with many U.S. utopian war-fighting doctrines developed
under the reigns of Obama and Bush. Putin emphasized that the economic and "defense" aspects of his speech were not separate. Rather,
the scientific breakthroughs were based on an in-depth economic mobilization of the physical economy. He stressed that Russia's survival
was dependent upon marshalling continuous creative breakthroughs in basic science and the high-technology spinoffs which result,
and their propagation through the entire population. He stressed that such breakthroughs are the product of providing an actually
human existence to the entire society.
Compare what Russia and China have set out to accomplish with respect to the physical economy of the Earth, with the second and
third paragraphs of Lyndon LaRouche's prescription for a durable peace in the LaRouche Doctrine:
The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic,
and political relations between dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as "developing nations."
Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace
on this planet.
Insofar as the United States and the Soviet Union acknowledge the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the planet
to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both, the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a common interest.
This is the kernel of the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of a durable peace between those
two powers.
This is the perspective which has the British terrified and acting-out, insanely. Were Trump, Putin, and Xi to enter into negotiations
based on the LaRouche Doctrine, a breakthrough will have occurred for all of mankind, a breakthrough to a permanent and durable peace.
No neo-liberal, post-industrial, unipolar order can match this, no matter how much Allister Heath, Ms. May, or Boris Johnson rant
and rave about it.
Christopher Steele's British Playground
As is well known by now, Christopher Steele was a long-time MI6 agent before "retiring" to form his own extremely lucrative private
intelligence firm. The firm is said to have earned $200 million since its formation. Steele was an MI6 agent in Moscow around the
time Skripal was recruited. He also later ran the MI6 Russia desk and would have known everything there was to know about Skripal.
Pablo Miller, who recruited Skripal, worked for Steele's firm according to Miller's LinkedIn profile, and lived in the same town
as Skripal.
Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf.
The campaign involves journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job against Trump. Books by Luke Harding
and Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild Steele's reputation.
A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker, as implausible as it is long, has been foisted on the public for the same
reason.
There are some fascinating facts, however, in all this fawning prose:
Steele described his business to Luke Harding as primarily providing research and reports to competing and feuding Russian
oligarchs, many of whom use London as a base of operations. This is obviously a perfect cover for intelligence operations. It
is also a very violent theater of operations. The oligarchs intersect both Western intelligence operations and Russian organized
crime. They engage in deadly gang warfare.
Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous
"sexing up" and fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, creating the rationale for
the disastrous and genocidal Iraq War.
Steele had been tasked to claim that Russia was interfering in Western elections during the entire post-Ukraine coup time-frame,
when this black propaganda line began to be circulated widely. According to Jane Mayer's account, Steele called this "Project
Charlemagne," and completed his report on it in April 2016, just before he undertook his hit job against Donald Trump. In his
report, Steele claimed that Russia was interfering in the politics of France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Turkey.
He claimed that Russia was conducting social media warfare aimed at "inflaming fear and prejudice and had provided opaque financial
support to favored politicians." He specifically targeted Silvio Berlusconi and Marine Le Pen. Steele also suggested that Russian
aid was given to "lesser known right wing nationalists" in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, implying that the Russians were behind
Brexit, with an overall goal of destroying the European Union.
Leaving aside Sergei Skripal's relationship with the central figure in the British-led coup against Donald Trump, it is clear
that the May government's claim that he and his daughter were poisoned by a "novichok" nerve-agent, even if it is true, by no means
makes a case that Putin's government was responsible. (It is of interest that as we were going to press on March 19, the foreign
ministers of the European Union, after a briefing by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson that indicted Putin as responsible,
issued a statement which condemned the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter, but pointedly failed to blame Putin or Russia.)
Craig Murray, a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan who maintains contacts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote March
16 that Britain's chemical-warfare scientists at Porton Down, "are not able to identify the nerve agent as being of Russian manufacture,
and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation of a type
developed by Russia, after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were allegedly
researching, in the novichok program, a generation of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available precursors
such as insecticides and fertilizers. This substance is a novichok in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing on a laptop
of a type developed by the United States, though this one was made in China."
The background to Porton Down's reluctance, is of course former Prime Minister Blair's phony dossier on Iraqi WMD, which Lyndon
LaRouche fought, alongside the late British arms expert David Kelly, who exposed the "dodgy dossier," at the time.
"To anybody with a Whitehall background this has been obvious for several days," Murray continues. "The government has never said
the nerve agent was made in Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation of a type developed by Russia was
used by Theresa May in Parliament, used by the U.K. at the UN Security Council, used by Boris Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most
tellingly of all, 'of a type developed by Russia,' is the precise phrase used in the joint communique‚ issued by the U.K., U.S.A.,
France, and Germany yesterday."
The main account of the chemical weapons cited by Theresa May was written by a Soviet dissident chemist named Vil Mirzayanov who
now lives in the United States and published a book about his work at the Soviets' Uzbekistan chemical-warfare laboratory. In his
much-publicized book, Mirzayanov sets out the formulas for the claimed substances. According to the March 16 Wall Street Journal,
that publicity led to the novichoks' chemical structure being leaked, making them readily available for reproduction elsewhere. Ralf
Trapp, a France-based consultant and expert on the control of chemical and biological weapons, told the Journal, "The chemical formula
has been publicized and we know from publications from then-Czechoslovakia that they had worked on similar agents for defense in
the 1980s. I'm sure other countries with developed programs would have as well."
But it does not seem that those "other countries" include Russia. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
the independent agency charged by treaty with investigating claims like those just made by the British government, certified in September
2017 that the Russian government had destroyed its entire chemical weapons program, inclusive of its nerve agent production capabilities.
In addition to Trapp's account, Seamus Martin, writing in the March 14 Irish Times, posits, based on personal knowledge, that novichoks
were widely expropriated by East Bloc oligarchs and criminal elements in the Russian economic chaos of the 1990s.
Thus, after being disclosed by a dissident Russian chemist living in the United States, novichoks have been widely copied
by other countries, according to the press accounts.
Further trouble for May's attempted hoax is found in the condition of the Skripals and of a police officer who went to their home.
All were made critically ill, although they are still alive. Yet the emergency personnel who treated the Skripals, allegedly the
victims of a deadly and absolutely lethal nerve poison, suffered no ill effects whatsoever.
The Skripal poisoning is being compared in the British press to the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The former KGB
and FSB officer was granted asylum in London and worked for the infamous anti-Putin British-intelligence-directed oligarch Boris
Berezovsky in information warfare and other attacks on the Russian state, inclusive of McCarthyite accusations against any European
politician seeking sane relations with Putin.
Litvinenko's case officer was none other than Christopher Steele, and Christopher Steele conducted MI6's investigation of the
case, which, of course, found Putin himself culpable. Berezovsky's use of the disgraced British PR firm Bell, Pottinger is also credited
with a significant role in public acceptance of this result. Berezovsky was a prime suspect in organizing the murder of American
journalist Paul Klebnikov. Many believe that Berezovsky arranged Litvinenko's demise. Berezovsky himself died in Britain in mysterious
circumstances following the loss of a major court case to another Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich.
In the parliamentary debate in which Theresa May issued her provocation, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn cautioned against a rush
to judgment and pointed to the bloody playing field of Russian oligarchs and Russian organized crime as alternative areas for investigation.
Had Corbyn added to that mix, "Western intelligence agencies," he would have been entirely on the right track. Corbyn also pointed
out that these oligarchs had contributed millions to May's Conservative Party. The reaction by the British media, May's Conservatives,
and Tony Blair's faction of the Labour Party was to paint Corbyn as a Putin dupe, including photoshopped images of the Labour leader
in a Russian winter hat in front of the Kremlin.
The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want
to find Skripal's poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture first. The field of play involves the
British intelligence services and the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs, each of which services the other, acting on behalf of British
strategic objectives. It is no accident that the coup against Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the
entire world in peril, absolutely intersect one another.
What is interesting that as there are 3.4K dislikes and only 1.2K likes. Looks like people start to decipher the NBC propaganda
machine and neoliberal propaganda machine in general (NBC is not an outlier in this respect; this is run of mill neoliberal outlet)
Looks like Putin really has steel nerves. Megyn Kelly was really disgusting pushing her talking points like there is
not tomorrow. Such a shill... . She also was organically able to listen. she has her prejudices can't shake them and actually does
not want to shake them (may be this is connected with her job security ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Confronting? The job of a real journalist is to ask questions, not to confront. Want to see the actual interview go watch Russian Insider is there in its totality. ..."
"... the moment i heard "American Democracy Under Attack" i stopped watching the video. ..."
"... Wtf NBC, this is ridiculously badly edited to fit an agenda. This is not journalism. ..."
"... It's not a debate if she keeps interrupting him, very disappointed in the way NBC took this golden opportunity to have a proper conversation with one of the super powers of the world and wasted it in "I tell you, you did this" and childish reaction from Megyn part. ..."
"... I am American and I am fully of aware how evil and deceptive this country is. I understand Putin is trying to do the right thing. But it seems as if almost 90-95% of people in this country still don't get it. ..."
"... How many governments in the world have been overthrown by the American CIA? How often does evil USA interfere in other states' elections? The USA government is pure evil. ..."
"... "American democracy, under attack".... by putting $46,000 worth of ads on Facebook, most of which were posted AFTER the election. Come on people, don't be foolish. ..."
"... "You believe that America meddled in your elections?" No Megyn Kelly, that's a historical fact, look up the "Harvard Boys" sponsored by USAID, look at the cover of the July 15, 1996 issue of Time Magazine entitled "Yanks to the Rescue", celebrating America's role in hijacking the Russian political system. ..."
Confronting? The job of a real journalist is to ask questions, not to confront. Want to see the actual interview go watch Russian
Insider is there in its totality.
Mr. Putin, did you intervene in the US elections? No But did you intervene? No And when you intervened, did you intervene?
No Have you intervened with the oligarchs? No Did you help them intervene? No And in the US say you intervened you did it? No
But you did not interfere, huh? Yes Interfered? No
Where is the full interview? I had to go to a Russian government TV channel so I can watch the full interview. And you label
the Russian media as state propaganda. Shame on you.
"Cut and paste" the interview with an agenda of bashing Russia, using "some people say" or "some American experts say" as the
sources without any solid proof and evidence is shameful.
Please, please, please, any US citizen who is watching this, go watch the full interview, just in order to get an idea of what your
media is worth. Listen to the words, also pay attention to how it is filmed and
presented.You really need to know how much you are bullshitted to.
When he talked about principles, why didn't she believe? Please, know that there are many people in the world with principles,
who are not necessarily running and dying for capitalist money, brands, silly talentless pointless half-naked pop-stars, yachts
or florida-like beaches, etc. There are many people who are fine to live without all these but with principles and other values
, which are not that bad even they don't run around money!
Her first and fatal mistake was underestimating his intelligence, thinking she could trip him up with her aggressive tone.
Putin has forgotten more about politics than Kelly has yet to learn. It's easy to see why NBC hacked the interview to pieces -
she was pathetic and out of her league, just another brainwashed, deluded American shill.
Wtf NBC, this is ridiculously badly edited to fit an agenda. This is not journalism. I wasn't a fan of Russia before this,
but you might be changing my mind by showing this edited crap. You're making things between the US and Russia worse not better
by showing this edited crap.
Wow, i am a Russian and i have to say you guys went too far with your propaganda. This is cut and edited beyond reason. Why
you do this? Stop making our president look like the ultimate villain. Honestly, it was such a pleasure to listen to Vladimir
Putin's reasonable approach. WTF NBC?
It's not a debate if she keeps interrupting him, very disappointed in the way NBC took this golden opportunity to have a proper
conversation with one of the super powers of the world and wasted it in "I tell you, you did this" and childish reaction from
Megyn part.
In America, Our political & Media Elite managed to collude Our foreign policy with Democracy promotion.We use Democracy promotion
to achieved our foreign policy agenda.. In Libya we Used democracy promotion to achieve our foreign policy goal of getting ride
of Gadhafi, following the fall of Gadhafi we abandon Libya on moved on to OUR NEXT TARGET, SYRIA.... IN SYRIA, we formed an alliance
with non Democratic ARAB REGIMES to Overthrow A Circular government of ASSAD. when RUSSIA & IRAN INTERVEIN @ THE REQUEST OF THE
SYRIAN GOVERNMENT, we have an issue with that.. OUR FOREIGN POLICY is INCONSISTENT AND UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL INTEREST/Democracy.
& Corporate Media is a SCAM... HAD WE HAD alternative NEWS SOURCE LIKE(social media) WE DO TODAY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE INVADED IRAQ
ON FAKE EVIDENCE /INTELLIGENCE God Bless America
NBC is the reason why the US and Russia will never be allies. They seem to want war. Putin is probably laughing at the hysteria
of the US media. Make no mistake, the MEDIA is getting in the way of peace with Russia. Putin is no saint, but keep in mind they
have more nuclear weapons than us. Wouldn't hurt to mend the relationship...
This is American propaganda in its purest most undiluted form. The interpreter is putting words into Putin's mouth making him
sound arrogant and brash. Its is Megyn Kelly who is the arrogant one just like the rest of the American mainstream media. I admire
Putin for his patience, one must have the mental stability of a yogi to tolerate the half literate moronic deluge that radiates
from Megyn's mouth. She was going too far, by interrupting Putin at every turn while Putin still has the decency to politely respond.
If she is so democratic, I would advise her to pay a visit to her government's Saudi "allies.
Putin is too smart for Megyn. Do you really think he's gonna tell you what you think when an American journalist asks you such
questions? I don't like Putin either but he's got balls. I bet he knows English too but he knows that speaking a foreign language
will put him at an disadvantage. Smart move by hiring an interpreter. By the way the US government throughout has done things
far worse than rigging election.
This isnt an interview more less the ' pressing' of 'false allegations & speculation'. Every response Putin gives is reasonable.
Putin didnt have to agree with doing this. She sounds like a failed lawyer & wanna be politician. America is not Perfect, Russia
is not perfect, I wish she would sit down with people in her own country & do the same but she doesnt. She acts as if she is asking
these questions on behalf of Americans when really it is based on 'her' own views and for the sake of 'her' interview. This interview
is flawed.
Don't spread lies NBC news. People should not believe this fake news! Glad to see there's more dislikes than likes, people
are starting to know the truth.
How disingenuous can NBC get? Actual quote from the interview: "Maybe, although they were Russian, they work for some American
company. Maybe one of them worked with one of the candidates. I have no idea about this. These are not my problems" And in the
headlines: "Putin on alleged US election interference: I don't care".
American Democracy is run by plutocrats Itching for war against Russia and China and Iran.. USA is a warmonger doing the bidding
for Israel.. As if Russia had Trump elected.. What a joke.. American mainstream media is trying to manufacture consent from its people
to go to war.. Watch and see..
United state have been interfering in African election forcing us to there evil democracy, killing Gaddafi for no reason. Look
at what you guys did in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries that don't want to do your evil democracy. After lying to the shameless
United nations security council about Saddam's building of weapons of mass destruction, Who fight you about that?.
This is quite possibly the WORST interview ever conducted. This one is NOT a journalist. If you want to be a respectable broadcaster,
fire this moron immediately. Horrendously non-factual, terribly edited - this interview is America in a nutshell. The world has
awoken in this age and won't stand still.
Remember that United States interferes in the affairs of other nations ALL THE TIME. The U.S. attempted to influence the elections
of foreign countries as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000. Since 2000, the U.S. has attempted to sway elections in Ukraine,
Kenya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan.
I am American and I am fully of aware how evil and deceptive this country is. I understand Putin is trying to do the right
thing. But it seems as if almost 90-95% of people in this country still don't get it. They actually are repulsed and
angry by the idea that we could be the bad guys. It has turned my family and friends against me. I am all alone...
Megyn Kelly? Pressure Putin? Should I cry or laugh! It's like watching Ahmedinajad destroying King! Even your questions has
no concrete clue to any Russian government connection! None!!!!! Are you really a journalist? Guys seriously if you wanna do tv
then do it right! You can't pressure Putin by saying they are Russians if you don't have any any any any clues on government connection!
You should really consider your questions next time!
There's no "Russian Connection". This is a lie. This whole "Russian interference in US elections" is a political sham invented
by the corrupt American system infiltrated by Zionists and Anti-Christian lobbyists.
Poor work by the journalist. She is supposed to have a dialogue, she is supposed to listen to the interviewee. Instead, it
was just a bunch of questions and it looked quite awkward.
How many governments in the world have been overthrown by the American CIA? How often does evil USA interfere in other states'
elections? The USA government is pure evil.
"American democracy, under attack".... by putting $46,000 worth of ads on Facebook, most of which were posted AFTER the election.
Come on people, don't be foolish.
"You believe that America meddled in your elections?" No Megyn Kelly, that's a historical fact, look up the "Harvard Boys"
sponsored by USAID, look at the cover of the July 15, 1996 issue of Time Magazine entitled "Yanks to the Rescue", celebrating
America's role in hijacking the Russian political system.
"... After the disastrous Yeltsin rule (which came on the heels of disastrous rule by Gorbachev) Putin and his team rescued Russia economically, politically, and militarily. ..."
"... As far as Western "democracies" are concerned, the author hit the nail on the head. Yet there are lots of problems in Russia that the author does not mention. I think current Russian take on Soviet propaganda summarizes everything nicely: "what they told us about socialism was a pack of lies, but what they told us about capitalism turned out to be perfectly true". ..."
The author is painting Putin as larger-than-life figure, which he isn't. He is a normal
man, capable and intelligent, but he is not by any means that superhuman leader and savior.
He looks much greater than he is because you subconsciously compare him with pathetic
nonentities that the Western world sees as leaders now. In fact, the leadership of the US
Empire and all its vassal countries visibly degenerated in the last decades. Just compare De
Gaulle with sad excuses La Belle France had for presidents lately. Or compare Nixon (he might
have been a nasty person, but he was a great President of the country) with various clintons,
bushes, obamas, and trumps. Or compare Chancellor Kohl with that poor excuse for a chancellor
that Germany has today. You get the drift.
Just like the Soviet Union was not defeated by the US, but actually collapsed due to
internal problems, regime change rampage is over largely because the United States pushed
their luck and overextended themselves, and not just thanks to Putin. Throughout history, all
dominant empires lose their grip and eventually crumble (remember Roman or British), and now
it's the turn of the US Empire. Fortunately or unfortunately, the next will be the Chinese
Empire, not Russian.
After the disastrous Yeltsin rule (which came on the heels of disastrous rule by
Gorbachev) Putin and his team rescued Russia economically, politically, and
militarily.
However, the US played a huge role in increasing Putin's popularity inside Russia, more
than his propaganda machine ever could. Before the US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014,
Putin's approval hovered at about 45%. Nazi takeover in Ukraine and his decisive move to take
Crimea back (it was transferred to Ukraine from Russia by Khruschev in 1956, illegally even
by vague Soviet law; Crimea tried to get away from Ukraine ever since the breakup of the USSR
in 1991; polls by Gallup and German company GfK showed that 80%+ Crimean residents wanted to
join Russia, rather than remain in the madhouse that Ukraine became after the coup) resulted
in his approval soaring above 70%.
Ill-advised sanctions added even more. Now he did not need to rig elections, he got
genuine 70%+ vote, a level of support Western politicians can't even dream of (e.g., Trump
was elected by 26% of eligible voters; Merkel's party in Germany got even less).
As far as Western "democracies" are concerned, the author hit the nail on the head.
Yet there are lots of problems in Russia that the author does not mention. I think current
Russian take on Soviet propaganda summarizes everything nicely: "what they told us about
socialism was a pack of lies, but what they told us about capitalism turned out to be
perfectly true".
This is way too rosy account. Russia has several significant problems with growth of
Muslim population and the fact that this is last term for Putin, which might signify the end
of the period of political stability.
Also economic rape by local and Western neoliberals of Russia in 1991-2000 was so
successful that the country still can't fully recover. Hundreds of billions were stolen and
transferred to the West. The "problem of neoliberal oligarchs" as "fifth column" still
remains and is a threat to the future of the country. Too much depends of Putin personally.
In this sense China is in a better position.
Moreover, Putin was forced into new arm race (by the USA) and military spending now are
high and that creates another set of problems including growing influence of internal
military industrial complex. Add to this the cost of Syria war and related set of external
and internal problems, such as almost complete absence of allies (neither China not Iraq are
reliable allies; most post-Soviet republics, even Kazakhstan, are now hostile to Russia)
And Russia does not have too many degrees of freedom yet, as it still depends on the West
for many technologies and complex machinery. West dominates high technology area. Add to this
brain drain and export of capital from Russia.
Technological dependence means that really crippling sanction are always a possibility.
Availability of some of those technologies in China makes this problem less acute than in the
past, but still in no way Russia can pursue completely independent policy.
Add to this dependence on dollar and the fact that Russian national bank, which remain a
neoliberal institution, controlled by neoliberal Nabibulina ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvira_Nabiullina
, who is close to Gref ) who like any "good" neoliberal keeps natural sovereign fund invested
in US Treasuries. In this sense she is not that different from Kudrin.
And that means that those money can be confiscated anytime, like the USA did with Iran in
the past. Also oligarchs money are now in danger due to clear desire of London to improve its
financial standing at Russian oligarchs expense.
What is true is that neoliberalism as a political system entered deep crisis after 2008.
In the USA political system became dysfunctional and there is some kind of "virtual" civil
war between two factions of neoliberal oligarchy -- classic neoliberals and bastard
neoliberals (aka economic nationalists). Add to this "strange" relations with Israel, which
sometimes suggest that the tail wags the dog and I do not see why the USA can't experience
something similar to processes that took place in Britain after the WWII.
But there is still no alternative social system on the horizon and return to "New deal
capitalism" is impossible as the social alliance of management caste changed.
So Russia remains a neoliberal country which hates neoliberalism (in which by definition
the power belongs to the financial oligarchy) and which tries to fight Western neoliberal
imperialism in ofreign policy including attempts to make is a vassal and appropriate its
natural resources (and Russia was a vassal of the West under Yeltsin) while remaining a
neoliberal country and promoting neoliberalism externally. that's a recipe for a color
revolution in the future, more successfully then 2012 "White" color revolution run by Moscow
comprador class. Which in Moscow might well represent probably one third of the population
(programmers, doctors, accountants, employees of foreign companies, part of "integrated with
West" artistic cicles, writers, journalists, etc.). They were politically decimated by events
in Ukraine and then by Russiagate hysteria in the USA. So "neoliberal compradors" class was
not a player in the current elections. But that situation might eventually change and they
can restore part of their political power.
So, in a way, Putin is some kind of Don Quixote which fight neoliberalism (and neoliberal
globalization) externally, while allowing it to exist and even flourish internally (Medvedev,
BTW looks like classic neoliberal, a Trojan horse in Putin's administration).
And internally neoliberalism naturally produces high level of corruption, which is
amplified by "New Economic Policy" elements on the current Russia political regime (which
allowed free operation of small and medium business, but tried to cut/decimate political
power of large business -- a very difficult, if not impossible undertaking)
I think Professor Brovkin forgot the classic Lenin work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism". That's sad...
Moreover, former pro-Putin people who are now CEO of large government companies are not
longer Pro-Putin people. Because their position influences their political orientation. In a
sense, people like Gref and Sechin are dangerous strata of Putin-created "nova riches", who
can betray him any moment, especially if their money will be under the treat of confiscation
by the West.
It might well be that Putin was an anomaly and Russian will enter "Maidan" period or some
other form of political crisis after Putin relinquishes his power.
BTW Ukrainians were successfully deceived by the West twice, so I do not see why Russians
can't repeat this trick and step of the same rake again by electing some variation of Yeltsin
who will promise them immediate bright future and jump in the standard of living (which for
the last three year deteriorated due to low oil prices and a huge depreciation of ruble). For
Ukrainians around 20 year was enough to forget all lessons.
My impression is that Russia might experience yet another serious of political cataclysm
in the near future, when "Putinism" will disappear with Putin.
You are in a tiny bubble, and just because your small, smart sample seems "woke," don't
imagine IQ is any barometer for resistance to group-think and propaganda.
Furthermore, don't assume that humans, high IQ or otherwise, are capable of extrapolation.
My lunch group was composed of Christian activists who have [each] spent decades advocating
for Palestinians. They are intimately aware of how propaganda has biased Americans for
Israel. They have seen the film, Occupation of the American Mind . They know that only
by persistent clever marketing, the Zionists sold the fraudulent "noble little Israel"
myth.
And yet, they accept unquestioningly the MSM fake news about ANY OTHER SUBJECT. I find
this particularly galling, but I believe it's a form of denial they use because the cognitive
dissonance would be just too much to bear.
Alas, I stayed with USA friends, well educated middle class, where CNN was the only
'news' source.
Three other USA acquaintances I visited in their homes, cannot remember having seen a
newspaper other than a local one about marriages and funerals.
The USA reminded me of the Peking court, that, when British warships were reported on
the coast, responded with 'there had been so many pirates already'.
In the Badlands, in a very small café, I identified myself as Dutch, from
Holland, Netherlands. When all this did not ring bell I mentioned Europe, the first time in
my life. This was understood.
Jilles, maybe your American friends are simply ignorant and easily fooled. That is the
type of people who make CNN their sole source of news. This doesn't make them average
Americans, just CNN fans.
If I came to visit a friend in Holland, and based my opinion of all Nederlanders on that
friend and three others like him that I met while there, would you agree with me if I said
that the average person in the Netherlands thought like my friend and his three friends?
"The sides also touched upon the incident in Salisbury," the Kremlin stressed, underlining
that "The Russian side drew attention to the lack of evidence behind accusations against Russia
and reiterated its readiness to conduct joint investigation into the incident", TASS
reported.
"The two presidents discussed in detail issue of the Syrian settlement in the context of the
implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2401 and the crisis in Ukraine in
the light of the importance of the implementation of the Minsk agreements," the Kremlin
stated.
The telephone conversation was initiated by the French Leader who called to congratulate
Putin on his victory at Sunday's presidential polls in Russia, according to the Kremlin.
Macron spoke in favor of continuing joint work to promote comprehensive bilateral
cooperation, including between civil societies within the Trianon Dialogue.
"It was agreed to continue to exchange views on the matters raised during the conversation
at various levels," the press service added.
On March 4, Skripal and his daughter Yulia were exposed to a nerve agent in the city of
Salisbury. They were found unconscious on a bench near a shopping center in Salisbury. Both are
currently in the hospital in critical condition.
British Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of "an unlawful use of force" against her
country. Subsequently, she announced that London would expel 23 Russian diplomats and would
suspend high-level bilateral contacts.
Russia has vehemently denied its alleged involvement in the incident and said retaliatory
measures would follow soon.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Saturday that 23 British diplomats had been declared
personae non grata to be expelled from Russia in a week's period.
It also said the UK's consulate general in St. Petersburg would be closed and the British
Council would stop its activities.
Apart from that, according to the Ministry, the Russian side reserved the right to take
other measures "should further unfriendly steps are taken against Russia."
And what does a vote for Putin actually mean, in terms of choice? Who picked him to begin
with? Well, it turns out that Putin is a happy accident. Boris Yeltsin named him as his
successor, and you could quite reasonably joke that Yeltsin was drunk at the time and didn't
remember why he did that. But you could also surmise that Putin was picked for his renowned
savvy in money-laundering and offshoring the ill-gotten gains of Russian oligarchs (his
previous job back in St. Petersburg) and for his clever use of his KGB connections (from his
job before that) to "settle questions." Remember, this was a time when the endlessly clever
people who get paid to sit around and drink coffee over at the Pentagon imagined that "Russian
mafia" was an emerging global threat. The oligarchs must have liked Putin, and Yeltsin, in
keeping with his "leave no oligarch behind" program, did whatever they wanted him to do.
What they got instead was a pig in a poke. The oligarchs thought that they had recruited
another faithful servant who, just like Yeltsin, would keep the state weak and facilitate their
shameless plunder. Instead they got a steel-willed technocrat and a true Russian patriot who
quickly manifested an awesome power to conjure up creative new ideologies. Instead of
subservience, the oligarchs got his "doctrine of equidistance," according to which
money≠power. (An oil baron by the name of Mikhail Khodorkovsky ran afoul of it, thinking
that he could parlay his wealth into political power, and ended up cooling his heels in
prison.) Instead of somebody who would look the other way while they ran roughshod over Russian
society, they got his "dictatorship of the law," a significantly strengthened Russian state,
and the once fearsome Russian mafia melted away like hoarfrost after sunrise. And the Russian
oligarchy's plan to seamlessly meld into Western elite society using their expropriated wealth,
leaving Russia behind as a withered husk, ran headlong into Putin's plan to reestablish
"multipolarity" and to force other nations, even the United States, to treat Russia as an
equal. This resulted in Western sanctions, which sent many oligarchs scurrying back to Russia
and repatriating their funds under an amnesty program, lest they be frozen.
And so Putin, for Russia, is just a happy accident. Given that happy accidents are in
general far less frequent than unhappy ones, a question arises: How can Russia reliably produce
another Putin when the time comes? It is definitely a good thing that Russia has six years to
answer this question, because this last presidential election, as well as all the previous
ones, has conclusively demonstrated that Russian electoral politics are not the answer -- at
least not yet. Let's look at Putin's "competition" (in quotes because, judging from the
results, it was more of an exhibition).
The one who garnered the most votes was Pavel Grudinin, nominated by the Communists
(although he wasn't a member) instead of their perennial presidential candidate and leader
Gennady Zyuganov, who is getting rather long in the tooth. Grudinin failed to disclose his
foreign bank accounts, or the fact that his son resides abroad, disqualifying him from holding
the top secret clearance required of a Russian president. Nevertheless, he managed to get 15%
or so of the vote.
Next in line was the nationalist perennial presidential candidate Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who
is quite formidable, very entertaining, but also rather frightening because he is forever
threatening to rain fire and brimstone on Russia's enemies both foreign and domestic.
Nevertheless, he is definitely qualified to serve as president -- or to serve on your firing
squad, because he is also a good shot, and you can be sure that he won't accidentally miss all
of your vital organs and leave you writhing in pain while you bleed out slowly. You can regard
him as Russia's presidential insurance, giving Russia's enemies an excellent reason to wish for
Putin's good health, because Zhirinovsky is standing by, ready to make them say "ouch!" a
lot.
And then we have a sort of winner, but not of the presidential sort: Xenia Sobchak. She is
the daughter of Anatoly Sobchak, who was the first democratically elected mayor of St.
Petersburg, co-author of Russia's constitution, and Putin's friend and mentor. She is a fully
paid-up member of Russia's "golden youth" and pretty much does whatever she wants -- like run
for president. Don't laugh, she got over 1% of the vote! She has dabbled in reality television,
the fashion industry, this and that, is married to an actor, has a year-and-a-half-old son and
is rumored to be pregnant.
She made me laugh because she lost Crimea even before she got her name on the ballot by
declaring that she does not approve of Crimea being part of Russia. Recall that Crimea has been
part of Russia since 1783, was "gifted" to the Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954 in
violation of the Soviet constitution, and then voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 after the
Ukraine's government was overthrown in violation of the Ukrainian constitution: a rare instance
of two constitutional violations canceling each other out.
Her slogan was "against all": she saw herself as a one-person alternative to the entire
Russian political system. Neither she nor her supporters saw the obvious logical flaw with this
platform: if she were truly "against all" then, to be consistent, she would have to campaign
for people to vote against all -- including her. What she meant, of course, was "against all
except me." Now that would have been a wonderful slogan, had she managed to explain what it was
that made her so uniquely magic. Instead, she complained bitterly about everyone else. I
believe that her presidential campaign was actually a clever merchandising operation. Maybe it
had something to do with marketing eyeglass frames: she appeared to switch eyeglasses more
often than most women change panties. There were some other kinds of "product placement" going
on too.
Everybody else got less than 1%, but I will give them honorable mention anyway. There was
the perennial liberal candidate Yavlinsky, who gave his rationale for running again this time
(a hopeless cause given Russians' overwhelmingly unfavorable view of liberalism) as "I just
really wanted to talk to some voters." Then, in no particular order (because I don't care) came
the über-capitalist Titov, the über-Soviet Suraikin and the über-Russian
Baburin. Titov ran on a pathetically hilarious slogan of "So, what about Titov?"
All of the candidates save Putin (who intelligently stayed above the fray) participated in
several interminable rounds of "debates" whose format precluded all intelligent discussion. All
candidates were given a few minutes to spout their programmatic gibberish while others tried to
shout them down. At one point they ganged up on poor Xenia so hard that they made her cry. The
only time they got to talk to Putin was after the election, when they were all invited to a
sort of "thank you for playing" meeting at the Kremlin, and where they all appeared dignified,
conciliatory and grateful.
This was all good, clean fun (except for making Xenia cry; that was mean) but it doesn't
answer the essential question, which is: How can Russia find another Putin to elect president
in six years? One of the most important reasons why the Soviet Union failed was the inability
of its political elites to recruit and promote talent, causing it to degenerate into a dour,
ossified, senile gerontocracy. This fact is currently very well understood in Russia, and a
serious effort is underway to appoint young, promising governors and to put young people with
leadership potential into positions of ministerial responsibility. Whether these efforts
produce the intended result will become clear six years from now. A lot can happen in the
intervening years -- both good and bad -- but at the moment the project to "make Russia great
again" appears to be firing on all cylinders.
This article was originally published by "Club
Orlov" -
Orlov is a brilliant and patriotic Russian and is obviously pleased with the stability that
Putin's reelection brings to his country in this time of crisis. However he is also strangely
begrudging to President Putin here and in other articles I have read, casually throwing out a
rather nasty and unsubstantiated slur that Putin during his early career in St Petersburg
behaved as a low-life corrupt official, helping oligarchs off-shore their stolen riches. I
would challenge Mr Orlov to produce not just hearsay but 'real' evidence of this. It seems to
contradict the strongest features of Putin's character during his years as president, honesty
and consistency. No one suggests that Putin must have a perfect record in all things, but
such a serious accusation surely needs backup, or at least clarification as to what exactly
Orlov means.
As I only received this a couple of hours ago, I am pasting again my comments upon
yesterday's Peter Koenigh's article:
Regret to have to say that all you people are squabbling over minor incidents, compared to
the overall planned agenda. Craig Thomas is right, Paul Craig Roberts is right, Peter Koenigh
is right, everybody who writes for ICH is right and Tom Feeley is a giant.
However, you are all missing the end goal of the universal plan. Defence industry, big
pharma, oil industry, Monsanto, Bayer, Dupont, Nestlee, P&G, Goldman Sachs, Banks, the
BIS, the Cheneys, Rockfellers, Bushes, Morgans, Rothchilds, Kissingers, Soros and Rumsfelds
plus more, all belong to one single group that is known as the "establishment" that promotes
globalisation. They have an agenda. It is not financial gluttony that drives them, but power.
They already control the World's finances, and are aiming to soon also control the food chain
and water supply. The purpose is simple logic. (Wish George Orwell were still alive). Their
intent is to reduce the whole World's population to functioning "servants" with barely enough
to survive upon, so that they be so encased within the efforts on their own survival in each
one's little world, so that they be totally deprived of any stamina to check, object and
criticize anything that the rulers of the "establishment" do or enact. The media belongs to
them, and most of the reporters therein have already turned into the "servants" mentioned,
evidently for their own survival. Hence the necessary brainwashing of the masses is secured.
Any dissident that could endanger the agenda, has to be dealt with. One of those is Putin.
(according to me, despite some of his misgivings, is the only leader in the Western World
that deserves the position he holds). All the rest are plain buffoons. It is "we the people",
"the brainwashed people" who have put them in office. However, there still may be some hope.
Was Nostradamus right? What about China. A president for life? And what would be the
consequences for the rest of us. Personal experience has taught me that the Chinese, as many
too of the far Eastern peoples, know of little empathy within their culture. So what would be
the future of the rest of us if they were to prevail globally? Should we not all embrace the
Russians and Indians and hope for them to be our lifesaver buffer? Food for thought ladies
and gentlemen !!!
"... We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came to be. ..."
"... For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance. ..."
"... (in English in the original text -- trans. ..."
"... Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as their rightful commodities. ..."
"... Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held responsible for the factual truth. ..."
And that's your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into "Russians never
surrender" mode.
I've been telling you for a long time to find normal advisers on Russia. Sack all those
parasites. With their short-sighted sanctions, heartless humiliation of our athletes (including
athletes with disabilities ), with their "skripals" and ostentatious disregard of the most
basic liberal values, like a presumption of innocence, that they manage to hypocritically
combined with forcible imposition of ultra-liberal ideas in their own countries, their
epileptic mass hysteria, causing in a healthy person a sigh of relief that he lives in Russia,
and not in Hollywood, with their post-electoral mess in the United States, in Germany, and in
the Brexit-zone;
with their attacks on RT, which they cannot forgive for taking advantage of the freedom of
speech and showing to the world how to use it, and it turned out that the freedom of speech
never was intended to be used for good, but was invented as an object of beauty, like some sort
of crystal mop that shines from afar, but is not suitable to clean your stables, with all your
injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop respecting you.
You and your so called "values."
We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we
wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those
amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came
to be.
For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and
analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive
arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn
history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their
empires. Only because of their arrogance.
(in English in the original text --
trans. )
But the only Empire, you have left, ignores history, it doesn't teach it and refuses to
learn it, meaning that it all will end the way it always does, in such cases.
In meantime, you've pushed us to rally around your enemy. Immediately, after you declared
him an enemy, we united around him.
Before, he was just our President, who could be reelected. Now, he has become our Leader. We
won't let you change this. And it was you, who created this situation.
It was you who imposed an opposition between patriotism and liberalism. Although, they
shouldn't be mutually exclusive notions. This false dilemma, created by you, made us to chose
patriotism.
Even though, many of us are really liberals, myself included.
Get cleaned up, now. You don't have much time left.
I agree with you, Margarita, and I am American! I remember as a child, being taught about
that horrid USSR - to be so feared, ready at any moment to bomb us into oblivion! I remember
the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. - not knowing the full details, but being told that Kennedy saved us
all from WWIII. As time went on, we'd watch humorous shows detailing the large percentage of
Russians in USSR wanting to AND defecting to America. We were shown Russians lined up around
city blocks to buy toilet paper, shoes (any size, any color would do). Russians naivety was
always made fun of, casting the majority of you as either clowns or criminals capable of all
heinous crimes. Then came the 90s. I watched Yeltsin tottering around drunk, watched in
horror as the USSR collapsed, wondering what had happened to you. Then came Putin - this
young man being handed the reins of your collapsed, ruined country. Suddenly it seemed, we
saw more and more of him. I remember watching his face when he had to explain to the tearful,
waiting parents and friends of the mariners from the Kursk. His remark that if he could go
down there himself and rescue them he would! I knew then, that this was a man to be watched,
because I admired him at that moment. Over the years, after one successful term after
another, I saw Russia rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of the USSR. I saw the pride
returning to the Russian faces, saw smiles returning to their faces, watched you regaining
your honor, your sovereignty as we started losing ours. Watching and listening, in horror and
fear as more and more of our rights were taken away after 9/11. Discovering that it was a
false flag (one of many, it seems), that took the lives of ordinary Americans and used their
deaths to start killing more people in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack. More
time going by, more rights taken away here, yet for you, rising ever more to greater economy,
more business friendly environments in Russia, more world trade with an increasing number of
trading partners.
Then started the demonization again - not of USSR, but of Russia - same story, different
name. Putin - guilty of all crimes of mankind, blamed for everything under the sun, capable
and willing to kill people around the globe with impunity, using chemicals and all other
nefarious things! I watched the crimes committed in Ukraine, which deposed the legally
elected president, and that tried to kill him after a coup that put Nazis in his place. I
watched Crimea hold it's referendum, saw the fireworks display afterwards with all the happy
faces. Russia was demonized even more and sanctioned greatly for that. Now to 2017 - I prayed
that Putin would run again - (he waited a long time before stating he would run.) I knew that
Russia sorely needed him to remain at the reins, guiding Russia (and the world, it seems)
around the icebergs of hate, crimes against humanity, local wars, demise of any empathetic
feelings towards others as we are all dragged along to the next, last war. Putin has been the
one who has prevented it from happening in several situations, where it could have been
started. But the demonization continues - little wonder America has lost it's appeal to most
of you!
The deep state has us in thrall - (no Kennedy here now to protect us). I pray daily that
all of us will survive to realize our hopes - yours and ours, but feel on a deep level that
this time it won't happen. It seems that some people here truly want a war - feel they could
survive the strike and retaliate to ruin your country, but that ours would remain mainly
untouched. They think their bunkers will protect them - their expansive underground cities
built for the richest and 'best' of America, while the rest of us are collateral damage. I am
not rich - have no real savings, so am definitely not one of those to be saved - like so
others around me. I'm sure many of you are in the same position, have the same fears and
dreams as I do. I offer all of you my best wishes for a happy, healthy, free and safe world.
Maybe your Putin actually does have a rabbit in his hat, or that silver bullet - the magic
needed to save us all! I truly hope so.
As a Canadian, thank you for your excellent summary of what I have concluded for some
time. Sadly, the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic as established by the founders; it
is not even a representative democracy. What the US has become is an Evil American Empire
that is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity in the US and throughout the entire
world. The good news is that a growing number of people in the US and the Western World
realize this and are working very hard to return America to its founding ideals. The first
stage in this process is the exposure of powerful members of the Deep State who have
infiltrated and corrupted the essential institutions of government, freedom and justice.
I used to be liberal before liberalism became a symbol of stupidity, war mongering and
affiliated with the Deep State and it's rush to rule the world by destroying every society
whose people chose to live life as they saw fit. The translation mechanism for understanding
US leadership is projection. If the mouthpieces ramble on about their values, the meaning is
that they are stating the values of their opponent or target country. If they're accusing a
country of terrorism, they're talking about their own support for terrorism for geopolitical
gains. If they're accusing a country of using chemical weapons, they're really talking about
their own use of chemical weapons to launch another war and destroy yet another country's
society. So one can easily see the true meaning of these psychopaths rantings and rhetoric by
merely using the simple mechanism of projection to determine the truth.
Many times I am completely confused by the use that Americans make of traditional
political or economic terms. "Socialism", for example, applied to Democrats? Calling
"Liberals" those who like to defy society's traditional customs? "Marxism" is no longer a
theory about the conflict of classes, or a dialectical understanding of society! Many
political discussions are due to the different interpretations that people give to the same
words. The US political science vocabulary is in chaos- along with many other US things!
Seventy years ago, George Orwell wrote the prophetic essay, "Politics
and the English Language," in which he noted that politicians,
journalists and academics were increasingly using meaningless words and
euphemisms to make "lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and...
give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Source:
https://www.alternet.org/el...
Totally agree. Fundamental or Philosophical Liberalism has to be with the human being and
his liberties and rights.
Economic Liberalism has to be with the commodities trade and physical money, financial money,
and their privileges put over the human beings, of course this is a euphemism because whom
are really self conceded such privileges are the owners of those goods i.e. International
Usurers.
Economic Liberalism morphed into the worst; into Neo-(Economic)-Liberalism (They call it only
"liberalism" in order to confuse their enemies, all the people). Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things
including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as
their rightful commodities.
You're absolutely correct! We've had the worst of the worst running and influencing those
that run the country and this man was a psycho, but we have more, too many!
The arrogance of the man. I do hope he lives long enough to see the fruits of his labor
whilst the economy collapses around him. I guess when that happens he and his other hapless
miscreants will keep their heads down and rely on security to protect them from the karma
hurtling towards them.
Nothing this man has done has benefited the American people.
Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided
in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is
what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM
and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held
responsible for the factual truth.
March 20 marks a major anniversary. You'd be forgiven for not knowing it. Fifteen years
after we invaded Iraq, few in the US are addressing our legacy there. But it's worth recalling
we shattered that country.
We made it a terrorist hotspot, as expected. US and British intelligence, in the months
preceding the invasion, expected Bush's planned assault would invigorate Al-Qaeda. The group "
would see an opportunity
to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks," particularly "
in the US and UK ," assessments warned. Due course for the War on Terror.
Follow-up reports confirmed these predictions. "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause
celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and
cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement," Washington analysts explained in
2006.
Fawaz Gerges
lists two groups this milieu produced: Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), "a creature of the 2003
US-led invasion," and ISIS, "an extension of AQI."
There were good reasons for anyone -- not just jihadists -- to resent US involvement.
Consider sectarianism. "The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history
followed the 2003 US-led occupation," Sami Ramadani affirmed .
Nabil Al-Tikriti concurs , citing US
policies that "led to a progressive, incessant increase in sectarian tensions." The Shia death
squads "
organized by U.S. operatives" were one such decision.
The extent to which these squads succeeded is, in part, what scholars debate when they tally
the war deaths. Low estimates, like Iraq Body Count's, put civilians killed at just over 200,000. One research
team determined
some "half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war." Physicians for Social
Responsibility concluded "that the war has, directly or
indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq," plus 300,000 more in Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Iraqis surviving the inferno confronted a range of nightmares. The UN " reported that over 4.4
million Iraqis were internally displaced, and an additional 264,100 were refugees abroad," for
example. US forces dealt with Iraqi prisoners -- 70-90% of whom were " arrested by
mistake " -- by "arranging naked detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;" "breaking
chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;" and "forcing groups of male
detainees to masturbate themselves," to list some of the ways we imparted , with the approval of top
Bush administration officials, democratic principles.
Then there are the generations of future Iraqis in bomb-battered cities: Fallujah, Basra. In
the former, "the reported increases in cancer and infant
mortality are alarmingly high" -- perhaps "
worse than Hiroshima " -- while "birth defects reached in 2010 unprecedented
numbers." In the same vein, "a pattern of increase in congenital birth defects" plagues Basra, and
"many suspect that pollution created by the bombardment of Iraqi cities has caused the current
birth defect crisis in that country."
This bombardment began decades before 2003, it's crucial to clarify. We can recall UN
Under-Secretary-General Martti Ahtisaari's mission to Baghdad after Operation Desert Storm. He
and his team were familiar with the literature on the bombings, he wrote in March 1991, "fully
conversant with media reports regarding the situation in Iraq," but realized upon arrival "that
nothing that we had seen or read had quite prepared us for the particular form of devastation"
-- "near-apocalyptic" -- "which has now befallen the country," condemning it "to a
pre-industrial age" for the foreseeable future. This was the scale of ruin when the UN Security
Council imposed sanctions. The measures were "at every turn
shaped by the United States," whose "consistent
policy " was "to inflict the most extreme economic damage possible on Iraq."
The policy was, in this respect, a ripping success. The UN estimated
in 1995 that the sanctions had murdered over a half-million children -- " worth it ," Madeleine Albright said --
one factor prompting two successive UN Humanitarian Coordinators in Iraq to resign. Denis
Halliday
thought the sanctions "criminally flawed and genocidal;" Hans von Sponeck
agreed , citing evidence of "conscious violation of human rights and humanitarian law on
the part of governments represented in the Security Council, first and foremost those of the
United States and the United Kingdom."
Eliminating hundreds of thousands of starving children was just the prequel to the
occupation -- "the biggest cultural disaster since the descendants of Genghis Khan destroyed
Baghdad in 1258," in one writer's judgment
. But try to find more than a handful of commentators reflecting on any of these issues on this
dark anniversary. Instead, silence shows the deep US capacity for forgetting.
Nick Alexandrov lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He can be reached at: [email protected]
Western journalists, with a very small exception (real outliers), are experts at presenting
one-sided arguments, whatever the facts and evidence. Look at Meagan Kelly interviews for the inspiration.
They know how to wear down any dissident who does not buy into government talking points
If you spend any time on Twitter, you'll probably be familiar with the latest pathetic attempt to defend and insulate the U.S.
status quo from criticism. It centers around the usage of an infantile and meaningless term, "whataboutism."
Let's begin with one particularly absurd accusation of "whataboutism" promoted by
NPR
last year:
When O'Reilly countered that "Putin is a killer," Trump responded, "There are a lot of killers. You got a lot of killers. What,
you think our country is so innocent?"
This particular brand of changing the subject is called "whataboutism" -- a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet
Union and, later, Russia. And its use in Russia helps illustrate how it could be such a useful tool now, in America. As Russian
political experts told NPR, it's an attractive tactic for populists in particular, allowing them to be vague but appear straight-talking
at the same time.
The idea behind whataboutism is simple: Party A accuses Party B of doing something bad. Party B responds by changing the subject
and pointing out one of Party A's faults -- "Yeah? Well what about that bad thing you did?" (Hence the name.)
It's not exactly a complicated tactic -- any grade-schooler can master the "yeah-well-you-suck-too-so-there" defense. But it
came to be associated with the USSR because of the Soviet Union's heavy reliance upon whataboutism throughout the Cold War and
afterward, as Russia.
This is a really embarrassing take by NPR .
First, the author tries to associate a tactic that's been around since humans first wandered into caves -- deflecting attention
away from yourself by pointing out the flaws in others -- into some uniquely nefarious Russian propaganda tool. Second, that's not
even what Trump did in this example.
In his response to O'Reilly, Trump wasn't using "whataboutism" to deflect away from his own sins. Rather, he offered a rare moment
of self-reflection about the true role played by the U.S. government around the world. This isn't "whataboutism," it's questioning
the hypocrisy and abuse of power of one's own government. It's an attempt to take responsibility for stuff he might actually be able
to change as President. It's the most ethical and honest response to that question in light of the amount of violence the U.S. government
engages in abroad. If our leaders did this more often, we might stop repeatedly jumping from one insane and destructive war to the
next.
Had O'Reilly's question been about the U.S. government's ongoing support of Saudi Arabia's war crimes in Yemen and Trump shifted
the conversation to Russian atrocities, he could then be fairly accused of changing the subject to avoid accountability. In that
case, you could condemn Trump for "whataboutism" because he intentionally deflected attention away from his own government's sins
to the sins of another. This sort of thing is indeed very dangerous, especially when done by someone in a position of power.
But here's the thing. You don't need some catchy, infantile term like "whataboutism" to point out that someone in power's deflecting
attention from their own transgressions. I agree wholeheartedly with Adam Johnson when he states:
He's absolutely right. One should never rely on the lazy use of a cutesy, catchy term like "whataboutism" as a retort to someone
who points out a glaring contradiction. If you do, you're either a propagandist with no counterargument or a fool who mindlessly
adopts the jingoistic cues of others. Responding to someone by saying "that's just whataboutism" isn't an argument, it's an assault
on one's logical faculties. It's attempt to provide people with a way to shut down debate and conversation by simply blurting out
a clever sounding fake-word. Here's an example of how I've seen it used on Twitter.
One U.S. citizen (likely a card carrying member of "the resistance") will regurgitate some standard intel agency line on Syria
or Russia. Another U.S. citizen will then draw attention to the fact that their own government plays an active role in egregious
war crimes in Yemen on behalf of the Saudis. This person will proceed to advocate for skepticism with regard to U.S. government and
intelligence agency war promotion considering how badly the public was deceived in the run up to the Iraq war. For this offense,
they'll be accused of "whataboutism."
The problem with this accusation is that this person isn't switching the subject to bring up another's transgression to deflect
from scrutiny of his or her behavior. In contrast, the person is putting the conversation in its rightful place, which is to question
the behavior of one's own country. When it comes to issues such as nation-state violence, the primary duty of a citizen is not to
obsess all day about the violence perpetrated by foreign governments, but to hold one's own government accountable. This is as true
for an American citizen in American as it is for a Russian citizen in Russia.
NPR explained how the Russian government used "whataboutism" to deflect away from it's own crimes, but Trump actually did the
opposite in his interview with O'Reilly. He wasn't deflecting away from his own country's crimes, he was pointing out that they exist.
That's precisely what you're supposed to do as a citizen.
The problem arises when governments deflect attention away from their own crimes for which they are actually responsible, by pointing
out the crimes of a foreign government. This is indeed propaganda and an evasion of responsibility. Calling out your own government's
hypocrisy in matters of state sanctioned murder abroad is the exact opposite sort of thing.
Noam Chomsky put it better than I ever could. Here's what he said
in
a 2003 interview
:
QUESTION: When you talk about the role of intellectuals, you say that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country.
Could you explain this assertion?
CHOMSKY: One of the most elementary moral truisms is that you are responsible for the anticipated consequences of your own
actions. It is fine to talk about the crimes of Genghis Khan, but there isn't much that you can do about them. If Soviet intellectuals
chose to devote their energies to crimes of the U.S., which they could do nothing about, that is their business. We honor those
who recognized that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country. And it is interesting that no one ever asks for an explanation,
because in the case of official enemies, truisms are indeed truisms. It is when truisms are applied to ourselves that they become
contentious, or even outrageous. But they remain truisms. In fact, the truisms hold far more for us than they did for Soviet dissidents,
for the simple reason that we are in free societies, do not face repression, and can have a substantial influence on government
policy. So if we adopt truisms, that is where we will focus most of our energy and commitment. The explanation is even more obvious
than in the case of official enemies.
Naturally, truisms are hated when applied to oneself. You can see it dramatically in the case of terrorism. In fact one of
the reasons why I am considered "public enemy number one" among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention
that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many
intellectuals, including left-liberal intellectuals, because if we faced such truths we could do something about the terrorist
acts for which we are responsible, accepting elementary moral responsibilities instead of lauding ourselves for denouncing the
crimes official enemies, about which we can often do very little.
Elementary honesty is often uncomfortable, in personal life as well, and there are people who make great efforts to evade it.
For intellectuals, throughout history, it has often come close to being their vocation. Intellectuals are commonly integrated
into dominant institutions. Their privilege and prestige derives from adapting to the interests of power concentrations, often
taking a critical look but in very limited ways. For example, one may criticize the war in Vietnam as a "mistake" that began with
"benign intentions". But it goes too far to say that the war is not "a mistake" but was "fundamentally wrong and immoral". the
position of about 70 percent of the public by the late 1960s, persisting until today, but of only a margin of intellectuals. The
same is true of terrorism. In acceptable discourse, as can easily be demonstrated, the term is used to refer to terrorist acts
that THEY carry out against US, not those that WE carry out against THEM. That is probably close to a historical universal. And
there are innumerable other examples.
For saying the above, Noam Chomsky would surely be labeled the godfather of "whataboutism" by Twitter's resistance army, but he's
actually advocating the most ethical, logical and courageous path of citizenship. U.S. taxpayers aren't paying for Russia's military
operations, but they are paying for the U.S. government's. The idea that U.S. citizens emphasizing U.S. violence are committing the
thought-crime of "whataboutism" when it comes to foreign policy is absurd. Our primary responsibility as citizens is our own aggressive
and violent foreign policy, not that of other countries.
Naturally, this isn't how neocon/neoliberal and intelligence agency imperialists want you to think. Proponents of the American
empire need the public to ignore the atrocities of the U.S. government and its allies for obvious reasons, while constantly obsessing
over the atrocities of the empire's official enemies. This is the only way to continue to exert force abroad without domestic pushback,
and it's critical in order to keep the imperial gravy train going for those it benefits so significantly. How do you shut down vibrant
foreign policy debate on social media that exposes imperial hypocrisy? Accuse people of "whataboutism."
That's what I see going on. I see the weaponization of a cutesy, catchy term on social media in order to prevent people from
questioning their own government. It's completely logical and ethical for U.S. citizens to push back against those arguing for more
regime change wars by pointing out the evils of our own foreign policy.
In fact, the unethical position is the one espoused by those who claim the U.S. can do no wrong, but when an adversary country
does what we permit ourselves to do, they must be bombed into oblivion. These people know they have no argument, so they run around
condemning those trying to hold their own government accountable of "whataboutism." It's a nonsensical term with no real meaning
or purpose other than to defend imperial talking points.
Accusations of "whataboutism" amount to a cynical, sleazy attempt to stifle debate without actually engaging in argument.
It's also the sort of desperate and childish propaganda tactic you'd expect during late-stage imperial decline.
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly
Patron
, or visit our
Support Page
to show your appreciation for
independent content creators.
"... Just like MH17, or the alleged (but fake) poison gas attacks in Syria, the policy has been to launch an initial barrage of accusations completely unsupported by the slightest shred of evidence – and then drop the matter abruptly, leaving the public with a strong impression of "Russian wickedness" although nothing has actually been proved. ..."
"... Skripal and daughter cheap, convenient, collateral damage for the warmongers. A person trained to handle organic nerve material introduces it into Skripal's car, they go for a morning drive and stop to have a pizza. After pizza, they begin to feel a little queasy. Go sit on a park bench. A passing citizen sees them, calls for medical assistance. Doctor says probably poisoned by toxic agent. Doctor knows it was not highly refined military grade. ..."
"... Car is lifted by straps so as not poison others and hauled to Potent Downs or whatever the Nerve Agent Factory is called. Now it can be doctored to fit the crime and I don't mean the Russians. How am I doing? Got a better tale? ..."
"... Now, I do understand that you – and most Brits – think that you are special. That there is one set of rules for you, and another for the ' others '. You have been conditioned by propaganda to assert this without any shame and to demonise Russia based on decades of half-witted stories (most taken out of context and exaggerated). Why would anyone take you seriously? ..."
"... People who walk around saying that they are exceptional, meaning they are 'Gods', or that they talk 'to God', are generally ignored or kept in an institution. Claiming that you are 'exceptional and special' is the same as claiming that you are divine – that's what it has meant historically. ..."
"Sir, Further to your report ("Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment", TIMES Mar
14)' may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in
Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several
people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None
has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have
shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent
involved."
Stephen Davies. Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust.
Meanwhile, a doctor who was one of the first people at the scene has described how
she found Ms Skripal..She said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying "there was no
sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripals face or body."
The woman, who asked not to be named, told the NNC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery
position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father.
she said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical
agent on Ms Skripal's face or body.
The doctor said she had been worried she would be affected by the nerve agent, hut added that
she "feels fine".
Some nerve agent.
We read that Vladimir Putin's passport was found three days later at the scene.
One wonders how the Skripals are right now. Have they recovered completely, or partially? Are
they still deathly ill? Has one or both of them died?
In any case, why have there been no public announcements of these important facts? It is
useless to cite privacy, when the government hastened to trumpet the case – and its own
dubious conclusions – as publicly as possible.
Just like MH17, or the alleged (but fake) poison gas attacks in Syria, the policy has been
to launch an initial barrage of accusations completely unsupported by the slightest shred of
evidence – and then drop the matter abruptly, leaving the public with a strong
impression of "Russian wickedness" although nothing has actually been proved.
Incidentally, I wonder where the Skripals are and why. Apparently the Russian government
applied for consular access to Yulia (who is a Russian citizen) but this was bluntly refused
– against all norms of international law and civilized behaviour.
Skripal and daughter cheap, convenient, collateral damage for the warmongers. A person
trained to handle organic nerve material introduces it into Skripal's car, they go for a
morning drive and stop to have a pizza. After pizza, they begin to feel a little queasy. Go
sit on a park bench. A passing citizen sees them, calls for medical assistance. Doctor says
probably poisoned by toxic agent. Doctor knows it was not highly refined military grade.
How does the doctor know this: He is just down the street from the British Nerve Agent
Factory and has been trained to recognize and treat real exposures to potent nerve agents. A
policeman ends up in same hospital as Skripal because he sees car parked overtime or
illegally, opens door to check for ownership gets zapped by toxic agent. Car is lifted by
straps so as not poison others and hauled to Potent Downs or whatever the Nerve Agent Factory
is called. Now it can be doctored to fit the crime and I don't mean the Russians. How am I
doing? Got a better tale?
Good, understanding that you are a joke is the first step on the road to possible
recovery.
Try for once to imagine a reverse scenario: an Englishman dies under suspicious
circumstances in a provincial town in Russia. (Or 3-4 of them over 15-20 years.) He was
considered a 'traitor' by UK for whatever reason. Immediately Russia declares that it was an
' unacceptable attack on Russia's sovereignty, that Britain did it, and that it is 'highly
likely' that Teresa May ordered it herself' . Russian government also says that they will
not disclose any details, show no evidence and will not even allow basis diplomatic protocol
for UK embassy. Why? For reasons of ' state security '. Wouldn't any rational outsider
consider that a joke?
Now, I do understand that you – and most Brits – think that you are
special. That there is one set of rules for you, and another for the ' others '. You
have been conditioned by propaganda to assert this without any shame and to demonise Russia
based on decades of half-witted stories (most taken out of context and exaggerated). Why
would anyone take you seriously?
People who walk around saying that they are exceptional, meaning they are 'Gods', or
that they talk 'to God', are generally ignored or kept in an institution. Claiming that you
are 'exceptional and special' is the same as claiming that you are divine – that's what
it has meant historically.
"... "There would be some concern (in the region), I think, about how we intended to address that particular threat if it was not being addressed through the JCPOA. ... Right now, I think it is in our interest" ..."
"... "I don't know that that's our particular policy at this particular point. Our focus remains on the defeat of ISIS," ..."
Tillerson had joined Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in pressing a skeptical Trump to stick
with the agreement with Iran.
"There would be some concern (in the region), I think, about how we intended to
address that particular threat if it was not being addressed through the JCPOA. ... Right
now, I think it is in our interest" to stay in the deal, Votel said.
When a lawmaker asked whether he agreed with Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff General Joseph Dunford's position on the deal,Votel said: "Yes, I share their
position."
Mattis said late last year that the United States should consider staying in the Iran
nuclear deal unless it was proven Tehran was not complying or that the agreement was not in the
U.S. national interest.
A collapse of the Iran nuclear deal would be a "great loss," the United Nations atomic
watchdog's chief warned Trump recently, giving a wide-ranging defense of the accord.
Iran has stayed within the deal's restrictions since Trump took office but has fired
diplomatic warning shots at Washington in recent weeks. It said on Monday that it could rapidly
enrich uranium to a higher degree of purity if the deal collapsed.
Syria
Votel also discussed the situation in
Syria at the hearing.
During the Syrian army's offensive in eastern Ghouta, more than 1,100 civilians have died.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, backed by Russia and Iran, say they are targeting
"terrorist" groups shelling the capital.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley warned on Monday that Washington "remains
prepared to act if we must," if the U.N. Security Council failed to act on Syria.
Votel said the best way to deter Russia, which backs Assad, was through political and
diplomatic channels.
"Certainly if there are other things that are considered, you know, we will do what we are
told. ... (But) I don't recommend that at this particular point," Votel said, in an apparent
to reference to military options.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked whether it was too strong to say that with Russia
and Iran's help, Assad had "won" the civil war in Syria.
"I do not think that is too strong of a statement," Votel said.
Graham also asked if the United States' policy on Syria was still to seek the removal of
Assad from power.
"I don't know that that's our particular policy at this particular point. Our focus
remains on the defeat of ISIS," Votel said, using an acronym for Islamic State. "
Zerohedge
Votel would never say anything like this if he were not in agreement with Mattis and
Dunford. This is illustrative of a weakening of Israeli/AIPAC/Saudi influence in US Middle East
policy. It will be interesting to see if Votel is rebuked for these statements. pl
catherine ,
19 March 2018 at 05:03 PM
After an hour of searches have not found a single major media outlet or press has quoted
anything Votel said in the hearing about the Iran deal.
Instead they have headlines and coverage/quotes only about Russia's meddling in Syria.
Therefore the public will not know that those like Tillerson, Mattis and JCS Dunford all
agree on keeping the Iran deal...they will only read bad Russia.
Catherine notes that the MSM has said zero about what Votel, Mattis and Dunford have said or
thought about Iran and Syria. Even if our host had not made his confirming statement about
Votel's true commitment to his statements, I would have offered the secondary supposition
that Votel's commitment to these statements is true.
I would say that because of the MSM silence on them that Catherine has noted. If Votel was
making these statements as false-fog noise to hide the movement of men and materiel to use
against Iran and Syria, as WillyBilly theorizes, the MSM would be broadcasting and
highlighting the false-fog in order to keep the buildup hidden and keep Syria and Iran off
guard.
The fact that the MSM is so silent makes me think the MSM wants Votel's statements to die
in silence under the MSM Cone of Silence.
Meaning the MSM and its masters reject these statements but can only hope to starve them
of attention because the MSM couldn't prevent Votel from making them.
"... Reviewing the original Russian tape of the interviews, it became clear that the tête-à-tête showed a Putin looking patiently but supremely presidential to Russian viewers who could see the whole interviews, not just the selective selected excerpts aired by NBC and "interpreted" by Russophobe-de-jour Richard Haas. (A close adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Haas was among those who told him it was a swell idea to invade Iraq. When the anticipated "cakewalk" turned rather bloody, with no WMD to be found, Haas quit in July 2003 and became President of the Council on Foreign Relations where he is now well into his 15th year.) ..."
"... For some reason best known to Kelly and NBC, Kelly tried repeatedly to make the case that the U.S. decision to scrap the ABM treaty was a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when, she said, "the United States was reassessing its security posture." ..."
"... "Complete nonsense," was Putin's reply ("polniy chush" in Russian -- chush ringing with onomatopoeia and a polite rendering of "B.S."). Putin explained that "9/11 and the missile defense system are completely unrelated," adding that even "housewives" are able to understand that. He found occasion to use "polniy chush" (or simply "chush) several times during the interview. ..."
"... During the back-and-forth on chemical weapons, Putin not only called the accusations against Russia a lie, but saw fit to refer to Colin Powell's misbegotten speech at the UN just six weeks before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq: "It is a lie just as the vial with the white substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave to the Secretary of State." ..."
"... For good measure, Putin threw in "Why did you encourage the government coup in Ukraine?" ..."
As I watched NBC's special, "
Confronting Putin ," Friday evening, I asked myself -- naively -- what possessed President
Putin to subject himself again to what NBC calls a Megan Kelly "grilling," replete with
supercilious questions and less-than-polite interruptions, just nine months after his first
such "grilling." It then hit me that "grilling" is in the eye of the beholder.
Reviewing the original Russian tape of the interviews, it became clear that the
tête-à-tête showed a Putin looking patiently but supremely presidential to
Russian viewers who could see the whole interviews, not just the selective selected excerpts
aired by NBC and "interpreted" by Russophobe-de-jour Richard Haas. (A close adviser to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Haas was among those who told him it was a swell idea to
invade Iraq. When the anticipated "cakewalk" turned rather bloody, with no WMD to be found,
Haas quit in July 2003 and became President of the Council on Foreign Relations where he is now
well into his 15th year.)
Back to the Kelly-Putin pas de deux: At the March 1 interview the Russian President came out
swinging. When Kelly asked the first time whether there is "a new arms race right now" after
Putin's announcement of Russia's new strategic weapons, Putin reminded her that it was the U.S.
that withdrew in 2002 from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. He added that he had
repeatedly warned the Bush/Cheney administration that Russia would be forced to respond to the
dangerous upset of the strategic equilibrium.
For some reason best known to Kelly and NBC, Kelly tried repeatedly to make the case
that the U.S. decision to scrap the ABM treaty was a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11,
when, she said, "the United States was reassessing its security posture."
"Complete nonsense," was Putin's reply ("polniy chush" in Russian -- chush ringing with
onomatopoeia and a polite rendering of "B.S."). Putin explained that "9/11 and the missile
defense system are completely unrelated," adding that even "housewives" are able to understand
that. He found occasion to use "polniy chush" (or simply "chush) several times during the
interview.
Russian "Interference"
It was no surprise that Kelly was armed with an array of questions about Russian meddling in
the 2016 presidential election, and at the start of the March 2 interview asked "can we have
that discussion now?" Putin said, "I think we must discuss this issue if it keeps bothering
you." And they were off on a feckless exchange with Putin replying calming to Kelly's
hectoring.
After one interruption, Putin said, "You keep interrupting me; this is impolite." Kelly
apologized, but dutifully went on to cover what seemed to be the remainder of her accusatory
talking points. These included repeated insistence that Putin punish the click-bait farmers
indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for violating U.S. law.
No doubt fully briefed on the fact that Kelly sports a law degree, Putin asked, "Do you have
people with legal training? We cannot even launch an investigation without cause. Give us at
least an official inquiry with a statement of facts; send us an official paper."
Kelly:
"Isn't it enough that U.S. intelligence agencies and now a Special Prosecutor (sic) with a
criminal indictment -- is that not enough for you to look into it?" Putin: "Absolutely not. If
you do not have legal training, I can assure you that an inquiry is required for this." Kelly:
"I do." Putin: "Then you should understand that a corresponding official inquiry should be sent
to the Prosecutor-General's Office of the Russian Federation."
The interview got testier toward the end, as Kelly tried to fit in all her questions,
including the unsupported accusation that Syrian government forces are using chemical weapons
and that Russia bears some responsibility for this.
During the back-and-forth on chemical weapons, Putin not only called the accusations
against Russia a lie, but saw fit to refer to Colin Powell's misbegotten speech at the UN just
six weeks before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq: "It is a lie just as the vial with the white
substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave
to the Secretary of State."
For good measure, Putin threw in "Why did you encourage the government coup in
Ukraine?"
Once again for the record, President Putin finished on a familiar note: "Russia and the U.S.
should sit down and talk in order to get things straight. I have the impression that this is
what the current President wants, but he is prevented from it by some forces. We are ready to
discuss any matter, be it missile-related issues, cyberspace, or counterterrorism efforts. But
the U.S. must also be ready."
... ... ...
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Savior in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he was Chief of
the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and later conducted the morning briefings of The President's
Daily Brief to President Ronald Reagan's most senior national security advisers.
Everything that Saker wrote is true, but he also makes it read a little bit complicated.
Things are much simpler. During my career as a market researcher in a Western country, I once slipped in into some commercial
research that I was doing a test of what kind of message do people react to. The results were really shocking (to me): in rounded
figures, 91% of people reacted to an emotional message and only 9% reacted to a rational message. In other words, if you want
to promote almost anything, appeal to the emotional or even animal part of the human nature not to the ratio. This is exactly
what the Western propaganda is doing and this is why it works.
Think for a moment about the implications of the fact that 91% of people are prone to being emotionally manipulated (including
hysterics):
1) on democracy,
2) on drive towards war and so on.
Again, if you want to manipulate people forget about facts and just employ words and images that can elicit emotions and a
large (democratic) majority will follow you even off the cliff .
If you have not been feeling depressed already, maybe this post of mine will do it for you. That is how I feel as well.
It took a long time for you to discover (in a 'commercial research') what was known for a much longer time, the application
of these principles in advertising and propaganda 'discovered' by Edward Bernays and exposed in his 'influential book' "Propaganda"
1928. One of the techniques of propaganda is to make the recipients believe that the ideas instilled in their heads were their
own discovery.
It did not take me as long as you think. As a marketing and advertising professional (with appropriate qualifications) I was always
aware that emotional works better than rational, but I never had an idea by how much. My most extreme supposition was 2/3 to 1/3.
To end up 10:1, I never expected that.
It appears that such high proportion enables the government's/manipulators to silence the rational fraction who oppose the
dragging into a war. Without any firm evidence I do feel that if the proportion was 2/3 to 1/3 then such manipulation, leading
subjects often to mass suicide, would not be possible.
Therefore, I posit that the human society consists of three strata:
But you succeeded in creating a diversion – we are discussing your stupidity instead of an important inclination in the human
nature. Virtually all of the "democratic" system manipulations, especially the dragging of a nation into a war is based on emotional
manipulations such as the Germans bayoneting the Belgian babies, the Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators onto the cold floor,
and so on and so on. Around 91% swallow the regime's emotional crap, the remaining 9% are denounced as traitors and threatened
wth sedition laws.
"The first terrorist attack with chemical weapon on a territory of a NATO nation by a rogue state."
"Virtually all of the "democratic" system manipulations, especially the dragging of a nation into a war is based on emotional
manipulations such as the Germans bayoneting the Belgian babies, the Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators onto the cold floor,
and so on and so on."
If you are going to make this claim, then you are going to have to offer specific research studies, along with their methodologies
and sources, i.e. past studies they based their research on. Because what one person calls "emotional manipulations", another
person calls "facts".
"Around 91% swallow the regime's emotional crap, the remaining 9% are denounced as traitors and threatened wth sedition laws."
Doubling down I see without the requisite verification. Was your own "study" even replicated? You do realize that studies need
to be replicated as to offer further evidence of your conclusions. Can you even name one such study?
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling
carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing
them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to
repudiate morality while laying claim to it ( ) To tell deliberate lies while genuinely
believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it
becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to
deny the existence of objective reality"
In an essay "The Decay of Lying" (1889), Oscar Wilde launched that famous sentence: "Life
imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".
In November 2017 British TV presented the 6th session episode 5 of 'Strike Back", a
British/American action-adventure/spy-drama television series based on a novel of the same
name by novelist and former Special Air Service (SAS) soldier Chris Ryan. In it the Section
20 ("a secretive unit of British military intelligence, a team of special operations
personnel conducting several high risk missions across the globe") foiled a terrorist attack
with the gas Novichok made by Karim Markov, a Russian scientist who allegedly killed his
colleagues who invented the gas. The team duly trace the labs where Markov continues to
produce more Novichok, in Ukraine and Belarus. The cast is full with the assorted jihadis,
Russian Mafia bosses with their cruel henchmen, Hungarian white supremacists and nasty
Serbians.
You find summaries of the episodes
@https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Back:_Retribution
"It is strange that a British-American intelligence TV drama Strike Back had several
episodes featuring Novichok nerve agent and Evil Russkies last year. Someone orchestrating
political theater in the UK watches a lot of TV, or is advised by its producers."
Nobody will miss the fact that the countries which emitted the 'Joint statement' blaming
Russia's aggression are the countries which repeatedly aggressed and invaded Russia or allied
themselves with Russia's enemies. None of them were ever invaded by Russia but in pursuit of
the repelled invaders. None of them were ever threatened by a Russian invasion.
"... Russian Envoy to the UN #Nebenzya: Curious fact. Although Russia stopped all its CW programmes in 1992, the UK & the US received specialists/defectors & documentation on these projects incl. so-called Novichok in mid-1990s, continued researching CW as evidenced by open sources ..."
"... .@RussiaUN: in 1992 Russia closed all Soviet chemical weapons programmes. Some of the scientists were flown to the West (incl UK) where they continued research. To identify a substance, formula and samples are needed – means UK has capacity to produce suspected nerve agent. ..."
"... Craig Murray's excellent essay's been heavily attacked, and he's written a stimulating and educational response that further bolsters the initial essay. Quite interesting the so-called journalists supporting May's propaganda. ..."
"... Oh dear, in sacred Europe!! How about the West using nerve agents on a grand scale against its enemy Iran in the Middle East (since the Second World War)? Twenty thousand Iranians were killed on the spot by nerve gas, according to reports, with thousands of people hospitalized. According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories. ..."
"... This is the same sort of "highly likely" language that has worked so well with the false-flag attacks in Syria. It's obviously "highly likely" that there is no actual evidence. ..."
In joint statement, world leaders agree Russia behind nerve agent attack on former spy
This is the joint statement of the whirled leaders:
We, the leaders of France, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom, abhor the attack that took place against Sergei
and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, UK, on 4 March 2018. A British police officer who was also exposed in the attack remains seriously
ill, and the lives of many innocent British citizens have been threatened. We express our sympathies to them all, and our admiration
for the UK police and emergency services for their courageous response.
This use of a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve
agent in Europe since the Second World War. It is an assault on UK sovereignty and any such use by a State party is a clear
violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a breach of international law. It threatens the security of us all.
The United Kingdom briefed thoroughly its allies that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack. We
share the UK assessment that there is no plausible alternative explanation, and note that Russia´s failure to address the legitimate
request by the UK government further underlines its responsibility. We call on Russia to address all questions related to the
attack in Salisbury. Russia should in particular provide full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Our concerns are also heightened against the background of a pattern of earlier irresponsible Russian behaviour. We call
on Russia to live up to its responsibilities as a member of the UN Security Council to uphold international peace and security.
. .
here
Russian Envoy to the UN #Nebenzya: Russia destroyed all of its chemical weapons arsenals by 2017, a fact attested by @OPCW.
No research, development or manufacturing of projects codenamed Novichok has ever been carried out in Russia, all CW programmes
were stopped back in 1991-92
-
Russian Envoy to the UN #Nebenzya: Curious fact. Although Russia stopped all its CW programmes in 1992, the UK & the US received
specialists/defectors & documentation on these projects incl. so-called Novichok in mid-1990s, continued researching CW as
evidenced by open sources
-
later:
-
.@RussiaUN: in 1992 Russia closed all Soviet chemical weapons programmes. Some of the scientists were flown to the West (incl
UK) where they continued research. To identify a substance, formula and samples are needed – means UK has capacity to produce
suspected nerve agent.
Craig Murray's excellent essay's been heavily attacked, and
he's written a stimulating and
educational response that further bolsters the initial essay. Quite interesting the so-called journalists supporting May's
propaganda.
. . . the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War
Oh dear, in sacred Europe!! How about the West using nerve agents on a grand scale against its enemy Iran in the Middle East (since
the Second World War)? Twenty thousand Iranians were killed on the spot by nerve gas, according to reports, with thousands of
people hospitalized. According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in
many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that
Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi
chemical weapons factories.
. . . it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack
This is the same sort of "highly likely" language that has worked so well with the false-flag attacks in Syria. It's obviously
"highly likely" that there is no actual evidence.
With "principles" such as the end justifies the means and the wholesale violation of the
Ten Commandants all "for the greater glory of God" the western civilization got cozy with
the idea that there was no real, objective truth
Excuse me? What about western civilization before the ten commandments? Was it better or
worse in your eyes? What's so damn special about your ten commandments that their (forced)
acceptance by westerners should mark some sort of magical beginning of the true western
civilization? So we had no morality of any kind before this?
I can think of other civilizations that have nothing – and I mean nothing – to
be proud of. They make us look like amateurs in the rejection of real, objective truth.
"... Ask this, "who is pathologically obsessed with execution by gas?" Who is spearheading the "Russia is Evil" propaganda campaign? ..."
"... If Russian leadership wanted KGB/FSB/GRU/SVR to kill him, they'd done it while the man was in Russia in their custody. He would have never left the Russian prison alive, and nobody would be wiser. ..."
"... He is just not that important, that is why he was let out in a swap after spending only a few years in jail. The orchestrated hysterics and the oversize overreaction by the NATO gang is clear tell that they are the one who did it. ..."
"... Do you remember the Wikileaks about CIA having hacking tools whereby they could spoof cyber attacks form their computers yet have the signature they came from Russia (or some other country)? ..."
"... There is nothing uniquely Russian about the poison. There are no unique poisons or nerve agents. Everybody has the same things. All is being said is that the nerve agent is military grade. And England is refusing to give samples to Russia for analysis, so we don't know what it is. ..."
"... why wouldn't FSB off him by simply clubbing him to death and making it look like a mugging gone wrong: why use a military grade nerve agent of all things. Ridiculous that _anyone_ believes Russians did it. ..."
"... Boris Johnson confirmed widespread suspicions that the attack on Skripal was part of a recycled WMD hoax to justify another U.S. war of aggression, this time in Syria instead of Iraq. ..."
Because of the poison involved, they (Rus/Putin) almost certainly did it. Just
because something like this is stupid doesn't mean it should be written off. Stupid things
happen.
As I constantly iterate, never attribute to complex conspiracy what can be easily
explained by gross stupidity. Look at the Billion plus followers of the lunatic ramblings of
a desert cave dwelling freak, or the State of Utah and Planet Kolob. But your Occam's Razor
analysis also fails the smell test.
If I want to assassinate someone, using a gas, in public, is about the dumbest way to go
about it. Russia may well have wanted to send a message "for the encouragement of others" not
to betray mother Russia, but why a gas rather than oral or injected poison? Why not the old
favorite of defenestration? Or a simple GSW using Russian manufactured firearm/ammo?
Ask this, "who is pathologically obsessed with execution by gas?" Who is spearheading
the "Russia is Evil" propaganda campaign?
If Russian leadership wanted KGB/FSB/GRU/SVR to kill him, they'd done it while the man was
in Russia in their custody. He would have never left the Russian prison alive, and nobody
would be wiser.
He is just not that important, that is why he was let out in a swap after spending only a
few years in jail. The orchestrated hysterics and the oversize overreaction by the NATO gang
is clear tell that they are the one who did it.
{Do I think Russia is involved with the Skripal hit? Of course.}
Based on what?
{Because of the poison involved, they (Rus/Putin) almost certainly did it.}
Really?
Do you remember the Wikileaks about CIA having hacking tools whereby they could spoof cyber
attacks form their computers yet have the signature they came from Russia (or some other
country)?
There is nothing uniquely Russian about the poison. There are no unique poisons or nerve
agents. Everybody has the same things. All is being said is that the nerve agent is military
grade. And England is refusing to give samples to Russia for analysis, so we don't know what
it is.
{Just because something like this is stupid doesn't mean it should be written off.
Stupid things happen}
Well, yeah: stupid things happen, and smart individuals sometimes do stupid things –
but almost always for a reason, even if their actions are stupid. This should be written off,
for a very simple reason: what is the Russian motivation? This guy was released in 2010. He
was arrested in 2004: whatever damage he caused was very long ago. Why would Russian
leadership risk almost certain exposure? for what?
And as poster [Meyer] posits above in #23, why wouldn't FSB off him by simply clubbing him
to death and making it look like a mugging gone wrong: why use a military grade nerve agent
of all things. Ridiculous that _anyone_ believes Russians did it.
Speaking of "great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies," in an article in the
Washington Post on Wednesday, Boris Johnson confirmed widespread suspicions that the
attack on Skripal was part of a recycled WMD hoax to justify another U.S. war of aggression,
this time in Syria instead of Iraq.
The fact that Prime Minister May has produced no evidence that Russia was behind the
attack on Skripal, and that Secretary of Defense Mattis admits he has no evidence the Syrian
government used sarin against its own people, doesn't deter Boris Johnson from blaming Russia
for chemical attacks in both England and Syria.
From Johnson's article:
How much easier does it become for a state [Russia] to deploy chemical weapons when its
government has already tolerated and sought to hide their use by others? I would draw a
connection between Putin's indulgence of Assad's atrocities in Syria and the Russian
state's evident willingness to employ a chemical weapon on British soil.
So a neocon-orchestrated Russiagate hoax merges with a neocon-orchestrated WMD hoax in
Syria. It's all coming together.
The neocon strategy of "regime change by jihadi" in Syria has failed, and they're now
forced to dust off the bogus WMD script that wreaked so much havoc on Iraq. Unfortunately for
the neocons, Vladimir Putin has decided that Russia has nothing to lose, and probably much to
gain, by taking a stand against imperialism now, in Syria, instead of later in Iran.
Now the world is both hostage and spectator to a game of nuclear chicken. If neither
player swerves in time, planet Earth dies.
If Trump orders a climb down, the neocons will impeach him for losing Syria. But more
appeasement by Putin would only embolden the neocons to further acts of aggression.
So Putin asks: "why do we need a world if Russia ceases to exist?" He is right to frame
the showdown in Syria as a fight for Russia's existence, and Trump knows it.
Trump will have to take his chances with Mueller and the neocon crazies. Maybe the neocons
will overplay their hand and bring about their own downfall, a happy outcome for all of
humanity.
"... the fact that freedom of speech is under threat shows that the rise of mere emotive speech is still a long way from dominant. Facts and logic can still be heard and make a difference. This is why the political media elite cannot tolerate reasoned evidenced argument and is so concerned to censor dissenting voices. ..."
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling
carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing
them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to
repudiate morality while laying claim to it ( )
To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from
oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality"
Whilst there is much to be said in favour of the argument, the fact that freedom of speech is
under threat shows that the rise of mere emotive speech is still a long way from dominant.
Facts and logic can still be heard and make a difference. This is why the political media
elite cannot tolerate reasoned evidenced argument and is so concerned to censor dissenting
voices.
Up until now, I was in favor of Putin trying to keep cool demeanor and be reasonable. Time
works in favor of Russia, so simply trying to wait the Western collapse out is not
unreasonable strategy. But with the West starting to resort to something as extreme as
poisoning its own lapdogs and blaming Russia for it without presenting a single shred of
evidence, it might be a good time to reconsider and join the escalation train in earnest.
If we are in the age of ultimatums, then Moscow may want to start issuing a few of its
own. One would be to warn the West about its intention to abandon START framework within a
year and ultimately rearm to Soviet levels – 20000 strategic warheads at a minimum.
Another would be to ask Syrian government to outsource its air-defense to Russia, then issue
blanket no-flight order to all aircraft not authorized by Damascus.
Third, start arming insurgencies around the world that struggle against NATO/US presence.
Fourth, eliminate USD and GBP from its trade completely. Fifth, consider formalizing military
alliance with Iran.
There are many more steps that Russia can undertake. But whatever it chooses to do, the
somnolent posture it maintained until yesterday is no more feasible.
Respectfully, I think what he means is something that I've learned to do in the last few
years in a rather automatic fashion. Namely, it's to realise that, in the immediate aftermath
of any event, it's best to just sit back and wait a bit before you come to any sort of
conclusion about blame. In the very short term, the water, the stream is very muddy and
clouded as anybody and everybody who has – or think that they have – an interest
in the event du jour tries to spin it to their own advantage.
The truth will reveal itself inasmuch as the Internet is the World's best fact checker.
The initial story will *always* be shown to have a good deal of exaggerations,
contradictions, anomalies and omissions. But those revelations take a (usually relatively
short) bit of time. So better to look at whatever the immediate story might be with a good
deal of patient skepticism and not immediately fly off the rails in a fit of hand-waving,
eye-rolling and pearl-clutching hysterics.
Do this consistently, and I think you'll discover that:
-The truth of the matter is usually gray, with plenty of blame to go around.
-And/or you're being fed a line of pandering BS by people who think that you're a naive
and trusting idiot.
In short, act like an adult and not a dimwitted child. Use your brain and not your
emotions.
Hope this helps.
Just a thought.
VicB3
P.S. A pithy thought from Mike Rivero:
If it doesn't affect you directly, then it's either advertising or propaganda.
Re: "Almost from day one, the early western civilization began by, shall we say, taking
liberties with the truth, which it could bend, adapt, massage and repackage to serve the
ideological agenda of the day. It was not quite the full-blown and unapologetic relativism of
the 19th century yet, but it was an important first step. With "principles" such as the end
justifies the means and the wholesale violation of the Ten Commandants all "for the greater
glory of God" the western civilization got cozy with the idea that there was no real,
objective truth, only the subjective perception or even representation each person might have
thereof."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Saker is a good military analyst, but as a historian he is a laughable dilettante. He is a
very self-righteous, touchy Orthodox Christian ideologue and moralist.
The timing is once again highly suspicious with the fifa world cup around the corner. The
Empire does not want Russia on center stage with the whole world watching. Trust me, we can
expect much more to come regarding this world cup. Boycotting, sanctions and more underhanded
tactics happening are what the next month has in store for us.
I wonder just how much more Russia is able to take before it decides not to turn the other
cheek. Eventually Russia will start saying that "hold on a second, we are being judged and
punished continuously so why dont we start doing some things to at least warrant all this
punishment?"
Also, the poison, Novichok, was stored by the Soviets in states on its borders, like
Georgia and Ukraine, and Baltic states, so after those republics broke off from the USSR
during its collapse the poison fell into the hands of anti-Russian countries. It is
inconceivable that western intelligence at the collapse of the USSR would not have swooped in
and grabbed what it could in those stockpiles. In fact, in 1999 American agents spent six
million dollars in decommissioning a plant that produced Novichok in the Uzbek city of Nukus.
If you don't think that they took a little for a false flag in the future you don't know our
intelligence services.
This week poroshenko has been trying to convince the EU to designate Russia as the
Aggressor nation and to attempt to end Minsk obligations.
Chumpsky , March 14, 2018 at 10:04 pm
The Russian presidential election is coming up on Sunday. A great opportunity now for the
CIA / MI6 / Mossad backed candidate to make some noise over Putin's near-guaranteed, shoe-in
victory by planting an illegitimate narrative.
The gassing, using Novichok (an open-source formula), is just another in a long list of
false flag events carefully crafted to turn Russia, and Putin in particular, into an
international pariah and bogeyman in particular. Such an event is an attempt to throw cold
water on Trump's thawing of relations by discrediting him now that Steele has been exposed as
a fraud.
"... nd, on June 26, 2006, The Washington Post reported that "the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels." ..."
Venal Visors. And the all too easy convenience of Socializing The Costs, while Privatizing
The Profits.
Oliver North, while under oath during the IranContra Hearings: "..We didn't lose the
Vietnam war over there, we lost that war, in this city."
(..take your pick..) .. Too BIG to jail?
On April 8, 2005, CIA Director Porter Goss ordered an internal review of the CIA in order
to determine why doubts about Curveball's reliability were not forwarded to policy makers.
Former CIA Director George Tenet and his former deputy, John E. McLaughlin, announced that
they were not aware of doubts about Curveball's veracity before the war. However, Tyler
Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's European division, told the Los Angeles Times that
"everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening." .. A nd, on June 26,
2006, The Washington Post reported that "the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist
who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible
tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels."
(..take your pick..) .. Too BIG to jail?
While Mueller Was Head Of The FBI -- Hillary's email firm was run from a loft apartment in
Denver with its servers in the bathroom, which of course, should raise some questions over
security of sensitive messages (the public's property) that she held.
(..take your pick..) .. Too BIG to jail?
And, is there a softer side -- to actively engaging in war?? .. James Le Mesurier, the
creator of the White Helmets, who just happens to be a British private security specialist
and a former British military intelligence officer, he has said very recently, "who would you
trust more than the fire brigade or a first response NGO?" And, as reported by Vanessa Beeley
in a recent Corbett Report interview: "James Le Mesurier, he is now recruiting in Brazil. We
know that the White Helmets have appeared in Malaysia and in Venezuela, and in the
Philippines."
~ Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927
"American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate
these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic.
And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is
permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting
stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will
be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people."
The US State Department is spending millions of dollars spreading its own disinformation and
propping up NGOs to destroy any individual or organization that does not toe the official US
government line on the US global military empire. Through its "Global Engagement Center" the
State Department establishes in fact -- in the open -- what it accuses the Russian government
of doing without any evidence. Social media companies are colluding with the US government to
make organizations who oppose the US global military empire disappear.
RPI's Daniel McAdams joins the
Corbett Report to discuss the neocon/Washington war on dissent in America:
"... The danger lies in Washington, plus the other allied capitals within the Empire. It appears these people are beginning to truly believe their own propaganda, to the point reality no longer matters. The goal may have been to get the public to believe in the lies, however it doesn't matter what the public believes (including who was behind 9/11) because in all western countries the public has abstained from participating in decision making. Thus the brainwashers have succeeded in brainwashing themselves. This explains why it is no longer possible to make deals with the Americans. ..."
"... Yet I do not believe Washington's goal is WW3 or even world domination. It's mostly short term power tripping and money making. This explains why US allies -- who one might have thought would have some sense == are part of the problem. Kowtow to Washington and you get to stay in power, plus remain an insider on all the money making racketeering that all western governments have evolved into. ..."
"... It is all part of the collapse of ethical values in the West. Not just those in power or their lying apologists in the media but also the millions of citizens and their moral disconnect. ..."
"... Personally I don't think the dynamic is going to change until China and Russia crash the global economy (assuming they can do it on their own). Even that runs the risk of Washington lashing out in the most outrageous ways. But if you could bankrupt the West before we blow everything up then maybe there'd be reason to hope. ..."
"... Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen are all failed states. America needs to be the next failed state. If the English speaking world and the EU are collateral damage then that's probably poetic justice. ..."
The danger lies in Washington, plus the other allied capitals within the Empire. It
appears these people are beginning to truly believe their own propaganda, to the point
reality no longer matters. The goal may have been to get the public to believe in the lies,
however it doesn't matter what the public believes (including who was behind 9/11) because in
all western countries the public has abstained from participating in decision making. Thus
the brainwashers have succeeded in brainwashing themselves. This explains why it is no longer
possible to make deals with the Americans.
Yet I do not believe Washington's goal is WW3 or even world domination. It's mostly
short term power tripping and money making. This explains why US allies -- who one might have
thought would have some sense == are part of the problem. Kowtow to Washington and you get to
stay in power, plus remain an insider on all the money making racketeering that all western
governments have evolved into.
It is all part of the collapse of ethical values in the West. Not just those in power
or their lying apologists in the media but also the millions of citizens and their moral
disconnect. What the Asians must think of all this! The Russians, Chinese and Iranians
must feel they are juggling live explosives. Give them credit for managing so well, so far.
Will Washington toss more explosives at them to juggle? So many it's impossible to keep it
up? I can only guess that Putin's speech was an attempt to warn Washington to stop.
Personally I don't think the dynamic is going to change until China and Russia crash
the global economy (assuming they can do it on their own). Even that runs the risk of
Washington lashing out in the most outrageous ways. But if you could bankrupt the West before
we blow everything up then maybe there'd be reason to hope.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen are all failed states. America
needs to be the next failed state. If the English speaking world and the EU are collateral
damage then that's probably poetic justice.
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Under Secretary Goldstein. "It is not merely a defensive posture that we should take, we also need to be on the offensive. ..."
"... Israel is long known for such information operations in which its paid trolls not only comment on issues on social media but actively manipulate Wikipedia entries. Such astroturfing has since become a common tool in commercial marketing campaigns. ..."
"... With regard to the larger issue, it seems that the US is getting more and more like its allies Ukraine (drives out any press concerned with printing the truth, relies on a bombastic and entirely false narrative to try and convince its hapless citizens that all is great and everything is Russia's fault) and Israel (an early leader in manipulating online info as b states). ..."
"... If it sounds like a PR monkey banging away on a regurgitated theme, it probably is. For example, the endless repetition in US media about "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" with no on-the-ground supporting evidence is typical of a Rendon Group disinformation campaign; so then they hire a hundred trolls to post outraged comments about 'Syrian chemical weapons use' in comment sections and on twitter; then they hire some State Department intern to write a book about the horrors of the Assad regime, and at the end they collect their $10 million paycheck. ..."
"... The hypocrisy of the U$A continues to be staggering.. If the collective IQ's of the general public approached double digits, the disinformation and propaganda afoot, couldn't gain much traction. As comedian Richard Pryor once said, " Who you gonna' believe, the propagandists, or your lying eyes." ..."
"... money for propaganda... that was back in 1984 - we have progressed from Orwell's version of reality to a new one where reality is what you make of it... meanwhile there will be more dead people that the sponsors of these troll farms, could care less about... although they will frame it - 180% of that... ..."
The U.S. State Department will increase its online trolling capabilities and up its support
for meddling in other countries. The Hill
reports :
The State Department is launching a $40 million initiative to crack down on foreign
propaganda and disinformation amid widespread concerns about future Russian efforts to
interfere in elections.
The department announced Monday that it signed a deal with the Pentagon to transfer $40
million from the Defense Department's coffers to bolster the Global Engagement Center, an
office set up at State during the Obama years to expose and counter foreign propaganda and
disinformation.
The professed reason for the new funding is the alleged but unproven "Russian meddling" in
the U.S. election campaign. U.S. Special Counsel Mueller indicted 13 Russians for what is
claimed to be interference but which
is likely mere commercial activity.
The announcement by the State Department
explains that this new money will not only be used for measures against foreign trolling but to
actively meddle in countries abroad:
Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steve Goldstein said the
transfer of funds announced today reiterates the United States' commitment to the fight.
"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to
malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our
allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Under Secretary Goldstein.
"It is not merely a defensive posture that we should take, we also need to be on the
offensive. "
The mentioning of Silicon Valley is of interest. The big Silicon Valley companies Google,
Facebook and Twitter were heavily involved in the U.S. election campaign. The companies
embedded
people within the campaigns to advise them how to reach a maximum trolling effect:
While the companies call it standard practice to work hand-in-hand with high-spending
advertisers like political campaigns, the new research details how the staffers assigned to
the 2016 candidates frequently acted more like political operatives, doing things like
suggesting methods to target difficult-to-reach voters online, helping to tee up responses to
likely lines of attack during debates, and scanning candidate calendars to recommend ad
pushes around upcoming speeches.
Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one
that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the
Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find
and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic
front-runner.
In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of
trolling that already exists online.
Clinton is quite experienced in such issues. In 2009, during protests in Iran, then
Secretary of State Clinton pushed Twitter to defer
maintenance of its system to "help" the protesters. In 2010 USAid, under the State Department
set up a
Twitter-like service to meddle in Cuba.
The foreign policy advisor of Hillery Clinton's campaign, Laura Rosenberger,
initiated and runs the Hamilton68 project which
falsely explains any mentioning of issues disliked by its neo-conservative backers as the
result of nefarious "Russian meddling".
The State Department can build on that and other experience.
Since at least 2011
the U.S. military is manipulating social media via sock puppets and trolls:
A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command
(Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop
what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman
or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
...
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing
background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be
able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by
sophisticated adversaries".
It was then wisely predicted that other countries would follow up:
The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to
users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments,
private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
Israel is long known for such information
operations in which its paid trolls not only comment on issues on social media but
actively
manipulate Wikipedia entries. Such astroturfing has since become a common tool in
commercial marketing campaigns.
With the new money the State Department will expand its Global Engagement Center
(GEC) which is running "public diplomacy", aka propaganda, abroad:
The Fund will be a key part of the GEC's partnerships with local civil society organizations,
NGOs, media providers, and content creators to counter propaganda and disinformation. The
Fund will also drive the use of innovative messaging and data science techniques.
Separately, the GEC will initiate a series of pilot projects developed with the Department
of Defense that are designed to counter propaganda and disinformation. Those projects will be
supported by Department of Defense funding.
This money will be in addition to the large funds the CIA
traditionally spends on manipulating foreign media:
"We've been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947," said Mr. Johnson,
now at the University of Georgia. "We've used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you
name it. We've planted false information in foreign newspapers. We've used what the British
call 'King George's cavalry': suitcases of cash."
...
C.I.A. officials told Mr. Johnson in the late 1980s that "insertions" of information into
foreign news media, mostly accurate but sometimes false, were running at 70 to 80 a day.
Part of the new State Department money will be used to provide grants. If online trolling or
sock puppetry is your thing, you may want to apply now.
Posted by b on February 26, 2018 at 02:02 PM |
Permalink
"to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic
front-runner"
I call these social media watchers rather than trolls. Rather than simply trying to
disrupt any and all social media threads they don't like, social media watchers look for
comments or comment threads that are disparaging or damaging to their employer.
#2 @Peter AU 1 - I would say the language "to find and CONFRONT" sounds pretty much like
troll behavior.
With regard to the larger issue, it seems that the US is getting more and more like its
allies Ukraine (drives out any press concerned with printing the truth, relies on a bombastic
and entirely false narrative to try and convince its hapless citizens that all is great and
everything is Russia's fault) and Israel (an early leader in manipulating online info as b
states).
That $40 million will probably be pissed away on a couple sweetheart contracts to Tillerson
friends and nobody will see a difference. US State Department propaganda programs, labeled as
"public diplomacy" and other monikers, have been around for a long time but haven't been
executed very well.
From the State Dept. historian office, 2013: . .(excerpt):
Public Diplomacy Is Still in Its Adolescent Stage in the State Department , etc.
. . . The process of convergence has been evolutionary. Secretary Powell grasped the power
of the information revolution, reallocated positions and resources from traditional
diplomatic posting to new areas and recognized the power of satellite television to move
publics and constrain governments even in authoritarian regimes. Secretary Rice forwarded
this reconceptualization under the rubric of "Transformational Diplomacy," which sought to
help people transform their own lives and the relationship between state and society.
Secretary Clinton continued the theme under the concept of "Smart Power." "Person-to-person
diplomacy in today's work is as important as what we do in official meetings in national
capitals across the globe," Clinton said in 2010.The work done by PD officials in Arab
Spring countries beginning in 2011 was as much about capacity-building as advocating U.S.
policies or directly trying to explain American culture. . . here
Prior efforts were targeted more at traditional news outlets, this is just an expansion into
social media along the lines of previous work, example A being the Rendon Group in Iraq,
etc. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rendon_Group
If it sounds like a PR monkey banging away on a regurgitated theme, it probably is. For
example, the endless repetition in US media about "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" with no
on-the-ground supporting evidence is typical of a Rendon Group disinformation campaign; so
then they hire a hundred trolls to post outraged comments about 'Syrian chemical weapons use'
in comment sections and on twitter; then they hire some State Department intern to write a
book about the horrors of the Assad regime, and at the end they collect their $10 million
paycheck.
Media watchers target specific comments or comment threads, in the case stated by b, those
disparaging or damaging to Clinton.
What I term trolls target blogs or social media accounts that are considered targets, no
matter the content of a particular article or comment thread. Social media media watchers are
a little more specialized than trolls and look for specific content.
P.S. it's funny that you can find out what these clowns are up to by looking for job listings
and salary reports:
The Rendon Group Social Media Specialist Salary | Glassdoor
Average [monthly] salaries for The Rendon Group Social Media Specialist: $2,520. The Rendon
Group salary trends based on salaries posted anonymously by The Rendon Group employees.
Talk about a soul-destroying job. Right up there with Wikipedia page editor.
I see what you are alluding to, but the only problem with it is that, irrespective of the
differing definitions, at heart, these infiltrators are a disrupting force on the message
boards, whether paid to be or not. Their medium is disruption and obfuscation. I tried to
wade into the neoliberal viper's den at slate.com un the past to post "alt-right" stuff and
was quickly attacked by multiple avatars.
In essence, one troll disrupts because he has a need for recognition, and the latter
disrupts for money. Both are netgain for the troll and loss for the rest of us.
The hypocrisy of the U$A continues to be staggering.. If the collective IQ's of the general public approached double digits, the disinformation
and propaganda afoot, couldn't gain much traction. As comedian Richard Pryor once said, " Who you gonna' believe, the propagandists, or your
lying eyes."
thanks b... troll farms looks like a good name for it... farming for the empire.. they could
call it that too.. russia as trend setter, lol.. i don't think so!
speaking of troll farms, i see max Blumenthal came out with some 'about time' comments on
the sad kettle of fish called 'democracy now'... here is his tweet - "If @democracynow is
going to push the neocon project of regime change in Syria so relentlessly and without
debate, it should drop the high minded literary NPR aesthetic and just host Nikki Haley for a
friendly one-on-one #EstablishmentNow https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/967123918237655041
7:07 AM - Feb 25, 2018 "
money for propaganda... that was back in 1984 - we have progressed from Orwell's version of
reality to a new one where reality is what you make of it... meanwhile there will be more
dead people that the sponsors of these troll farms, could care less about... although they
will frame it - 180% of that...
The silver lining here is that the state dept. is in a sense admitting that there is nothing
"in the pipe" relating to outright censorship whether through nefarious agreements between
ISP providers and the IC via the repeal of net neutrality.
$40 mil is a lot for liberal college graduates however.
Nonsense Factory @ 8, Peter AU 1 @ 9: There are plenty of communities in rural Australia
who'd be glad to have troll farms paying that sort of money (even as Australian dollars - 1
Australian dollar being worth about US$0.76 at this time of posting) a month. Real farmers
could do trolling on the side during slow seasons of the year and make some money.
What we need are some Mole Trolls, or maybe that's Troll Moles--double agents if you will
that work for 6-12 months recording 100% of all they do then reveal it all in an expose.
Getting ready for mid-terms. It's going to be interesting to see if the Democrats get wiped
off the map. They should be able to hire quite a few people for $40 million. Don't be
surprised if they deploy AI in the first wave, then follow up with a real person.
ben @13:
Turn off your I phones, and think a little.
ROFL After wandering aimlessly in the mall with Her Majesty over the weekend, I'm not sure
if that's even possible now.
"The big Silicon Valley companies Google, Facebook and Twitter were heavily involved in the
U.S. election campaign. The companies embedded people within the campaigns to advise them how
to reach a maximum trolling effect:"
It went much further than that . Google actually tweaked its algorithms to alter search
recommendations in favor of the Clinton campaign. A comparative analysis of search engines
Google, Bing and Yahoo showed that Google differed significantly from the other two in
producing search recommendations relevant to Clinton.
The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The
U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap.
How to stop it is the only question, to stop the impunity with which these criminals like
Bush and Trump and Obama and Mattis et.al. lie with their pants on fire and .....they all
suck .01% dick.
It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over
this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he
laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause.
Two days before 9/11, Condoleeza Rice received the draft of a formal National Security
Presidential Directive that Bush was expected to sign immediately. The directive contained
a comprehensive plan to launch a
global war on al-Qaeda , including an "imminent" invasion of Afghanistan to topple the
Taliban. The directive was approved by the highest levels of the White House and officials
of the National Security Council, including of course Rice and Rumsfeld. The same NSC
officials were simultaneously running the Dhabol Working Group to secure the Indian power
plant deal for Enron's Trans-Afghan pipeline project. The next day, one day before 9/11,
the Bush administration formally agreed on the
plan to attack the Taliban.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire
conceptualization of the 'war on terror.' Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice
president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from 1997
to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term
that I first heard at the Forum. It seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict
in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts we are now in
have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our
very way of life and impose their own."
Yeah well since the writer of the 'quiz' exposes themself as bein a troll of the worst
sort there is nothing to be said. I'm currently attempting to ingest only those newstories
where the publisher provides space for feedback from readers since if a story is truthful it
should be able to withstand challenge. yeah riight cos that means there's bugger all out
there anymore. The biggest 'win' populism has had this far is in driving all feedback off all
sites with a readership of more than a few hundred. Many of those that do allow feedback only
permit humans with credentialed facebook or google accounts to indulge and the comments are
only visible to similarly logged in types. That tells us a lot about the lack of faith the
corporate media actually have in the nonsense they publish.
Of course 'trolls' are the ones held to be the guilty for causing this but if you actually
watch what happens in a feedback column such as the rare occasions when the graun still
permits CIF comments it isn't the deliberately offensive arseholes spouting the usual cliches
who get deleted, it is those who put forward a considered argument which details why the
original writer has reached a faulty conclusion.
We all know this yet it seems as though none of us are prepared to confront it properly as
the censorship it is.
IMO media outlets which continually lie or at least distort the truth to advance a particular
agenda need to be called to account.
Massed pickets outside newsrooms would be a good way cos as much as media hate us loudmouths
who won't swallow their bromides, they like their competition even less. A decently organised
picket of NYT, WaPo or the Graun would be news in every other spineless, propagandising &
slug-featured media entity.
Said troll was published in Richmond and God only knows who else picked it up. I refuted
it in the comments as best I could, also excerpting MOA. Regardless:
Among Rendon's activities was the creation of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC)
on behalf of the CIA, a group of Iraqi exiles tasked with disseminating propaganda,
including much of the false intelligence about WMD . That process
had begun concertedly under the administration of George H W. Bush, then rumbled along
under Clinton with little fanfare, before escalating after 9/11 under George W. Bush.
Rendon thus played a large role in the manufacture of inaccurate and false news stories
relating to Iraq under lucrative CIA and Pentagon contracts -- and he did so
in the period running up to the 2003 invasion as an advisor to Bush's National
Security Council: the same NSC, of course, that planned the invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq, achieved with input from Enron executives who were simultaneously engaging the
Pentagon Highlands Forum.
Mass surveillance and data-mining also now has a distinctive operational purpose in
assisting with the lethal execution of special operations, selecting targets for the CIA's
drone strike kill lists via dubious algorithms, for instance, along with providing
geospatial and other information for combatant commanders on land, air and sea, among many
other functions. A single social media post on Twitter or Facebook is enough to trigger
being placed on secret terrorism watch-lists solely due to a vaguely defined hunch or
suspicion; and can potentially even land a suspect on a kill list.
In 2011, the Forum hosted two DARPA-funded scientists, Antonio and Hanna Damasio, who are
principal investigators in the 'Neurobiology of Narrative Framing' project at the
University of Southern California. Evoking Zalman's emphasis on the need for Pentagon
psychological operations to deploy "empathetic influence," the new DARPA-backed project
aims to investigate how narratives often appeal "to strong, sacred values in order to evoke
an emotional response," but in different ways across different cultures
This goes a long way toward explaining what is occurring in Hollywood and Nashville.
Truth is the first victim of war. This is also true about the Cold War II with Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks, is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?" ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet, there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and its allies ..."
"... This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate is about China. ..."
"... In an essay titled "Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader ..."
"... So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" ..."
"... The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please." A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives better. ..."
"... So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that they are helping to resist Trump. ..."
MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question
of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks,
is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?"
Hayes asked this fake question because he works for MSNBC and it is therefore his job, and he asked it in response to a report
first made viral by deranged espionage LARPer
Eric Garland that a Dutch intelligence agency had been observing Russian hackers attacking US political parties in advance of
the 2016 election. Like all "bombshell" Russiagate reports, this one roared through social media like wildfire carried on the wings
of liberal hysteria about the current administration, only to be exposed as being riddled with gaping plot holes as
documented here
by independent journalist Suzie Dawson. The report revolves around an allegedly Russian cyber threat now known in the west as "Cozy
Bear," which as Real News ' Max Blumenthal
notes is not a network of hackers but "a Russian-sounding name the for-profit firm Crowdstrike assigned to an APT to market its
findings to gullible reporters desperate for Russiagate scoops."
This "bombshell" overlapped with another as it was reported by the New York
Times that at one point many months ago Trump had wanted to fire Robert Mueller, but then didn't.
*Cough.*
Why does this keep happening? Why does the public keep getting sold a mountain of suspicion with zero substance? Over and over
and over again these "bombshell" stories come out about Trump and Russia, Russia and Trump, only to be
debunked ,
retracted , or
erased from the spotlight after people start actually reading the allegations and thinking critically about them and see they're
not the shocking bombshells they purport to be? These allegations are all premised upon claims made the US intelligence community,
which has an extensive and well-documented history of lying to advance its agendas, as well as
porous claims made by an
extremely shady and insanely profitable
private cyber security company, and yet all we're ever shown is smoke and mirrors with no actual fire.
Why is that?
You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine
what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the
consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began
telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet,
there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and
its allies.
That would be a very different narrative with a very different effect, wouldn't it? But that's exactly what's going on here, and
if the US power establishment and its propaganda machine were in the business of telling people the truth, that's precisely what
they'd say.
It's not a secret that China has been working to surpass the United States as the world's leading superpower as quickly as possible.
Hell, Xi Jinping
flat-out said so during a three and a half hour address last October, and
many experts think it might happen a lot
sooner than Xi's 30-year deadline. An editorial from China's state press agency about the Davos World Economic Forum
asserts that the time has come for the world to choose between the "Xi-style collaborative approach" and Trump's "self-centred
America First policy (which) has led his country away from multiple multilateral pacts and infused anxiety into both allies and the
broader world." China has been collaborating with Russia to
end the hegemony of the US dollar , to
shore up control
of the Arctic as new resources become available, and just generally build up its own power and influence instead of working to
remain in Washington's good graces as most western nations have chosen to do.
Preventing this is the single most important goal of the US power establishment, not just its elected government but the unelected
plutocrats, defense and intelligence agencies which control the nation's affairs behind the scenes. This agenda is so important that
in a letter to his successor the outgoing President Barack Obama made the "indispensable"
nature of American planetary leadership his sole concrete piece of advice, and pro-establishment influence firms like Project for
a New American Century have made preventing the rise of a rival superpower their
stated primary goal
.
This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent
supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality
this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate
is about China.
In an essay titled
"Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst
Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic
power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine
the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that
poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader .
"Russia is essential to China because of Moscow's long experience managing global relations going back to the period of the Cold
War and because of its willingness and ability today to stand up directly to the American hegemon," writes Doctorow, "whereas China,
with its heavy dependence on its vast exports to the U.S., cannot do so without endangering vital interests. Moreover, since the
Western establishment sees China as the long-term challenge to its supremacy, it is best for Beijing to exercise its influence through
another power, which today is Russia."
So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is
attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment
and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that
he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" after much badgering from
Fox's Tucker Carlson about his incendiary claims that the alleged cyberattacks constituted an "act of war." It is worth noting here
that despite Swalwell's repeated hysterical claims about Trump and Russia, he
recently voted to renew the treasonous Kremlin-colluding president's godlike surveillance powers anyway.
Establishment muppets like Swalwell and the unelected elites who own them don't care about Trump, they care about crippling China's
right arm Russia so that they can set about sabotaging the agendas of a potential rival superpower unimpeded by the skilful opposition
of a nuclear superpower. But, getting back to the hypothetical situation I asked you to envision earlier, they can't just come right
out and say that.
They can't. The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't
just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so
we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars
and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll
also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please."
A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives
better.
Just as importantly, the rest of the world would recoil in revulsion.
So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria
about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that
they are helping to resist Trump. They think they're lying to you for your own good, because you can't understand how important
it is that they do what they're trying to do. That's why there are so many gaping plot holes and none of this ever quite adds up;
they're lying to you like a parent telling a child he needs to eat his broccoli if he doesn't want a lump of coal for Christmas.
Except instead of eating broccoli it's consenting to dangerous escalations and military expansionism, and instead of a parent it's
a class of elitist sociopaths, and you're always going to get coal.
And sure, an argument can be made that the world is better off under the watchful domination of the US power establishment than
it would be with multipolar power arrangements, and I encounter many establishment loyalists who make precisely that argument. Personally
I would argue that the
death, destruction
and mayhem caused by the intrinsically evil things the US establishment must do in order to maintain dominance completely invalidate
that argument, but it's a debate that people deserve to have, and they can't have it when they're being lied to about what's really
going on.
Insist on the truth. Keep pushing back against this pernicious psyop. Spread the word.
Support Caitlyn Johnstone's work on Patreon or
Paypal . Reprinted with author's permission from her
website .
This article is one year old but still looks like it was written yesterday...
Notable quotes:
"... Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. ..."
"... "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump." ..."
"... Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria, as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line. ..."
"... For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books. ..."
On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile
strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve
agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan
Sheikhoun.
Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it
had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.
The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site
on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives.
Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been
provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose
mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.
Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's
determination to ignore the evidence.
"None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision
to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we
have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton
or Trump."
Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world's media was saturated with photographs and videos
from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms
of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White
Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.
........................
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html
Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in
the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake
the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays
Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria,
as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line.
For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker
refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home
at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books.
................
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/hershs-new-syria-revelations-buried-from-view/
White House Says It Will Fake "Chemical Weapon Attack" In Syria
The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This
is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly
be to its disadvantage.
Seymour Hirsh has been forced to get his stories published in Europe because the US and UK media
have conspired to ban his exposes of their fake news.
Hirsh has been a thorn in the side of the national security state ever since his expose of
the My Lai massacre in 1969...and they're doing their best to shut him up.
I wish Robert Parry quick and full recovery after his minor stoke. He is a magnificent journalist !
Notable quotes:
"... In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called "Establishment McCarthyism, " traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives. ..."
"... This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about "Russian propaganda" and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks" by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact. ..."
"... For instance, PolitiFact still rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly ran corrections after President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA. ..."
"... And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were sequestered away from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth that should occur inside the intelligence community. ..."
"... And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the Times has run favorable articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and other mainstream outlets deem false. ..."
"... Congress has authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts" to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy. ..."
"... And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press? ..."
"... So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism," a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged. ..."
In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the
Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called
"Establishment McCarthyism,
" traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.
This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in
fright-filled stories about "Russian
propaganda" and wildly
exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks"
by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how
reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact.
It doesn't seem to matter that the paragons of this new structure – such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and,
indeed, PolitiFact – have a checkered record of getting facts straight.
For instance, PolitiFact still
rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release
of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly
ran corrections after
President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA.
And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were
sequestered away
from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth
that should occur inside the intelligence community.
Yet, the Times and other leading newspaper routinely treat these findings as flat fact or the unassailable "consensus" of the
"intelligence community." Contrary information, including WikiLeaks' denials of a Russian role in supplying the emails, and
contrary judgments from former
senior U.S. intelligence officials are ignored.
The Jan. 6 report also tacked on a seven-page addendum smearing the Russian television network, RT, for such offenses as sponsoring
a 2012 debate among U.S. third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates. RT also
was slammed for reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and the environmental dangers from "fracking."
How the idea of giving Americans access to divergent political opinions and information about valid issues such as income inequality
and environmental dangers constitutes threats to American "democracy" is hard to comprehend.
However, rather than address the Jan. 6 report's admitted uncertainties about Russian "hacking" and the troubling implications
of its attacks on RT, the Times and other U.S. mainstream publications treat the report as some kind of holy scripture that can't
be questioned or challenged.
Silencing RT
For instance, on Tuesday, the Times published a front-page story entitled "
YouTube Gave Russians Outlet
Portal Into U.S ." that essentially cried out for the purging of RT from YouTube. The article began by holding YouTube's vice
president Robert Kynci up to ridicule and opprobrium for his praising "RT for bonding with viewers by providing 'authentic' content
instead of 'agendas or propaganda.'"
The article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Nicholas Confessore swallowed whole the Jan. 6 report's conclusion that RT is "the Kremlin's
'principal international propaganda outlet' and a key player in Russia's information warfare operations around the world." In other
words, the Times portrayed Kynci as essentially a "useful idiot."
Yet, the article doesn't actually dissect any RT article that could be labeled false or propagandistic. It simply alludes generally
to news items that contained information critical of Hillary Clinton as if any negative reporting on the Democratic presidential
contender – no matter how accurate or how similar to stories appearing in the U.S. press – was somehow proof of "information warfare."
As Daniel Lazare wrote at Consortiumnews.com
on Wednesday, "The web version [of the Times article] links to an RT interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that ran shortly
before the 2016 election. The topic is a September 2014
email obtained by Wikileaks in which Clinton acknowledges that 'the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing clandestine
financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.'"
In other words, the Times cited a documented and newsworthy RT story as its evidence that RT was a propaganda shop threatening
American democracy and deserving ostracism if not removal from YouTube.
A Dangerous Pattern
Not to say that I share every news judgment of RT – or for that matter The New York Times – but there is a grave issue of press
freedom when the Times essentially calls for the shutting down of access to a news organization that may highlight or report on stories
that the Times and other mainstream outlets downplay or ignore.
And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the
Times has run favorable
articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and
other mainstream outlets deem false.
Nor is it just the Times. Last Thanksgiving, The Washington Post ran
a fawning front-page article
about an anonymous group PropOrNot that had created a blacklist of 200 Internet sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other
independent news sources, that were deemed guilty of dispensing "Russian propaganda," which basically amounted to our showing any
skepticism toward the State Department's narratives on the crises in Syria or Ukraine.
So, if any media outlet dares to question the U.S. government's version of events – once that storyline has been embraced by the
big media – the dissidents risk being awarded the media equivalent of a yellow star and having their readership dramatically reduced
by getting downgraded on search engines and punished on social media.
Meanwhile, Congress has
authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts"
to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters
eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy.
There is also a more coercive element to what's going on. RT is facing demands from the Justice Department that it register as
a "foreign agent" or face prosecution. Clearly, the point is to chill the journalism done by RT's American reporters, hosts and staff
who now fear being stigmatized as something akin to traitors.
You might wonder: where are the defenders of press freedom and civil liberties? Doesn't anyone in the mainstream media or national
politics recognize the danger to a democracy coming from enforced groupthinks? Is American democracy so fragile that letting Americans
hear "another side of the story" must be prevented?
A Dangerous 'Cure'
I agree that there is a limited problem with jerks who knowingly make up fake stories or who disseminate crazy conspiracy theories
– and no one finds such behavior more offensive than I do. But does no one recall the lies about Iraq's WMD and other U.S. government
falsehoods and deceptions over the years?
Often, it is the few dissenters who alert the American people to the truth, even as the Times, Post, CNN and other big outlets
are serving as the real propaganda agents, accepting what the "important people" say and showing little or no professional skepticism.
And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical
examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press?
The answer seems to be that many liberals and progressives are so blinded by their fury over Donald Trump's election that they
don't care what lines are crossed to destroy or neutralize him. Plus, for some liberal entities, there's lots of money to be made.
For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union has made its "resistance" to the Trump administration an important part of its
fundraising. So, the ACLU is doing nothing to defend the rights of news organizations and journalists under attack. When I asked
ACLU about the Justice Department's move against RT and other encroachments on press freedom, I was told by ACLU spokesman Thomas
Dresslar: "Thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, I've been informed that we do not have anyone able to speak to you about
this."
Meanwhile, the Times and other traditional "defenders of a free press" are now part of the attack machine against a free press.
While much of this attitude comes from the big media's high-profile leadership of the anti-Trump Resistance and anger at any resistors
to the Resistance, mainstream news outlets have chafed for years over the Internet undermining their privileged role as the gatekeepers
of what Americans get to see and hear.
For a long time, the big media has wanted an excuse to rein in the Internet and break the small news outlets that have challenged
the power – and the profitability – of the Times, Post, CNN, etc. Russia-gate and Trump have become the cover for that restoration
of mainstream authority.
So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism,"
a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged.
It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is
an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism
campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing
jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the
United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US
neoliberal elite.
It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.
Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."
"... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."
"... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."
"... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."
"... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."
"... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."
"... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."
"... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."
"... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."
"... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."
"... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."
"... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."
"... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."
"... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."
"... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."
"... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."
"... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."
"... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."
"... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."
"... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."
"... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."
"... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."
"... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."
"... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."
"... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."
"... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."
"... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."
American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are
troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign.
Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as
usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington.
Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means
of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered
their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a
widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more
capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ", this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
