General Reshetnikov: Return to the Empire (superbly controversial interview)

February 13, 2017General Reshetnikov: Return to the Empire (superbly controversial interview)

Foreword by the Saker:  Today I am posting a really interesting interview which will sound absolutely outlandish to a lot of you.  Get this: the person interviewed is a former KGB General who speaks about restoring the monarchy under the rule of Jesus-Christ!  And when I say “KGB General” I am being just as dishonest as the western media when it writes about Putin being a KGB officer.  Technically speaking, yes, both Putin and Reshetnikov were in the KGB and they had the little red id card which did say “KGB USSR”.  But in reality both were part of the KGB’s Foreign Intelligence Service, the First Chief Directorate (PGU) of the KGB, a completely separate branch of the KGB which even had its own, separate, headquarters in Yasenevo District in the southwest of Moscow.  The First Chief Directorate (in Russian PGU KGB SSSR) did not deal with dissent, crime, or all the other security functions of the rest of the KGB.  The PGU dealt with foreign intelligence exclusively (after the end of the Soviet Union the PGU was kept independent and renamed “SVR” or “Foreign Intelligence Service).  And it was beyond any doubt the elite, most capable, part of the KGB: only the very best were accepted there.  As for Reshetnikov, he was a top level officer responsible for an analytical Department (in Russian “Head of an informational-analytical Department”).  In other words, the guys is exceptionally intelligent and exceptionally well-educated.  One of the best analysts in Russia.  And yet he speaks of monarchy and putting Christ in power. And he lumps Communists and Liberal into one group.  How do you figure that one out?  You can dismiss him as senile, but if that is the case, his senility manifests itself in a curious way.  Besides, having seen his interviews, I can tell you that he is not senile one bit.  A clown trying to make statements to be noticed?  There are not many clowns in the PGU, even less with a rank of Lieutenant-General (that means a “three-star” general).  I won’t give you my explanation, I think that I much rather leave you with a question mark and let you ponder this weird phenomenon.  I will just say one thing: to me the views of Reshetnikov are yet another solid indicator that Russia is most definitely not part of Europe, at least not culturally.  I won’t say more 😛  Now meet our rather most interesting character!

General Reshetnikov: Return to the Empire

by Lieutenant-General Leonid Petrovich Reshetnikov

Source: http://politikus.ru/articles/90244-general-reshetnikov-vozvraschenie-k-imperii.html

Translated by Eugenia

Donbass these days is suffering under horrific artillery fire. The Ukrainian forces are maniacally firing at Donetsk, Yasinovataya, Makeevka and other cities from MLSR and howitzers. There are many wounded; civilians are being killed, houses, schools and hospitals destroyed. This bloody spectacle is organized by the Kiev junta, which ignores all calls to stop this war, instead purposefully committing genocide of the population of the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics.

When and how will this horror end? What is the meaning of this all? What are the prospects of LPR/DPR and/or Novorossiya? And, finally, is there a way to rebuild the Great Russian Empire? We addressed these questions to the former head of the Analytic Division of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation, then the Director of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, a currently the President of the society “Two-Headed Eagle” – Leonid Petrovich Reshetnikov.

Q: Donetsk and other cities of Novorossiya are under fire as we speak; the Ukrainian military are attempting to breach the front at multiple points. Why now and what is the cause of this escalation of the conflict?

A: This is a planned operation. The goal of the Kiev regime is to complicate the relations between Russia and the US. Currently, the relationship between the leadership of Russia and the new leadership of the USA is generally favorable for us. Kiev is scared; it is afraid that Ukraine will no longer be of interest to the United States and personally to Trump. For that reason, everything was planned in a way that the official visit of Poroshenko to Germany had to be interrupted because of the situation in Donbass aggravated by the Ukrainian side. We cannot exclude that Merkel was a co-conspirator in this; possibly, she herself initiated that action to undermine the Russian-American negotiations. The fear of Europe is no less than the fear of Ukraine. If the relations between Russia and US improve – Europe would be left out in the cold. Thus, on the initiative of some European politicians the Kiev criminals are murdering the civilians in Donetsk and Lugansk Republics in order to attain their chimeric foreign policy goals. They are attempting by such means to save their regime, to prove their usefulness. However, they are unlikely to succeed in preventing the improvement in the relations between Russia and the US.

The Kiev scum – Poroshenko, Parubiy and others – have built such a reputations for themselves on the war against their own people that they will certainly come to a sticky end. The best option – to flee abroad, otherwise they will pay dearly. I believe the Kremlin understands perfectly that the Kiev authorities are not partners but criminals that usurped power, and no negotiations with them are possible. I want to emphasize: the Kiev regime is doomed, and no provocations, no amount of artillery fire at Donetsk and other cities, no attempts at offensives will accomplish anything for Poroshenko and Co, except yet another brand mark on the foreheads of these scoundrels.

Leonid Petrovich, you were for a long time the Head of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies. The Institute essentially laid the theoretical groundwork for the “Project Novorossiya”, which today the authorities in Russia and Donbass republics prefer not to mention. At the same time, the ordinary Donbass people became convinced that Novorossiya will not happen, and they will end up with nothing but a territorial fragment like the two Donbass Republics. In such case – without reunification with Russia via referendum – our future looks bleak . . .

Novorossiya was not created as some theoretical project; it was born through an explosion of the Russian historic self-awareness; an explosion unexpected for all – including Moscow, the Kremlin, the Russian public. Something that is hidden in the sub-consciousness in all of us – the yearning for the recreation of the Orthodox Russian Empire. Many have not yet realized what is Novorossiya, why it created such an enthusiasm in the society and why so many people went to defend it even at the cost of their own lives. That is because the idea of the Russian unity has survived under the layer of the dead ideology of the last hundred years. Why, then, the “project Novorossiya” wound down? I believe the reason is not only that some high ranking officials disapprove of it and closed it down (although that happened, too), but the main reason is that such project cannot be based on the Red Star: then that would not be Novorossiya, the resurrection of Russia, but an imitation of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, many in the political leadership and expert community returned to the Soviet paradigms of 1970-1980s of the last century. Those paradigms have shown their ineffectiveness long ago, and attempts to reuse them now could lead to the collapse of everything. Old Soviet schemes aren’t viable but the new ones – not Soviet, but liberal – have not been taken on by the majority, so for now there is no ideological foundation for Novorossiya . . .

History is moving along a spiral; repeats are possible only on a new basis. So, at the present turn of the historic development, the spirit of Novorossiya that broke through the ideological layers had to retreat temporarily. The politicians as well as ordinary people had insufficient understanding of what NOVOROSSIYA is, where are its historical roots and what is its true spiritual meaning. I do not agree that the project is dead; it is alive and will yet return. But! Only on one condition: if we ourselves realize what path our country has travelled on for the past hundred years.

The return of LPR/DPR to Ukraine with the special status, isn’t it done for the purpose, as many suppose, to transform Ukraine from the inside, to convert it into a pro-Russian entity? What do you think the near future holds for the Republics? People that are surviving for the third years under the fire of the Ukrainian military are demanding a clear answer to this question . . .

There are different opinions in the Kremlin, but no definitive decision: to surrender Donbass to Ukraine. Yes, there are people that indeed think this way and want to do this. However, there are others that believe we should not leave people of Ukraine that have not accepted the Nazi regime to the mercy of Kiev. My personal impression: our President does not want to unconditionally surrender to Ukraine the people that lived through a war, privations and suffering, so that these people would be subjected to severe repressions, which is inevitable if Donbass is returned to Ukraine.

The problem is that Kiev shows no real changes in its treatment of Donbass or relations to the Russian Federation, and I do not see any prospects in the near future for any changes favorable to us. That regime, in spite of its rotten nature, will be persisting for some time, because there are still enough people that worked for decades to bring about such a regime; they are bound by blood; they took power and have no intentions of relinquishing it. The resistance to the regime is disorganized, lack the nationalistic Idea, not specifically Ukrainian but common for our entire huge country, our specific civilization. During the Soviet period the people were brainwashed in a special way. Everything was done to make people believe that Ukraine is an independent country.

I lived and studied in Kharkov and remember how it was. At the local level, all the time the Soviet authorities were instilling the idea: although we live in one country, but Moscow, the central Russia is somewhere far away, and we are separate, we have our own history and our own heroes. The people were taught that way – what do we expect now? It is natural that in Donbass, Odessa, Crimea and other regions Russian spirit still remains – during the 70 Soviet years and 25 years of independence the transformation has not entirely succeeded. The Russian historic self-awareness persisted, as did the feeling of belonging to the same civilization of all people that lived on the territory of the Russian Empire. All this is still there, particularly in the Eastern Ukraine. That is why the Ukrainian nationalists failed to fully accomplish their project.

Starting from 1921, forced Ukrainization of the Russian regions was taking place, specifically, of the territory of the Great Don Cossack Army and Slobozhanshchina, incorporated by the order of Lenin and Stalin into Ukraine. At some point, the town with the “romantic” name Mines (earlier Alersandrovsk-Grushevsky) and Taganrog were also given to Ukraine. Later, however, the common sense prevailed, and the towns were returned to Russia. I don’t even want to remind about Crimea gifted to Ukraine by our restless Nikita Khrushchev. Nobody really wants to remember that or think about it; everybody starts the count from 1991. My dear friends, come on! The groundwork for the breakdown of the Soviet Union was laid in 1917 and later in 1920-30s. During the Soviet time, governments, flags, hymns, national heroes were invented; monuments to open Russophobes were built. Hence the explosion. The 1991 was the result of the Soviet policies, remember that, comrades with the red stars on their cap that I have seen in LPR . . . Your ancestors, your leaders that you revere created the conditions for the breakdown of the united country. What kind of Novorossiya could you create if you do not learn lessons from history?

Leonid Petrovich, at present there two peoples in Ukraine: the first is completely anti-Russian, totally different from us in its mentality, and the second – Russian, even if the representatives of this group call themselves Ukrainians, due to upbringing and stereotypes. In reality, they are essentially deeply Russian people. The division is along the civilization-mentality lines, the same as between Serbs and Croats. Nevertheless, in the Kremlin as well as in the Moscow expert community the dominant view is that the majority of the Ukrainian population is just temporarily misled, brainwashed by the propaganda. That is to say, we will use political technologies to break the spell; they will again recall that they are Russians – and everything will be peaceful like it was before. But at least half of the Ukrainian population has long time ago turned into a different nation. What do we do with them, how do we reconcile irreconcilable differences?

As a former (until 1974) resident of Ukraine, I generally agree with you opinion. That division existed even then: when you cross Dnepr river, on the other bank not everyone, but the majority looked like a different nation. The wife of my elder brother from the Poltava region and speaking the Malorossian dialect (the Poltava region, a part of historic Malorossiya, is on the left bank of the Dnepr neighboring the Kharkov and Dneptopetrovsk regions; Malorossiya (Poltava, Chernigov, Kirovograd), or Small Russia, together with Novorossiya (Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, Donbass) or New Russia, and Sloboshanshchina (Kharkov region), are historic names for territories of the Eastern Ukraine; in the Soviet period, the Poltava dialect was taken as a foundation for the development of the standard Ukrainian language – translator’s note) used to say about the speech of the people from the trans-Dnepr region: ”I do not understand their nice language. . . “ She is saying the same thing now. I agree that the inhabitants of the Western Ukraine were strongly influenced mentally and religiously by the Uniate and Catholic religions. Apparently, the fact that genetically the Western Ukrainians are linked to the leftovers of the Khazar Khanate also plays a significant role. Their mentality has a complex origin, and indeed today they are largely a different nation, although among them there are still people close to us in spirit. After all, the Russianness is not determined by the blood but by the mindset. Possibly, in the future there will be two different territories, two different states for these two peoples.

At his time, the Foreign Minister of the Russian Empire Khvostov wrote to the Tzar that Galicia should not be included into the Empire, since it was a completely alien element. Thus, the awareness of the deep difference was present then, and that difference should be taken into account in the future. It seems, they are a different nation. Croats and Serbs come to mind: there is little difference between the Serbian and Croatian languages – 100-200 words and slightly different pronunciation of a few sounds, which means this is essentially the same language. However, the mental differences make them two different nations, as do the difference in religion – Catholics and Orthodox – and in the origin and development of these nations.

That is why it is important to realize that we will not be able to rid them from the illusions – they are a different nation. Although some do, I repeat, harbor delusions in that regard – Kremlin is large, there are people with diverse opinions there, but there are also people who understand perfectly that two distinct nations inhabit the present day Ukraine.

We have to understand that the problem cannot be solved in one or two-three years; this is a long-term problem. The opportunities for working with the population of the Western Ukraine, the southern regions of Malorossiya are extensive. I am convinced that the “project Novorossiya” will be revived – this is our historic, spiritual project. In order to prevent that project from developing further, an unexpected weapon is currently employed – an imitation of the Soviet project.

You mean the idea embraced by some political analysts that “we in the end will return the whole of Ukraine”?

No, I speak about Novorossya proper, the eight South-Eastern regions of the present day Ukraine. Whatever idea someone embraces – it’s his business. In the leadership of our country and in the government there are enough people who understand that realistically we could only think about the project Novorossiya. To return the entire Ukraine – this is a fairy tale. Such idea shows either a total lack of understanding of the real processes or a disinclination to work towards a realistic goal justifying the inaction by the assertion that some day we will accomplish a much grander task of getting back the whole of Ukraine.

People that have still failed to understand what was happening with us during 73 years should not feel offended. These are all the rudiments of the Soviet style of thinking when the national factor was neglected, and as a result we got outbreaks of nationalism/separatism all over the territory of our civilization. I remember two main Soviet postulates. In 1988, when I was a junior official, I was delivering a talk to the leadership of the Foreign Intelligence Service, and the Chief of the Service Vladimir Aleksandrovich Kryutchkov said to me: “The Baltic countries will never get away from us, because . . . “. And then he talked about the World Economic Forum, economic connections, sausage factories, fishing ports and such. But we, the young employees of the Service, captains and majors, were sitting there and wondering: “My God, where are we going? Doesn’t he realize that sausage factories or fishing ports do not matter now at all; completely different things are important that are beyond the material concept of history, beyond the Marxist-Leninist concept”. An Idea is what always wins, and if we do not offer an Idea but are offering just material values instead, we will only achieve temporary solutions that are essentially failures. The same is now: Ukraine will go nowhere, we are giving it money, selling gas; we’ll turn off the gas – and that will be it . . .

Forgive me for the comparison, but it is the same as if Hitler was saying: Leningrad will go nowhere; the army of the Wehrmacht will blockade it, and the city will fall within a month. And what happened? The people mobilized, resisted, and won. But we have to understand that an Idea can also mobilize an enemy.

Attempts at resolving the conflicts among the nations or the states using exclusively economic methods are doomed, that’s is why we are losing. Instead of proposing and the idea of the unification of the Russian world, of the resurrection of the Russian orthodox civilization that would ensure the development and prosperity of all nations included in it, we very often hear spiritual surrogates that oppose the 73 Soviet years to 1000 years of the Russian history. The Great Patriotic War? Yes, we won. But is that to say that we have never fought and won in patriotic wars before? Have we not once expelled the occupiers from Kremlin (a reference to the expulsion from Moscow of the Polish invaders by the People’s Militia led by Minin and Prince Pozharsky in 1612 during the Time of Troubles – translator’s note)? Similar distortions happen with other subjects.

As far as we can judge based on the statements of the Russian politicians, a decision has been made to keep Ukraine as is for the foreseeable future. Regardless whether the Donbass Republics receive “the special status” or remains frozen in the status of unrecognized states, we (the Donbass Republics – translator’s note) unwillingly act as a factor of consolidation and support for the Ukrainian society, sort of like a “graphite moderator” for the nuclear reactor that prevents the nuclear reaction from getting out of control. The claimed existence of “terrorists”, “separatists”, “Russian mercenaries” provides the Kiev regime with the enemy image and allows to structure the Ukrainian society in such a way, so that in less than a generation it could be transformed into totally anti-Russian. This way, we will lose forever the opportunity to retain it in our Russian civilization fold. If the Republics join the Russian Federation, this “graphite moderator” would be withdrawn from the reactor, which could trigger the processes of disintegration of Ukraine. This and not the economic pressure or the war would allow for the informational and diplomatic changes in our favor to take place and for the project Novorossiya to be realized. What do you think about the possibility of conducting a referendum in the Donbass Republics about joining Russia?

I as a Russia patriot consider such outcome the most desirable: a referendum and reunification with Russia not only of Donbass, but also of Transnistria. However, there is one big ‘but”. We do not exist in an isolation, and currently Russia – many have not a slightest idea about that – is living through a very hard period being under a powerful attack by the globalist forces. Savvy people likely noticed that there was a period in October-November of last year when we were a step away from a military conflict with the United States. The President of our country is acting based on the information we are not privy to, and thus, sees the situation differently from how it appears to us. When I served as a head of the Analytical Division of the Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS) – I knew what the President was reading, but I knew only the part that was the responsibility of the FIS. Believe me, the situation is very complex . . .

The reunification of Crimea with Russia – this, of course, is an achievement of our President and of all those actively involved in the operation. However, without the will of God that could have not have happened. As a religious person, I consider this a miracle. As far as LPR/DPR are concerned, from my own viewpoint it seems to me that it would be right to conduct a referendum of them joining the Russian Federation. However, people at the top have access to all the information, and, apparently, have reasons to doubt that such a decision would be wise at this time. Would Russians be able to cope?

We have nothing to lose as far as sanctions or diplomatic pressure on Russia are concerned – everything that could be done has been done. What do you think is the main reason that does not let Russia allow the Republics to join? What prevents this?

What prevented the DPR from taking Mariupol in 2014?

An agreement with the oligarchs . . .

I do not know – perhaps. There was, however, a firm position of the West. Are we truly independent financially? Obviously, we are not. It is risky for the US and globalists to hit us in that area – it could backfire, but they still could employ such ultimate measures. The results would be a lot more painful for us than for them. I want to emphasize the activity of Vladimir Putin: all these years he is slowly step by step restoring Russia’s true independence.

Let us consider recent history. Industrialization, which the Stalinists are so proud of, was accomplished with enormous – material, technological, financial, and credit support of the US. Thanks to that support, Dnepr Hydroelectric Station, Magnitka (Magnitogorsk Metal Producing Plant, built in 1932, one of the largest in the USSR, the largest in Russia – translator’s note), Gorky Automotive Plant and thousands of other enterprises were built. When the Great Patriotic was nearing its end, Joseph Stalin was counting on $6 billions promised by Roosevelt and was prepared to comply with the demands of the USA: to keep the eastern European countries democratic, retain the multi-party system or monarchies (where they existed), refrain from strict collectivization, and to leave the church alone. Only after the Fulton speech and the establishment of the “Iron Curtain”, the Soviet Union has altered its foreign policy. However, the dependence remained, since the whole world existed inside the financial-economic system dominated by the US, and we were being incorporated into it more and more, as the socialist system created by us was not working.

I can make a statement surprising for some and outrageous for others: after 1917 we were never completely independent. It was not for nothing that the West invested so much energy and resources in order to use the “Red project” (the division of the Empire into 15 national republics) for the destruction of the Eastern-Slavic civilization.

I remember how in 1984 or 1985 I read the telegram of the Russian ambassador in FRG Yuliy Krivitsky about his conversation with the Vise-Chancellor of the Western Germany, leader of the Bavarian party Christian-Democratic Union, Joseph Straus. The latter said directly, even at that time: “You country, Mister Ambassador, is facing difficult times. You placed a bomb under it: 15 Republics – 15 governments, Parliaments, hymns, flags. All this will blow up, and the Soviet Union will break down . . . “ Krivitsky objected saying that FRG also had various lands – Saxony, Bavaria, Bremen, Hesse, etc., local governments, to which the Vise-Chancellor responded: “Our states are based on the territories, but yours – on the nations”. The West understood very well, as opposed to our leadership, the main problem of the Soviet Union and purposefully aggravated it. As a result, the Western Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, and other nations remembered their national roots, whereas only the Russian and, partially, Belorussians were transformed into the “Soviet people” having taken to heart the myth about internationalism and lost their historic memory.

Remember Serbs and Croats – we have the same problem in Russia. As Joseph Broz Tito cut down the Serbian – that of the state-defining nation – territories, the same way Joseph Stalin and his co-conspirators cut down the Russian territories. In particular, the Russian Novorossiya was given to the artificially created Ukraine, Ossetia – to Georgia, the Northern and Eastern Kazakhstan populated by Russians – to Kazakhstan. It that sense, all us Russians are somewhat circumcised, if you pardon the expression . . .

That is why the current efforts of our President, his heroic deeds will not be fully appreciated any time soon. His mission – to extricate the country every year millimeter by millimeter from the national, financial, economical and other types of traps we got caught in since 1917. Any sudden movement, such as a referendum about incorporation of LPR/DPR could have unintended consequences.

This is a complex and very painful questions for all Russians. Russia is by definition a Eurasian state; it is multinational. So, how do we ensure that the defense of the interests of ethnic Russians would not become the instrument of the destruction of the country under the slogans like “Stop feeding the Caucasus!”, “Siberia – is not Moscow” and so forth. How do we find the optimal formula, when the imperial component does not oppress but stimulates the development of the Russian nation? It is worth remembering that the Declaration of Independence of the Russian Federation was issued on June 12th, 1991, which predetermined the Belovezhsk conspiracy on December 8th, 1991, and the breakup of the USSR . . . How do we manage not to repeat our historic mistakes?

The country could not have avoided the breakdown, since we have divided it into the national republics. Recently we have had a conversation with the Dagestanis-Muslims, and I recalled another conversations with a Chechen – Major-General of the FSB and his words: “You know, Leonid Petrovich, if they had been a White Tzar above us and Allah – we would have all united. We love Russia, but fighting for it we do not fight for the territories as such but for the White Tzar . . . “ This is the main factor uniting all nations. The Dagestanis also agreed; they are also in favor of the Empire; they understand the value of the vertical of power. There is no difference in this issue between the Orthodoxy and Islam, and if the Empire happens, Islam will work for it. Remember that during the Civil War the Chechen, Ingushs, and other Caucasus people fought in the White Army.

An Empire is impossible without the absolute monarchy . . .

Yes. However, it is too early to propose the restoration of monarchy now. It would be a premature move. It is necessary to clear up our minds, our memory of myths. The history of our Motherland in the Soviet period was studied starting from 1935 – why was that? Because it was necessary to re-write it completely, but before that new faculty had to be trained. Then the guys from the Institute of the Red Professors invented our history for us out of nothing under the title “The short history course of the All Russia Communist Party of Bolsheviks” of Joseph Vissarionovich (Stalin – translator’s note).

Let us summarize. In order for the Russian nation to prosper and maintain good relations with other nations, we need to restore our independent state that could only be the Russian Eurasian Empire. The Empire could only be restored as a monarchy, but to accomplish that we need to change our mentality and to free ourselves from the Soviet stereotypes. But here is the problem: most Russian citizens still see in the Soviet epoch the Great Project, the Idea of Justice, the Joy of unprecedented Victories . . . How do we alter the people’s mentality without alienating that majority, how do we merge the best achievements of the Soviet time with the achievements of the Tzarist period?

Middle-aged people or older cannot be changed; we need to work with the youth. This is hard. Let me give you an example: my eldest grand-daughter once said to me: “Grandpa, our teacher in class asked us why Michael Romanov was elected as a Tzar (Michael Romanov, the first Tzar of the Romanov dynasty, was elected in 1613 after the Time of Troubles, which started following the death of the son of Ivan the Terrible, the last representative of the Rurik dynasty, in 1598; during that period, many events took place including the appearance of Pseudo-Dmitri claiming to be the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, Dmitri supposedly was killed in childhood, his ascension to the throne in Moscow, the intervention of the Polish Army, and the final defeat of the Poles – translator’s note), and I replied that, first, all estates voted for him, because all wanted to have a Tzar in the country after a horrible period of the Time of Troubles. Second, the Russian Orthodox Church supported him, and the church had a strong influence. And third, since he was very young, he was not involved in any of the treasons of the Time of Troubles when the nobles switched sides in support of the Poles or Pseudo-Dmitri”. I praised her answer but my granddaughter said that the teacher considered her response incorrect. The response should have been as written in the textbook, which only had one sentence about this stating that the nobles wanted to have a young Tzar so that they could control him. That is how contempt towards the Russian history is imprinted onto the mind of our children. When children grow up, they will have hard time letting go of the false concepts and accept the idea of the monarchy. Many will be torn between the two projects imposed on us by the West – liberal and Communist.

Recall how communists and liberals (they are of the same stock) go into hysterics when someone mentions the Third way – a special historic role of Russia. If you simply mention, without any epithets, the name of the last Emperor Nikolas the Second – immediately atheists, liberals, homosexuals and other trash unite and start yelling that he was a weak Tzar, that he “sold and destroyed Russia”. What does that say? That we are on the right track. We do not intend to change the regime; out job is to help people understand the lessons of the past, and when that happens, then the desire to restore the Empire and Monarchy will become natural to them. The new Constitution will be adopted, and the real revival of Russia will begin. But for those who consider themselves monarchists, for all orthodox Russian people, a Tzar has always existed, exists and will exist, and his name is – Jesus Christ.

Leonid Petrovich Reshetnikov (b. February 6, 1947, Potsdam, Germany) — Soviet and Russian historian, Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (29 April 2009 to 4 January 2017), the General-the Lieutenant of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) of the Russian Federation.  Candidate of Historical Sciences.  Former chief of the information-analytical staff of the SVR in the rank of Lieutenant General.

Sandwiching NATO in Ukraine, by Scott Humor

By Scott
Sandwiching NATO in Ukraine, by Scott Humor

When I started my master’s program in an American university, I also took work as a web developer, and programming was making me very hungry.

My tuition paid for a meal plan and the use of a buffet-style dining hall, but as the only Russian there, I was the subject of extreme scrutiny by the student body of “food police,” resulting in my inability to take a second helping of turkey and mashed potatoes without being stared down.

I managed to get by by buying high-energy food in a local Russian-Ukrainian grocery store. Which is to say I snacked on sandwiches with salo. Salo is pure 100% pork fat, pickled and smoked. In college, during the breaks I would eat a sandwich assembled with bright white slices of salo between two slices of black Russian bread. Other students would ask me, ‘What are you eating? What smells so good?’ ‘It’s a tofu sandwich,’ I would tell them.

Not everything is what it’s seems, and many things are not even close to what they are named and appear to be.

As we all know the plans to instigate war between Russia and Ukraine go way back.  It’s kinetic stage, however, started in 2008. Immediately after the skirmishes in South Ossetia with Georgian and NATO troops in August 2008, in October the Washington Times publishes an article of  Jeffrey Kuhner: “Will Russia-Ukraine be Europe’s next war?”

Europe faces the risk of another major war. In 1939, Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland triggered the Second World War. Today the possible trip wire is not Poland, but Ukraine. And the aggressor will not be Adolf Hitler, but Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.”

That’s a statement; it’s not an analyses, or expert opinion, its a statement of intent. This statement was made not by anyone in the government of Russia. This statement was made by the “deep state” globalist government. It says that they are about to stage a major war in Europe. Like the previous big war in Europe, this new war will be fought under the fascists and Nazi flags. They also say that they will start this war on the territory of Ukraine, the war will be against Russia and Russia will become an appointed aggressor and even “the invaders of  their own homeland.

This is a typical for globalists switch, when the victims are named aggressors, and that the Western powers act in order to “stop an aggression” and even better “to prevent an aggression.”

What actually happened was a remarkable transformation since 2008. The American Universities came out as a breeding ground for the militant Marxists movements, while the Western media had died a slow death of virtue signaling and reporting the CIA memos as news.

War on Donbass was planned to ignite a major war in Europe.

Just let this to sink in for a moment: the collective armed forces of the European nations, including but not limited to Germany, Poland, France, United Kingdom, Slovakia, Denmark, United States, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Canada, and last but not least Israel, are in a war against the Russian population of Ukraine in order to bait the Russian government to interfere and start a major European war.

The list of participants tells you how much Europeans want a major war in their countries. It’s actually quite remarkable

Don’t get me wrong. I am not particularly adverse to a major war in Europe. I even think that Western Europe needs a major ass kicking. Just keep Russia out of it. It’s not Russia’s problem to fight your wars any more.

Left Picture: German Nazi Troops at the Russian Border facing Ivangorod Fortress 1941

Right Picture: the US Troops at the very same spot yesterday

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Left Pic: German Nazi Troops at the Russian Border facing Ivangorod Fortress 1941 | Right Pic: US Troops at the very same spot yesterday

 Ivan-Gorod was a fortes built in 1485 as a Russian for-post as a way to prevent the European hordes from moving any further east. Six centuries later, it is still serving the same purpose, which speaks volumes of the progress the Europeans have made in the past six centuries, which is exactly zero.  Not that they didn’t try.

No matter how many times the Russian government says that Russia doesn’t have a war with Ukraine and Putin says that it’s impossible to fathom and that it will never happen, people who started this war back in 2008 keep saying that it’s all “Russian aggression.”

After the assassination of the Donetsk militia leader Givi, the Russian government’s spokesperson, Peskov, made yet another statement saying that the Donbass republics’ tanks are from Kiev, and not from Russia.

He also said that Russia officially has never deployed any volunteers to Ukraine, and that all volunteers that have been fighting in Donbass have done so on their own free will.

The question about tanks came after 100’s of old Soviet tanks magically appeared in Eastern Ukraine, most likely Poroshenko finally used those junk tanks Kiev bought from Hungary.

The Russian media and other experts have been consistent in one regard about the recent intensification of the war in the Donbass republics: most of them trace this to the “fight” between Poroshenko and the “national patriots” for control over the Ukrainian army.

Upon careful consideration, I think it’s a misleading idea. Poroshenko is nothing but a front man for the globalists’ rule of Ukraine. Poroshenko and all the others insiders of the Kiev regime always do what they are told. Poroshenko does what he is told to do by the CIA, and by the US senators, like Lindsey and McCain.

In this scenario, that I suspect is called a “Bear Trap,” NATO is sitting on the Russians Western borders like a hunter, Ukraine is positioned as a trap and the Donbass republics are a collective bear cub being used as a bait.

Captured beforehand, a bear cub is being tormented and when it screams in pain, the hunters in NATO are getting ready to shoot a mother bear coming to save her cub. That’s a scenario, but luckily for us, those who wrote this scenario have no knowledge neither of bears, nor of the Russian intelligence.

Bears are extremely smart animals; they won’t go for a trap without circling it around many times covering vast areas of space while doing so. If in their travels they run into a hunter, they attack from behind.

Instead of trying to figure out the Porosh’s next move we should be looking at the broader picture of NATO’s moves. The question is not why the Ukrainian armed forces had started their massive assault on Donbass. The real question is why they stopped and backed out.

The attacks of the Ukrainian armed forces on Donetsk is connected and coordinated with NATO actions from Russia’s Northern border in Norway, to the Southern border in the Black Sea.

With German and American tank divisions moving across Poland towards Belarusian and Russian borders, with the US troops arriving to the east European countries, the NATO fleet has started gathering in the Black Sea.

February 5th, 2017 the US troops have arrived in Latvia

📹 US troops have arrived in Latvia today.

 US troops have also arrived in Romania.

The US troops marching to Narva on February 9th, 2017

 

On February 2 the USS Porter entered the Black Sea for the Sea Shield 2017 naval exercise

US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer “USS PORTER” DDG78 passed İstanbul Strait for join to Sea Shell 2017 naval exercise (18:00 local)

Sea Shield 2017’ was scheduled to run between February 1 and 11 in the proximity of Russian borders. The “drill” was designed to be NATO and Ukraine’s provocative activities in the Black Sea. 16 warships, a submarine and 10 warplanes along with some 2,800 troops from Ukraine, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, Canada, and the US. The drill also was scheduled to include the HMS Diamond of the UK Royal Navy dubbed “Putin Hunter.”

Against all this “might” Russia put just one: the Vishnya class intelligence collection ship RFS Priazovye SSV201.

So, once again the same Black International as always is gathering on the Eastern front. It’s this time of a century again, when our better civilized Western non-brothers get an itch they can’t scratch yearning for a good ass kicking by the Russian soldier’s boot. This one, if it takes place, is going to be swift and spectacular.

Other NATO activities in January – February 2017

  • The president must tell the Senate to act swiftly and ratify Montenegro’s accession to NATO. Tell those few holdout Senators not to mess with Montenegro. By Evelyn N. Farkas
  • According to the Daily Mail, 650 British military specialists and troops are involved in secret mission in Ukraine.
  • the France24: NATO backs Ukraine as clashes surge: deputy chief

https://twitter.com/FRANCE24/status/829778424927367168

On February 6, the Russian military Red Star TV channel posted an analysis of the Sea Shield 2017 navy drill, stating its main task to prepare for a “liberation of Crimea,” it’s impressive coverage – 80,000 square kilometers, it’s extreme proximity to Russian border, you can see the  NATO ships from the Russian shores.

Something happened, however, and on February 10, much earlier than planned and before the Sea Shield drill was over, the USS Porter left the Black Sea.

11 Feb 2017  US Navy’s Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer USS Porter DDG78 southbound on the Bosphorus, returning from Sea Shield 17 in Black Sea

View image on Twitter

US Navy’s ArleighBurke Class Destroyer USS Porter DDG78 southbound on the bosphorus, returning from in Black Sea

In the middle of the Bosphorus Crossing USS Porter passed Korolev 130, a Project 775M Large Landing Ship (LLS), a.k.a. “yankie-terminator” returning from Syria.

Bosphorus Crossing: Just after USS Porter’s Med-bound Bosphorus transit, ВМФ Бф BF Korolev 130 entered Strait after returning from Syria

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Bosphorus Crossing: Just after USS Porter’s Med-bound Bosphorus transit, ВМФ Бф BF Korolev 130 entered Strait after returning from

It’s obvious that the heavy shelling of Donetsk and other local towns were done in preparation for the start of the Sea Shield drills in the Black Sea. That’s the basic American strategy of invasion, that I described in the Failed NATO Invasion of Moldova.

Only, unlike Libya, NATO would have to go over Crimea to “liberate Donbass.” It’s interesting how the invasion of the historical Russian lands are called “liberation” by the Europeans and Americans.

In clear coordination with the Sea Shield, on February 7th,  the Ukrainian “free” media announced that Kiev is sending its aviation to the “ATO Zone.”

At the same time, Shoigu announced the sudden combat readiness for the Aerospace forces of the country.

Today, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, an unannounced inspection of the Aerospace Forces has begun to assess the readiness of military administrative bodies and forces to carry out combat training tasks,” Shoigu said at a meeting.

Needless to say, the Ukrainian aviation stayed grounded.

 

Coming back to our ship. Before we decide that USS Porter fled the Black Sea chased by the “yankees terminator” Korolev,  consider that something else has happened.

On February 8th, the FOX news Pentagon news  producer Lucas Tomlinson  posted an information that per unnamed US official, Syria had received a shipments of 50 SS-21 Tochka short-range nuclear-capable  ballistic missiles. The missiles allegedly  arrived at the Syrian port of Tartus along the Mediterranean Sea in the past two days, starting with Monday February 6th.

The SS-21 short range missile is called “Scarab” by NATO.

A month prior, on January 7, 2017  some Israeli news sources reported that Russia’s advanced Iskander SS-26 “Stone” short-range ballistic missile systems have been spotted at Russia’s Hmeimim air base in Latakia by Israel’s ISI EROS-B satellite.

To put it in simple terms, an Israeli satellite was allowed to “see” those systems.

After pointing out that, “this places Tel Aviv and Jerusalem well within dangerous range of these missiles, as well as the cities of Haifa, Tzfat, Herzliya and numerous other targets.”

The Israeli newspaper with incurable optimism stated that : “However, it is believed the Russians have no interest in targeting Israeli cities, at least at this point.”

That was January 7th, a month before the Kiev regime, whose members in Rada publicly call themselves as being “one nation” with Israel, had started pounding Donetsk, and NATO fleet entered the Black Sea to “liberate Crimea.”

On Thursday, February 9th, asked about those pesky “Scarabs” spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters:We cannot comment on that. I have no such information.”

It’s important to note that by then the heavy shelling of Donetsk died out and the major attack of the Ukrainian army on Donetsk was canceled.

I see the murder of Givi by the CIA as a demonstration of their weakness. Since they are neutralized on the Middle East from making any military moves in Ukraine, they go and act like average terrorists by killing someone in the middle of the huge city.

Givi was assassinated on Wednesday, February 8th, the Donetsk republic security services reported that they were in hot pursuit of the Ukrainian sabotage-reconnaissance group (DRG) group suspected in his murder.

On Saturday, February 11th, Ukrainian military reported a disappearance of one of the their sabotage-reconnaissance groups (DRGs) that according to their version went to Lugansk and disappeared without a trace.

In an unprecedented move, the press officer of the tactical grouping “Mariupol”  Dmitry Zavtonov made an announcement on the Ukrainian TV channel 112 Ukraine.

What makes it interesting is that they never before reported on the activities of those groups. What makes this one special? It’s clearly the group that took part in the assassination of Givi. It also being reported as an alert to the Russians, because it has US and maybe UK special ops troops. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be mentioned. In essence, NATO wants those their “specialists” back in one piece.

In conclusion, the heroism and stoicism of Donbass defenders is already written into the book of Russian military victories along with the defenders of the Brest Fortress and  the Badaber uprising, when eleven Russian POWs took on the Army of Pakistan.

However, the battle for Donbass and Ukraine is being fought on the Middle East.

In this bright new multi-polar world, a tofu sandwich might turned into a smoked pork sandwich, and the battle for Donbass can be won by the rush delivery of the Scarab ballistic missiles to Syrian Tartus.

 

P.S. Every generation Russians has been in war, directly and indirectly:

1914-1917 – WWI

1917-1920 – The War against Atlanta and the Red Terror

1941-1945 – WWII

1979-1989 – The war in Afghanistan, shielding the country the spread of Islamic terrorism and extremism

December 1994 to August 1996 – First Chechen War with Islamic terrorists coming to Russia and setting up their Islamic caliphate

1999-2006 – Second Chechnya War, kicking Islamic terrorists from the Russian territory

2008 – Georgian–Ossetian conflict. Not sure what it was all about.

2014 – present – the War in Ukraine, the rise of the European fascism.

2015 – present – war in Syria, finishing up those Islamic terrorists coming from Chechnya and some of those European fascists.

All of these wars were fought either on the Russian territory, or near its borders. All of these wars were fought with the same Euro-Atlantic nations and the same states’ actors.

Now, by getting Syria under its wing, and by talking control over the Israeli skies, Russia gets a reprieve from the need to fight the wars on our territory, current and historical. In response to the hopes expressed by our comrades in Israel, – don’t worry,  your security is in the Russian’s capable and kind hands.

A Soviet soldiers’ song, “We are leaving, leaving, leaving….the Middle East forever. We will never come back.

 Well, guys, don’t despair and never say never.  

News of our “Run, Mice, run…” department

The Interpreter staff are offered to freelance.

From the Kulak: “RFE/RL claimed that the decision to defund The Interpreter came a few weeks before the election. I am not so sure that’s true but to save face and not burn his bridges at the Prague Palace for future funding, perhaps neocon’s neocon Michael D Weiss is sticking to that version of what happened. There will be more WH directives to management I’m sure to at least try to cover FN or AfD fairly and GASP even give their party spokesmen or women the same right to comment on stories as any other political parties even while the shrill ‘Russian media (that no one but extremists and losers in moms basement read anyway) are attacking Merkel and Macron’ talking points are spread.

There’s an old expression in military circles that tracer rounds not only allow you to track your fire but also reveal your firing position to the enemy. The same holds true in social media when you see #TheResistance trolls or the likes of Jakub Janda, Jakub Kalensky and Bellingcat (Bellingcrap)’s Eliot Higgins all eagerly retweeting the same agitprop article from fake news creator John R Schindler on the same day:”

The bottom-line, our Orthodox Chekists have bent everyone over. BOHICA.

Thank you for your time,

 

Trump Confronts New McCarthyism

Trump Confronts New McCarthyism
EDITOR’S CHOICE | 12.02.2017

Trump Confronts New McCarthyism

Gilbert DOCTOROW

The original McCarthyism of the early 1950s appeared with the consolidation of the Cold War. It was a witch hunt over supposed communist subversion of America’s democratic institutions. It was all about the Red Menace and the Russians are coming. Today’s New McCarthyism grew with the onset of a New Cold War and also has been about the Russians, especially the vilification of Vladimir Putin.

Donald Trump speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)

This anti-Russian hysteria reached a point of near absurdity in the last days of the Obama Administration with its trust-us allegations that the Russians defeated Hillary Clinton by releasing some emails showing how the Democratic National Committee sabotaged Bernie Sanders and other emails revealing what Clinton had told Wall Street banks but didn’t want the voters to know. If you noted that Clinton had previously blamed her defeat on FBI Director James Comey for reopening and re-closing the investigation into her use of a private email server, you risked being labeled a “Putin apologist” or a “Kremlin stooge.”

Of course, the anger toward anyone who resisted the “Russia-did-it” conformism did not come from nowhere. One can trace the current hostility to dissenters against U.S. foreign policy back to the presidency of George W. Bush when he gutted the Bill of Rights in promulgating the Patriot Act with almost no public challenge. In the post-9/11 climate – when any resistance to Bush’s edicts was regarded as close to treason – many of us became uneasy while talking politics on the phone or looking up certain topics on the Internet or taking books out of the library.

This intimidating surveillance did not go away when the Democrats retook the White House and Congress in the 2008 elections, but we stopped thinking about it because supposedly the “right people” now held the levers of power and surely wouldn’t repeat the abuses of Bush-43. However, not only did the surveillance state consolidate its powers under Barack Obama but the former constitutional lawyer sharply escalated the legal persecution of whistleblowers who dared give the American people a look behind the curtain.

Obama’s unprecedented assault on government transparency was compounded by the liberal-chic contempt meted out to anyone who questioned the wisdom of imposing “liberal values”, “human rights”, and “democracy promotion” on countries around the world. “Political correctness” dominated not only domestic U.S. debates but also the formulation of foreign policy.

Vladimir Putin was viewed as a retrograde force in the world, in part, because he aligned himself with Russia’s conservative social values and because he fell short of an ideal notion of what liberal democracy is supposed to be. The fact that the U.S. government also was falling far short of those standards – from ordering targeted assassinations with minimal due process to imprisoning patriotic whistleblowers – was largely ignored by an Obama Administration that saw itself as too wonderful to have flaws.

Blacklisting Dissent

So, when the U.S. confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, Crimea and the Donbas began in the summer of 2013, those of us who did not accept what was becoming the Washington Consensus, which held Putin to blame for everything, began to see ourselves as dissidents in the Soviet sense or at least in the manner of the old McCarthy era. In effect, we were blacklisted, largely excluded from publication in the professional journals, not to mention mainstream print and broadcast media. On campus, we mostly kept our mouths shut fearing for our jobs.

Russian President Vladimir Putin. (Russian government photo)

In the narrow, but politically important field of Russian studies, just how bleak the times had become was revealed in the December 2015 “Christmas issue” of Johnson’s Russia List, an important daily digest of expert and generalist writings about Russia which contained a 40-page propaganda barrage against Putin and his ill-begotten country. But the content of that daily issue merely reflected what was entering the editor-publisher’s in-basket each day. Still, the silence of dissenters should not be confused with agreement.

For all his blustery and egotistical faults, Donald Trump has punched huge holes in the dominant neocon ideology that underlay the Washington Consensus on foreign policy during the presidencies of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Trump’s tweets and campaign messages asked, aloud and repeatedly, what could be wrong with the United States getting along with Russia and cooperating on common interests, starting with a joint campaign against ISIS.

Yet, Trump’s rejection of Washington’s foreign-policy orthodoxy went beyond relations with Russia; Trump was questioning the consensus on how America has conducted its role as global leader and he was challenging the arrogance of intervening in other nations’ affairs, whether by finger-waving lectures or various regime-change schemes.

As noisy and messy as Trump’s political approach has been – with a number of unnecessary diversions and self-inflicted wounds – there is a significant and “revolutionary” side of Trump’s approach. It represents a potential reordering of the two major political parties, a revamped struggle for power within the Right-Left dimension.

He restated this “revolutionary” aspect of his foreign policy in his Inaugural Address when he renounced the idea of endless interference in other countries’ politics and a return to the traditional role of America as an example, not an interventionist. This was an in-your-face condemnation of most of those sitting beside and behind him on the rostrum who favored a “values-based” foreign policy, globalization and American exceptionalism.

Taking on McCain

From the Oval Office, Trump has continued his frontal assault on this foreign-policy orthodoxy with his closely watched and disputed tweets. Much ridicule has been directed at Trump for ruling by tweets since they often reveal a lack of intellectual depth and his facile narcissism. But what they lack in refinement, Trump’s tweets make up for in feistiness and courage.

Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists of the Svoboda party at a pre-coup rally in Kiev

For instance, in a Jan. 30 tweet, Trump urged Republican neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham to “focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III” [emphasis mine]. This was, in its own way, as significant as the pithy and devastating rebuke issued by attorney Joseph N. Welch to Sen. Joe McCarthy on June 9, 1954, after McCarthy attacked the patriotism of a young Army lawyer: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” Welch asked.

In a way, Trump’s reference to the behavior of McCain and Graham, running around the world advocating for one war after another, including a military confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia, was as precise and cutting as Welch’s putdown of McCarthy. In doing so, Trump broke the decades-long taboo on criticizing McCain despite his behavior as a loose cannon on the deck of foreign affairs, especially during the Obama years.

Behaving as if he had won rather than lost the 2008 election, McCain has traveled to such hot spots as Syria, Georgia and Ukraine with the goal of making U.S. foreign policy in the field, urging militants onward into violent clashes with their own governments or pushing U.S.-client states into conflicts with their neighbors.

Trump began his challenge to McCain during the campaign when he publicly questioned the “war hero” status of the Arizona senator by rhetorically asking in what way spending years in captivity as a Vietnam prisoner of war made McCain a war hero.

McCain took his revenge shortly before the inauguration when he informed the press that he had just handed over to the FBI for follow-up a dubious report generated by a former British intelligence agent accusing Trump of being vulnerable to Russian blackmail because of alleged cavorting with prostitutes during a visit to Moscow years ago.

To stymie any new détente with Russia, McCain also introduced a bill in the Senate calling for new and expanded sanctions against Russia. So, the White House tweet was a direct challenge to McCain for his actions that Trump warned were inviting World War III. In doing so, Trump is at least prying open space for a fuller debate about U.S. foreign policy and the wisdom of neocon interventionism.

So, notwithstanding all the self-righteous exclamations before media microphones by Establishment figures from both parties over the foibles of this populist president and notwithstanding the shouting in the streets by demonstrators, it appears that the President is advancing via his tactic of frontal attack.

A week ago, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Trump’s bellwether choice to oversee a new foreign policy, was confirmed by the Senate to the surprise and pleasure of those of us who had kept our fingers crossed. It is too early to say how or why Trump won this test of strength. But initial fierce opposition from ranking Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio was beaten back.

Now, the question is whether Tillerson and Trump’s other foreign policy appointees can achieve genuine change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

The Conservative Revolution: the “Left” Dilemma

January 31, 2017

by Iman Safi

Part II; The “Left” Dilemma:

(for part I, please see here)

To understand where the global “left”-“right” divides stands now, we must take a quick look at some key developments and join them together within the particular context sought; because the roots of this divide go back to the times during which the Western mind was in the process of choosing between such issues as succumbing to the Church versus liberation, monarchies versus progressive and democratic governments and science versus fiction.

A quick look at all the opportunities that people have had for awakening in the past reveals, without much effort at all, that they were virtually all quickly and swiftly hijacked by individuals and organizations seeking gain and mileage. One can perhaps understand why some people are driven by ego, others are lured by financial rewards, fame, power etc, and whilst it is not easy to “forgive” them, they are easier to forgive than those who meddle with people’s minds and replace their drive for enlightenment and knowledge by unsurmountable walls of ignorance, darkness, ill-defined destinations and even no destinations at all to aspire to reach.

Western Churches had for centuries controlled the minds of their flocks. As a matter of fact, the term “flock” is quite befitting, because they did regard them as mindless sheep. For many generations, they have told them what to believe in, how to think, what subjects to discuss and what to stay away from. They have even told them what to eat, when to eat, who and when to marry, and should one dare break those rules and commandments, he/she can face the pain of death.

Whilst this monstrosity is considered to be by-and-large a thing of the past in the Western/Christian World, it is still well and alive within some of the other communities and religions, and the new wave of terror under the guise of Islamic terrorism is only a manifestation of this phenomenon that it still thriving.

The age of awakening in Western Europe did not come from the Church that did not reform despite many claims to the contrary made by the mainstream Churches as well as some breakaway factions alike. The awakening was the result of the fact that the Western mind liberated itself from the yokes of the Church and instead of listening to the rhetoric of their priests telling them that they were born sinners and that they will burn forever in hell unless they obey their orders and directives, for a change, they were able to read the works of Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, and listen to the music of Bach and Beethoven and see the creativity of Da Vinci. The scientific revolution that ensued was a result of this liberation, and the Western mind had the opportunity to lead humanity and to prosper at all levels, and it did.

To the dismay of some Americans who believe that the American Revolution was the first such popular action against oppressive regimes, the mother of all revolutions was undoubtedly the French Revolution. This is because the French Revolution was the outcome of enlightenment and social awakening, spearheaded by Voltaire, Mollier, Rousseaux and not just a haphazard revolt related to tea trade tax laws. The French Revolution was in fact the inspiration that gave rise to Hegel and Marx, and in its demand for bread to feed the poor, an economic component was therefore added. Sadly, that awakening was not to last because when the Communist Manifesto was published, the European awakening was inadvertently ready to be hijacked and take a detour from its lofty philosophical spiritual sense and be replaced by financial pragmatism.

Backed by setting up economics as a “science”, in reality, Marx’s “historical materialism” was an indirect outcome of John Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”, and became an uninvited de facto love-child, turned hijacker, of the awakening of the Western mind and the age of European enlightenment. But the “financial/economic revolution” was bound to fail because its approach and reach were not holistic, but at best practical. Somehow, Marx and Hegel have perhaps forgotten that man does not live by bread alone and that mankind seeks spirituality, even when it does not conform with rationality.

Speaking of rationality, we are now hitting a very sensitive chord. Institutionalized religions did not offer the Western mind any rationality at all, but that was only the beginning. However, even though the age of awakening based its doctrine on rationality and bolstered it with advances in science and medicine, the Western mind was only ready for a portion of it, and later on succumbed to financial pragmatism as lifestyle took precedence over the pursuit of knowledge. On the other hand, in Eastern Europe, the Communist takeover took the Eastern European mind into a seemingly opposing political ideology; Communism as opposed to Western Capitalism, but in spiritual, ideological and philosophical terms, they were not proverbial opposite sides of the same coin, but rather different corners of the same side of the same coin. However, the failure of Communism was evident with the demise of the USSR, but the demise of Capitalism continues to be met with total denial. That collapse is already here and upon us, but its acknowledgment is still in the making.

In between the demise of the influence of the Western Churches on Western masses and the rise of and fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, the political notion of “right” and “left” emerged initially in the UK to later on move to the entire world.

The political “left” did not only offer its faithful followers the promise of change, but also the promise of liberation; both in body and in mind.

The right to have a job, fair wages, financial retirement security, medical care, free education, sick pay, maternity pay and similar rights were high on the agenda of the Eastern Communist bloc, and that was perceived as the global socialist “left”. On the other hand, in the Western version of the “left”, and in addition to the above, freedom of political expression and freedom of worship and other freedoms were added to the preamble. Some, indeed many Westerners, would argue that even though the “regimes” of Eastern Europe gave themselves the adjective of being “democratic”, they were very far from it, and use the examples of lifetime leaders like former Yugoslavia’s Tito and Romania’s Ceausescu as examples. In retrospect however, the Eastern European counter-argument is hardly ever heard in the West; and this is not the time and place to present it.

Either way, whether or not the “left”, in its ideal absoluteness, did reach power in either Eastern or Western Europe or not, it has not yet given any overwhelming evidence that it has furnished the promised Holy Grail of freedom and equality and all the minor promises that come with them.

The socialist “left” ideas perhaps reached their zenith when Castro and Guevara came to prominence. Guevara is still celebrated as a hero in the most unlikely places. T-Shirts bearing his portrait are even sold in NYC.

During the USSR era, any ideology that was remotely related to socialism was tagged by Western “regimes” as being Communist. Even speaking about and advocating social justice was a dangerous act in the United States, and immediately labelled one as a member of the infamous, illusive, perhaps fictitious “Un-American Activities Committee”. And whilst many socialist movements, both within the USA or outside it, had nothing to do with Communism per se, they were all made to be perceived as being Communist. That was the establishment’s method to portray them and present them.

It was within this atmosphere that the “left” thrived in Western Europe, but even the then very popular French Communist Party has distanced itself from the Communist version of the Kremlin. Nonetheless, socialist parties in Europe have made big gains and even reached the Élysée when Francois Mitterrand was elected as French President in 1981.

But even though the Western “left” tried to distant itself from the USSR, in the eyes of many, the two remained highly associated with each other. And when British unionist Arthur Scargill visited the USSR to spite Maggie Thatcher he made no apologies at all for visiting it, and thus endorsing it, and for this, among other things, he was seen as a so-called militant unionist. That aside, in the UK and Australia, the Labour/Labor parties are highly associated with trade unions and seek social justice, and this is why they have been identified as being on the “left”. And whilst the American Democratic Party could not be given a loud and clear “left” tag per se, the Labour/Labor parties across the Atlantic and the Pacific, respectively, found in it the natural political ally.

In theory, the demise of the USSR should have put the Western “left” at ease. After all, it meant that any argument based on the alleged association of the Western ”left” with the USSR has lost its foundation. But that demise should have also meant that the “left” had fallen under a new challenge; the challenge of reinventing itself as a stand-alone force for change for the better; in a manner that promoted justice and equality, not only domestically, but also globally.

In reality however, that process of rebirth was nothing short of being disastrous.

Without di-polarity, and for the first time since the partition of the Roman Empire, humanity found itself under a so-called New World Order in which the United States of America was the unrivalled leader of the world. Whilst no bans as such were imposed on “left” ideas and “left” parties in the West, the process of rebirth needed new ideas and new preambles. This required a new generation of leaders, but those leaders were not to be found.

To say that the Western “left” merged into the establishment would be an understatement. If anything, it underpinned the establishment’s position by setting itself up as one of its corner stones. In more ways than one, the “left” in the West did not only merge into the so-called “Imperial Empire” it was meant stand up against, but also became its face and organ. It was no longer a force for the kind of change that was initially promised and expected, and thus has inadvertently lost its stature and very definition of being “left”.

In the sequel article, we shall have a brief look at surrogate principles that the Western “left” conjured up seeking survival, and possibly in another sequel, project how those newly-adopted ideas are highly likely to lead to its removal from the throne that it has placed itself on for at least two centuries.

Part III; What’s Left of the “Left” in the “Left”:

A very brief and quick look at the post USSR Western “left” reveals that it did everything BUT stick to its original principles and ideals.

To elaborate, we must look at certain examples; beginning with the highly controversial subject of refugees. The “left” in the West continues to uphold the principle of aiding and welcoming refugees, and this is good and ought to be applauded. However, the “left” does not even seem to question how those refugees have become refugees in the first place! Whilst it is a fact that most refugees are in essence political refugees who have been displaced due to wars inflicted upon their countries, mostly seeking regime change, the Western “left” seems to turn a blind eye to this reality. Even worse, when the Western “left” gets democratically elected and assumes power, it does not try to reverse the course of events that create refugees.

It gets even worse. Take the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as examples. Both wars were initiated by the “right” wing Republican American President GWB. However, his partner in crime in Iraq was Britain’s Labour leader Tony Blair; who was meant to be from the Western “left”.

And whilst the Australian Labor Party (ALP) can hold its head high because it was an ALP Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) who bailed Australia out of the infamous Vietnam War, other ALP administrations have followed the USA into wars without too many questions asked about their legitimacy and whether or not they conform with the foundations and principles upon which the ALP is based.

Such views and politics have nothing to do with the original “left” values of promoting freedom, supporting the oppressed and working towards social justice; none what-so-ever, and quite the opposite, if anything.

And even though APHEDA, an organization sponsored by Australian trade unions, supports and sponsors humanitarian projects in Palestine, the current ALP leader Bill Shorten has recently described Israeli PM Netanyahu as a friend.

The contradictions within the Western “left” are not the result of a deliberate attempt to create confusion, but rather the direct outcome of loss of identity and soul, and an inability to reinvent itself in the post-USSR New World Order era.

A proper reinvention process requires new ideas, but instead of undergoing a serious process of soul-searching, the Western “left” shopped around for existing populist issues to capitalize on.

For fairness, when the wider community develops and evolves in a manner that it advocates such issues as marriage equality, political parties will need to listen and respect the wish of the community that it is meant to uphold and attempts to govern. It was therefore a democratically and demographically-driven shift when Western “left” parties became advocates of gender equality at all levels, including marriage equality, and for listening to their constituencies, they ought to be applauded.

That said, moves of this nature lose any genuine intention behind them if and when not done in conjunction with other new moves and directions.

It would therefore not be too cynical to say that in this particular instance, ie the issue of LBGT rights, that Western “left” parties have simply jumped on an existing and popular band wagon.

Here, we must stop and remember that whilst the Obama Administration has approved marriage equality within the United States of America, it continued to endorse the Saudi Government that does not give women the right to even drive a car. Furthermore, that same administration has helped and abetted the Saudi regime in attacking and bombing Yemen and creating a human disaster and starvation that no one in the West, including the most “progressive” parties in the “left” are trying to put an end to; let alone seem to know about.

This is not to forget the support fighters associated with Al-Qaeda and ISIL in Syria and Libya have received from the USA and EU nations; including the so-called socialist “left” French Government of President Hollande. And when we make such exposures, we should not vindicate the Western “left” in opposition in nations like the UK, Australia and in the recent past in Canada.

There was not a word, not a whisper to stop the onslaught of those wars, and if anything, the West as a whole, either directly by the action of “left” governments or by the tacit support of “left” opposition, has been actively engaged in financing and supporting the most oppressive world regimes and helping finance, arm, and facilitate the activities of fundamentalist terror organizations.

And speaking of Obama, just by virtue of being a President from the Democratic Party, he was assumed to be from the “left” side of Western politics; and which admittedly is not as hawkish as the Republican Party. But one would wonder, in the true essence of the “left” philosophy, what was/is it exactly in Obama and the American Democratic Party that was/is remotely “left” in its ideals? After all, it was Democratic Presidents who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, started the Vietnam War and created Al-Qaeda. It was the Democratic Obama who led the EU to the brink of war with Russia over Ukraine; and ironically did so by supporting the ultra-right Ukrainian Neo-Nazis. How bizarre indeed!

Where is anything that can be even remotely referred to as “left” in these actions and endorsements?

It would be therefore fair to say that with the attempts to reinvent the “left” in the West, the original principles were cast away and fantasy that is very alien to the “left” doctrine seems to have taken precedence over genuine revolutions.

This is not a call to take arms and to go back to the days of revolutions. Humanity has had plenty of that already. But to honour the spirit of Guevara all the while helping the Saudis bomb Yemen and Al-Qaeda to destroy Churches in Syria is grossly hypocritical to say the least, and forms a blatant exposure of the rot and moral bankruptcy that seems to have overtaken Western “left” movements and governments.

Without giving a lesson in history, but when Angola was under attack, Castro sent troops to help; not for any gain for Cuba at all. Whether or not one endorses this action, but that was what a “revolutionary” leftist leaders who is true to his word was supposed to do, and certainly Castro epitomized this image. If we compare Castro’s action to current leaders of the “left”, it becomes therefore fair to say that issues such as global justice are no longer on the Western “left” agenda. If we go further and say that the Western “left” has directly and indirectly been involved in creating more global injustice, it then becomes imperative to concede that the Western “left’ has become a part of problem; not the solution.

So what is really left of the “left” in the “left”? One wonders.

In reality and practice, the “left” concept was reduced to only be contingent upon supporting such issues as gender equality issues and environmental awareness; but all with a huge taint of unrealistic political correctness that bogs it down and blinds its vision from focusing on other important issues.

Even when getting facts and having them laid out to members of the Western “left” on a silver platter, they do not seem to understand that, for example, one cannot only look at certain issues of social justice, whilst totally ignoring one’s country involvement in needless wars that are flooding the world with refugees.

What is also mind-boggling about the Western “left” is its love-hate relationship with mainstream media (MSM). They opt to disbelieve their tabloids and bulletins when they themselves are the victims, but the moment someone else gets his neck under the chopping board of the MSM, instead of putting two and two together and coming up with the conclusion that the MSM make lies not only about them, but also about others, instead of putting two and two together to end up with rational conclusions, they conveniently opt to adopt the easy way out and believe the lies about others whom they choose to dislike.

Where is the sense of fairness in this attitude? What happened to the aspiration for global justice?

Rather shamelessly, they are now crying tears of blood to see Obama finish his term, in a clear indication that they are either unaware of the carnage of his warmongering policy or that they know, but they don’t care. However, when one brings out the facts to them and shows them that Obama has created havoc in Libya, Syria, Yemen and many other corners of the world, and when one presents evidence about the tens of thousands of innocent people who perished as a result, they can no longer argue that they did not know. This is a serious indictment because it ultimately means that they have not only abandoned their lofty ideals of global justice, but also that they blatantly do not give much consideration at all to Libyan, Syrian and Yemeni lives. This makes them racists to the extreme, and they can jump up and down decrying the accusation, but their actions and inactions show their true colours.

In principle, to take the fight against global injustice and racism from the “left” would be tantamount to taking Jesus Christ out of Christianity. But try saying this to today’s alleged “leftists”.

What is most bizarre perhaps is the fact that the notion of speaking about reform with the western “left” is a taboo subject. This is quite oxymoronic to say the least. After all, the “left” is meant to signify reform, is it not? So, what is really and truly left of the “left” in the “left”?

Apart from the name tag, what is left of the “left” in “the Western left” and the “left” in general is a combination of remnants of old ideas mashed together with some new-age fantasies that only merge in minds that do not seem to be able to understand the concept of compatibility. This brings back the issue of rationality, and in this case, the lack of it. There is at best very little left about today’s “left” that is well and truly “left” in its core. It’s a muddled up world of juvenile-minded dreamers and screamers, figments of a bygone past, regressive mutants who seem to run more on superficial and distorted vision rather than principles and rationality.

The truth of the matter is that the “left” is dead, and it cannot be rebirthed; unless it admits its past and present failures and rebuilds itself on its original political doctrine with a clear understanding that its objective is to achieve justice and equal rights for all humans all over the world.

At the end of the day, politics is politics, and at best, it provides the right environment for human awakening. At best, it is the prerequisite and not the ultimate objective, and for this reason, it ought to be built on ethical foundations. For as long as this form of political and ethical rationality is not the corner stone of political activism that is meant to be part-and-parcel of human awakening, any journey with any other objective(s) will fail, and history is full of such examples, and all that humanity needs to do is to look back at its past failed steps to learn.

Part IV; The Seemingly Emerging New Left

In the absence of mainstream political movements pushing for change and reform, the human aspiration for change did not go away. Not even the Western Churches, with their former draconian punishments, were able to stifle humanity and prevent it from demanding awakening and better living conditions.

Demanding change is a part of human nature, and people do this at many levels and even when it comes to mundane things like rearranging their furniture. And whilst the bigger changes they seek and pursue do not always end up with positive outcomes, the desire for change does not go away.

And as the traditional Western “left” and “right” formed the establishment and ran it in accordance with electoral alternation, the differences between them shrank and continued to shrink.

They might have continued to differ on rather minor issues such as government funding of certain projects, where to drop taxes and where to lift them, where to prioritize public spending, their relationships with trade unions and other management issues, but on basic philosophical and doctrinal matters such as global justice, they became almost identical. Ironically, they are both in denial as to how identical they are, even though their constituencies keep telling them that they perceive them as being so.

They try hard to scorn each other and quarrel over petty matters in desperate attempts to recreate the schism that once separated them, but to no avail. If even the mighty Catholic Church reached a point in time when it was no longer able to fool people, they will need to acknowledge that their power of swaying opinion and fooling people will not work.

They conjure up all tricks to accentuate the little difference they have left between them, but they also often go back to adopt some former policies of their political foes. When the Australian Liberal Party was in opposition in the 1980’s, it vehemently fought the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) so-called “Option C” in which Paul Keating, the then treasurer, advocated the need for introducing a consumption tax. Yet, the Liberal John Howard’s Government was unapologetic when it introduced it nearly a decade later. That said, the ALP was also unapologetic when it voted against introducing it, even though it was originally an ALP idea.

Western voters grew increasingly dissatisfied with their political leaders, and the percentage of citizens who actually vote in countries in which voting is not compulsory is a simple reflection.

Even in a highly decisive and highly controversial election like the recent American presidential elections, 90 million eligible voters out of 231 million did not vote. This is nearly a whopping 40%.

This is democracy in action, and ironically in this instance, perhaps a reflection of the distrust of American voters in the version of democracy that the two-party system has been pushing down their throats for a very long time. Not even a rally like the Clinton-Trump battle was enough to motivate them.

That said, the 60% who did vote, voted with a loud and clear message; but are the major parties listening? One really wonders.

There was a major twist in this election. The Republican candidate Donald Trump has actually won the elections without the support of his party. As a matter of fact, many Republican heavy weights did not endorse him and made statements that they were not going to vote for him.

Against protocol, former President George Bush Senior did not even attend the inaugural ceremony.

It is not by accident that Trump is not liked either by his Democrat foes or by his supposed Republican “comrades”. After all, he has broken the mold and based his campaign on seeking change, the kind of change that neither party wants to address, let alone bring up.

What worries the Western “right” and “left” about Trump is the fact that he has seemingly created a new force in politics and managed to get in from an open window that they least expected and one previously unheard of; the window of the “Conservative Revolution”

The impact of the “Conservative Revolution” is perhaps not any less virulent in Western politics than the impact of the age of European enlightenment was on the Church. Only time will tell.

Would it be too immature and inconceivable to say that for the major Western political parties the worst is yet to come? A close-up look at them reveals that the Trump phenomenon is likely going to be the beginning of an avalanche that will politically sweep the West and push the reset button on its party-based infra-structure.

In the opening article titled “The Conservative Revolution”, and which was not meant to be an opening article per se but rather a stand-alone one, I expressed my views about how the move of the traditional Western “right” and “left” moved to the centre, and how in doing so, they created separate vacuums in the left and right, and which were filled by the Greens and Ultra-Right, respectively.

What is intrinsically pertinent is the fact that when people are denied the opportunity for change, they will find a way to seek it.

Traditionally, the drive for change came from below; from the masses. That was how the mother of all revolutions, the French Revolution, was created.

Traditionally also, the conservative reasoning behind maintaining the status quo came from above; if from authority itself (as in the case of France’s Louis the XVI), the social and financial upper crust, or both.

The financial divide had been a major driving force that divided the ‘haves and the have nots’; those who wanted change from those who resisted it.

However, as different contemporary ideologies – political, financial, doctrinal or otherwise – seem to stem from perspectives and objectives that are invariably partial in their views, selective in their outlooks, and primarily irrational in their rationales to varying degrees; they will always eventually fall down and crumble because they all have their own and specific Achilles heel, and their heels will all be struck once they run out of steam and luck.

Thus, what was seen as a triumph of Capitalism over Communism when the USSR crumbled was in reality a forerunner for Capitalism to come to terms with reality of the forthcoming demise of its own two-party system if not more.

There is undeniably a new and unprecedented political move on the rise in the West, and if the traditional custodians of alternating Western parties in power have an iota of rationality and long-term vision, they ought to stop and look at their own status quo, and at what size hole they have dug up in the middle of the path of their own political future.

In their denial to the proximity that was created by their bi-partisan agreement on major issues, little did they see that in doing so, they had signed a mutual death warrant for each other. Little did they realize that for them to be perceived to be on opposite sides, they needed to demonstrate that they were not only the opposite sides of the same coin, but opposite in every way that was related to their modus operandi. But they did not.

The masses do not go by what is dictated to them, and right or wrong, they will invariably go against the stream when they feel marginalized and ridiculed. If anything, the more they feel they have been marginalized and ridiculed, the more vehement they become in standing up against the offender. And if the offender is the authority, the more they will be inclined to revolt.

As the “left” is clearly no longer what it used to be, and as the “right” is losing more support from its traditional power base because it is seen as being almost identical to the “left”, the drive for change had to open up for itself a new window for self-expression.

This brings us back to the issue of human awakening.

Trump’s “Conservative Revolution” is ideologically and philosophically not in a position to offer humanity an enlightened alternative by any stretch of imagination.

That said, it is presenting a challenge, a real and significant challenge.

For the West in general and the United States in particular to ignore the events that led to the election of Trump as President would be foolhardy. To blame the happening on Russia is ridiculous and laughable.

At the present time, the West is no longer divided on the Cold-War-Take-One divide of Capitalism versus Communism. It is no longer divided on any remaining remnants of that divide that once distinguished “right” from “left” Western politics either.

At the present time, the political divide that separates the traditional major parties in the West is increasingly becoming one that is only seen in the eyes of those parties and their loyal voters. But it is not the loyal voters who decide who wins elections.

The swinging voters and those who do not vote, at least not on a regular basis, are indeed those who make that decision, and their decision is becoming more prominent.

With his business background, Trump may apply fiscal business pragmatism and run the USA as a business. Whilst this sounds like an abhorrent prospect, in reality, it may mean relief to millions around the globe who wish for a cessation of American attempts of further regime changes that serve them with American-style democracy, courtesy of B-52’s.

The “Conservative Revolution” is the slap in the face that both major parties in all Western democracies need and deserve to get. At best however, it cannot be expected to be much better than just that. It is inadvertently the emerging and still ill-defined force for change; ironically a “new left”; even though it does not bear any ideological resemblance to Guevara’s “left”, but rather just by definition of seeking change.

In reality, for as long as people continue to look at each other as groups and nations of conflicting interests, they will find a reason to quarrel. They will only stop once they see that what unites them is much stronger and much more profound, and they cannot and will not do this until they seek proper awakening; the kind of awakening that ancient Greek Philosophers and the European philosophers taught and sought. Religion was meant to be an awakening, but sadly it was hijacked by institutions, twisted, diverted and turned into a tool for suppression rather than liberation.

Will humanity employ the Trump election win as a precursor and a reminder and an incentive to go back to the roots of the age of awakening? This may sound like a huge and a far-fetched call, but in reality, awakening does not necessarily need a huge nudge for it to commence.

At the end of the day, and going back to basics mentioned in an earlier article in this series, meddling with the minds of people is a serious crime. Technically, it is not defined as a form of genocide. It is not; it is much more serious.

Politics and ethics should go hand in hand, and when they don’t, we see events akin to what humanity is experiencing now.

Humanity will survive and will bring out its best, and the best is yet to come.

At the end of the day again, darkness will never be able to overcome light any more than it can stop the light of a candle from breaking darkness and disabling its light from reaching huge distances. Such is the power of light over darkness, because no intensity of darkness can stifle a single humble candle.

And finally, at the end of the day, political movements, right, left, conservative revolutions or otherwise, including the multitude of religious factions and schools, none of them mean much at all, unless they offer humanity the real salvation it needs. And the salvation of humanity will not come from politics and politicians.

But if one looks at different versions of the definitions of salvation, defining salvation as an outcome of knowledge is a definition that cannot be surmounted except by those who prefer ignorance.

Part V; The Establishment Strikes Back

With the backlash to the election and inauguration of President Trump, we are witnessing unprecedented events indeed. Certainly, much of this is based on his controversial “Executive Orders”, and this is well expected; especially the one relating to visa restrictions and the trauma and anxiety it is causing. However, in a major twist of events, and among many other things, we see THE American President attacking the Western Mainstream Media (MSM) and his Press Secretary Sean Spicer warning them that they will be held accountable.

Just a very short time ago, Obama’s Press Secretaries Robert Gibbs and later on Josh Earnest were playing “I scratch your back and you scratch mine” with the same MSM; feeding each other with stories they both loved to hear and making conclusions that suited their “business” agendas.

For decades, the machine of the “establishment” has been none but the so-called “Deep State” represented by the White House, and it’s figurehead was none but the incumbent President whoever he was. Even the seemingly benign, humane and smiley Jimmy Carter was a part of that “establishment” and its “Deep State”, and so was the former President, who promised to be unlike any other; former President Obama, the suave-looking self-made African American with his eloquence, elegant wife and perfect looking family, the President who promised the earth to end up providing scorched earth, and instead of providing hope, millions across the globe looked forward to the day they gave him the title “former president”.

Of course, those shedding crocodile tears for the departure of Obama and rampaging the streets of America and the world do not know or care to know about the carnage the Obama administration has caused across the globe; because they have such a narrow agenda of interests, and because what they are trying to protect is not human rights and women as they proclaim, but certain privileges that they personally possess and only some Western women.

That infamous “establishment” is best described as a pyramid, an octopus if one wishes, but one with a virtually countless number of legs and tentacles, and they all feed off the figurehead, and the head does not only feed them, but offers them raison d’être, protection and all that they need for sustenance and continuity.

Just like Tolkein’s Orcs cling to Sauron and imbibe their life and existence from him, the satellite entities of the “establishment” have always considered the American President to be the apex of the pyramid, the symbol, the be-all-and-end-all being, a god, upon whom their very existence depended; even when they claimed otherwise.

So when the head of the “establishment” turns away from his minions, their struggle for survival kicks in, not only because they need to survive, but also because in his departure, they inadvertently become all what is left of the “establishment” and that for them to restore their might and glory, they will first need to make sure that the “establishment” must restore its own stature first, and for this reason, it ought to strike back; albeit at the head that is meant to be its own.

Thus far, Trump is keeping his election promises; and this is to the utter disappointment and shear horror to what is left of the “establishment”.

In all of their divisions, alliances, and private/personal aspirations, they had been hoping and praying that the moment he got elected he was going to renege on major election promises. He did not. They hoped that the moment he sat in the Oval Office he would then turn his back on his election promises, and thus far he hasn’t. This is not to say that he will not, but thus far, he hasn’t.

But unlike the Orcs who were engulfed into the fissures in the earth which were generated after Frodo destroyed the “ring”, what is left of the “establishment” did not, and was not expected to cease to exist the moment the head was no longer sitting on its shoulders. After all, some of the satellites of the “establishment” are much more intelligent and conniving than Orcs; even though at heart, there is little difference that separates them.

The intelligent ones are capitalizing on the principle of “controlled opposition”; a strategy they developed for other nations in the past, in nations they wanted to destabilize, and this had worked effectively in many places. Now, they are trying this technique at home, and thus far it is working.

The technique is based on conjuring up a populist issue that inflames emotions enough to mobilize people to take to the streets; if not more. We saw this technique work quite effectively in Egypt, Libya and other places. It almost succeeded in Syria.

Those monsters specialize in social engineering, and they capitalize on the goodness in humanity and the desire that good people have for making things better. So they flag huge issues such as liberty (as in the case of Egypt), dictatorship (as they did in Libya and Syria), and they find thousands upon thousands of youth rising up in defense of those principles.

They are playing similar cards now, but this time, they are doing this within the United States of America. They are using a number of anti-Trump trump cards; including misogyny, racism, and Islamophobia.

They are desperately striking back in a life-or-death attempt that can secure their survival. What is ironic about this “strike back” is that it is banking on a support base that is extremely diverse, or at best multi-based.

Throughout history, foot soldiers have either been forcefully drafted or mobilized by some human passion; and this takes us back to the issue of the genocidal concept of meddling with peoples’ minds. The foot soldiers therefore are not the ones to blame; not now, and not at the time when the Catholic Church mobilized waves upon waves of soldiers to take back the Holy Land from the Muslim infidels.

However, unlike the revolutionaries of Soviet and post-Soviet eras, unlike the Al-Qaeda and ISIS Jihadists, the foot soldiers of the post-Obama presidency era do not have any hierarchal foundation at all. They do not have neither a specific agenda nor leadership, neither a preamble nor a strategy, and above all, the diverse backgrounds they have beggars beliefs as to what unites them.

This is because those who move them and motivate them are similar to the former initial enemies of Syria who were only united by their hatred of Syria and her President. And now, the leaders of the protests of America, who are changing the protests into riots, are united by their hatred for Trump; full stop.

And speaking of those different backgrounds, here is an interesting list of those who are anti-Trump; both overtly and covertly. The list includes the “Deep State”, Soros and his NGO’s, Murdoch and his tabloids, the Neo-Cons, the Saudi Royal family, ISIL, and of course; the Western “left”. Need one list more?

Now here is the pertinent question to ask. How do the leaders of the Western “left” feel at ease being associated with those monstrous people and organizations? Do those alleged defenders of women actually know and worry about the fact that they are currently comrades in arms with the Saudi regime? This is the world’s most oppressive anti-women regime, a regime in which women are not only forbidden to vote, but they are not allowed to drive cars either.

And how about the association with Obama himself? The President who bombed more foreign nations than any other, the one who has caused global havoc and destruction? Are the people he killed less human in the eyes of the leaders of the Western “left”? Obviously, they are.

The demise of the Western “left” has to be first and foremost blamed on the demise of its leaders and think-tanks. After all, it is leaders who pave the way and set objectives and strategies to achieve them.

But the blame game has to turn inwardly at some stage, because individuals cannot blame others for all of their actions. They can blame them for misguiding them, but surely, those individuals must reach a point in time at which they must assume at least some responsibility and be able to do their own soul-searching.

Sadly, many leaders and foot soldiers of the Western “left” alike do not seem to be remotely close to the realization that they have failed their own doctrine.

By turning the blind eyes to global social justice, the leaders of the Western “left” have reduced the struggle for freedom and awakening to specific agendas only restricted to gender equality, LBGT rights and global warming issues; and no one was “allowed” to bring in any other subject. And what a short-sighted and moronic definition some of them have to gender equality! Rather than pushing for equality in its literal sense, they want to impose equal numbers of men and women in certain positions. Why do they want to take the suppression of women into another wrong twist? One wonders. Isn’t equality supposed to be meritorious in nature? And what if in a certain area there are more qualified women than men? Do we still need to have 50% male representation?

Such a vision of gender equality is very ill-conceived indeed, and does not serve women’s rights, not the least.

And how can the alleged protectors of women turn a blind eye to the sex slave industry inflicted upon the war-torn countries in which their nations, and even respected leaders, have poked their noses?

Yes, what about the sex slaves that Obama allowed to be bought and sold under his watchful eyes and tacit quietness? Syrian and Iraqi girls as young at 10 years old were bought by filthy old Saudi, Gulfie and Qatari pedophilic men as sex slaves. Where were Meryl Streep and Madonna? Don’t Syrian and Iraqi women, and young girls, deserve protection by those alleged protectors of women? Obviously not. We did not hear a single word, not a whisper from the hundreds of thousands of them.

The West, and its “left”, cannot hide and pretend that the slave industry took off after ISIL (its alleged enemy) took control after June 2014, as facts on the ground clearly indicate that the sex slave industry started very early in the mark at a time when the West fully and overtly endorsed all anti-government forces in Syria, at times when John McCain was visiting them and taking photoshoots with them, and at times when Australia’s then Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr was calling for the assassination of President Assad.

Does the Western “left” have any intelligence or sense of shame left in it at all?

The global “left” supporters are now up in arms, not because of Trump’s infamous grabbing quote, but because he has destroyed the “establishment”; their establishment, and they are fighting for the restoration of their stature.

And how does the woman who rose to infamy by parading in a vagina dress believe that she is presenting, upholding and protecting women? Is this how she regards women? As vaginas? This is the lowest, most demeaning and most appalling act of objectifying women that I have ever seen or expected to live long enough to see. To her I would like to say that to me, women are my late and beloved mother and grandmother, my aunts, my daughter, my wife, my daughters-in-law, my nieces, my cousins, my friends and their friends, my neighbours, and all other women that I know, respect and love. The women I do not know, when I need to communicate with them not knowing their names, I give them the respectful titles such as madam and the like. I do not see them as vaginas and they do not represent themselves as vaginas.

The demeanour of the vagina dress woman is far worse than Trump’s infamous grabbing statement, but yet, no one seems to be making any comments to condemn her. If anything, she seems to be seen as a heroine.

This woman is clearly a pervert of some sort, and social misfits like her know well that for decades now, they have decimated and destroyed what is known as the “good old values”, and they also know that there are millions upon millions of people across the globe who are sick and tired of their hypocritical antics. They know that the decent people of the world are growing impatient with their debauchery and despicable demeanour.

For decades, they have capitalized on the kindness and acceptance of the majority of people who have endorsed them, protected them, and accepted them. This is because it is the decent majority of people who are the true custodians of democracy and freedom of expression; not them. It is the efforts and sacrifices of the decent majority that resulted in the creation of those attributes in civilized societies; not theirs.

My animated outcry is that of an old leftie who feels that his movement has been hijacked. I feel that the leadership of the Western “left” has fallen off the track, they are not listening to their elders. They are either so politically unsavvy that they don’t know that they have fallen into the traps of the “establishment” they were meant to stand up against, or that they have been fooled to allow to be dragged into it unknowingly. Either way, they have given the reins to a bunch of brainless scavengers, mental retards who are true Fascists in every manner of thought and demeanour. And they are all striking back together, their establishment is striking back with them, because they know that they have been decapitated and that the rest of the world has had enough of them.

If I am sounding angry, it is because I have already lost my country of birth Lebanon and was driven out of it more than 3 decades ago because the progressive atmosphere and movements that I grew up among in the fifties and sixties were all replaced by fundamentalism and strife. In the last 5-6 years, I saw the same happen to my maternal Syrian cousins and family, and for the same reasons. An age of enlightenment was just beginning to dawn in the Middle East and was hijacked by the radical religious movements that swept and destroyed everything in their path.

And now, in my adopted homeland Australia, the country I love and dedicate my heart to, is slipping into an opposite but yet very similar radicalism. That was totally unforeseeable only a few years ago, and there is no force to blame but the “left” and how it allowed itself to morph from an impetus for moving forward to a step back into different forms of spiritual debasement and lack of concern for global justice and national sovereignty.

This may sound like an ultra-right propaganda, but in reality it is not. It is the “left” who has abandoned the principles of the true left and turned it from a force of change and liberation to a force towards breakdown of society and family values. If by endorsing those values and virtues I will be branded a right-wing zealot, then so be it, because as a die-hard true leftie, I do not see any association between my principles and values with what is left of the left in the “left”.

The US Politician Who Could Become Second Abraham Lincoln

The US Politician Who Could Become Second Abraham Lincoln
ERIC ZUESSE | 31.01.2017 | WORLD

The US Politician Who Could Become Second Abraham Lincoln

There are several reasons why the progressive Tulsi Gabbard stands an extraordinarily good likelihood of repeating the extraordinary achievement of the progressive Abraham Lincoln.

The electoral defeat of a liberal Hillary Clinton in 2016, and the widespread recognition of the fact that a progressive Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate would have stood a far higher probability of beating Donald Trump than Clinton did, combines with an equally widespread recognition that the Democratic Party’s corrupted leadership by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton brought enormous harm to the Democratic Party by actually cheating the stronger and more progressive candidate Sanders out of the Party’s nomination, so that competition has already begun within the Democratic Party, to determine whom the Party should nominate in 2020 to run against President Donald Trump. There is no longer an incumbent (such as Obama), nor his chosen successor (such as was the former Secretary of State, Clinton), to dominate the Democratic field in 2020 (as was the case in 2016); and yet even Sanders himself — who in 2016 was more preferred to become President than was any other of the twenty major-Party candidates — would likely be too old for some of his 2016 voters to support again in 2020. Many Democratic voters will be looking for «new blood» — a progressive like Sanders, but one whose remaining life-expectancy will extend well beyond two terms as the U.S. President.

Clinton is simply out of the running because of her failure and because of the clear harms that she has already done to the Party (losing across-the-board: Presidency, Senate, House, governorships, and state houses); and yet Sanders is still considered as a possibility, although he would be 79 years old in 2020 and is therefore unlikely to be chosen. The field is wide open this time around, not at all like it was in 2016.

Attention thus has begun to be focused upon the young progressive who nominated Sanders at the Democratic National Convention on 26 July 2016: U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. One of the chief arguments that are presented against her as being a Presidential candidate in 2020 (if she won’t already by that time have become a U.S. Senator) is that she is «only» a member of the large U.S. House of Representatives, and not a member of the far smaller, and yet more powerful, U.S. Senate — nor is she a state governor (which post, along with that of being a Senator, have traditionally been the two preferred springboards into the White House). But her being «only» a Representative is not actually a disqualifier.

There were two U.S. Representatives who ran for the White House and who won, and one of those two was possibly the greatest U.S. President ever: the progressive Abraham Lincoln in 1860. (The other was James Garfield, 20 years later.) Also like Lincoln, who staked out and led a stunningly courageous progressive political position on the central political issue of his time, Tulsi Gabbard has staked out and led a stunningly courageous progressive political position on what is perhaps the central political issue of our time.

This young progressive might therefore repeat what Lincoln did.

Abraham Lincoln went from being one of Illinois’ Representatives in Congress, directly to becoming (according to historians in our time) tied with the progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt as having been the greatest American President.

The progressive Illinois Representative Lincoln became a U.S. President because he displayed the extraordinarily rare moral courage, as a U.S. Presidential candidate, to condemn the most evil conservative tradition in his time, slavery, that had been cursing this country for decades, ever since America’s founding in the Constitution of 1787 — the nation’s founding document that accepted slavery, and that thus granted slave-owners an additional three-fifths or 60% of representation in Congress, for each and every slave that they owned; or, as wikipedia describes the net impact of the Constitution’s Three-Fifths Clause, «The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free persons had been counted equally, allowing the slaveholder interests [the slave-owners] to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861». Lincoln broke the stranglehold that the slaveholding Southern aristocracy (and their backers amongst the northern aristocrats) had held, during the nation’s early decades, over the U.S. government. Lincoln broke the dictatorship of the slave-owners (and of their northern bankers and slave-merchants — after all, those suppliers to the slave-market had benefited considerably from the added clout that the Three-Fifths Clause was providing to their customers, and which had helped continue and even expand the slaving tradition: the buying of slaves, from those slavers).

The progressive Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard similarly displays extraordinarily rare moral courage, hers being to condemn the most evil conservative tradition of our time: she condemns the U.S. military-industrial complex’s decades-long stranglehold, ever since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, over the U.S. government — the dictatorship that the weapons-corporations such as Lockheed Martin have over the U.S. federal government after the Cold War had ended on the Russian side, in 1991, and after Russia’s communism had ended and its Warsaw Pact military alliance to defend against America’s NATO alliance, also both ended in 1991, on Russia’s side, but the Cold War did not really end on America’s side. The Cold War continues, even today, on the American side, because of the stranglehold of the U.S. military-industrial complex over our government, which expands (instead of ends) its anti-Russian military alliance, NATO, even after that alliance’s very reason-for-being — the communist threat — had ceased a full quarter-century ago.

As Gabbard has courageously expressed this matter, regarding specifically the very hot issue of America’s participation in the war in Syria, when speaking on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, on 8 December 2016:

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, under U.S. law, it is illegal for you or me or any American to provide any type of assistance to al Qaeda, ISIS, or other terrorist groups. If we broke this law, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. Government has been violating this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting allies and partners of groups like al Qaeda and ISIS with money, weapons, intelligence, and other support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian Government.

A recent New York Times article confirmed that «rebel groups» supported by the U.S. «have entered into battlefield alliances with the affiliate of al Qaeda in Syria, formerly known as Al Nusra».

The Wall Street Journal reports that rebel grounds are «doubling down on their alliance» with al Qaeda. This alliance has rendered the phrase «moderate rebels» meaningless. We must stop this madness. We must stop arming terrorists.

I am introducing the Stop Arming Terrorists Act today to prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to support terrorists.

She would refocus our military against jihadists, instead of against Russians.

Rather than asserting such a hateful conservative lie as «Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe», Gabbard was saying that jihadists in all countries (and implicitly thereby, the aristocracies, such as the Sauds, that fund them) are that. (But, of course, America’s military-industrial complex sells lots more weapons if nuclear war is the goal than if killing terrorists is the goal — so, they can’t support a candidate such as Gabbard, who prefers to defend the American people, instead of to sell weapons.) And not only was she asserting that Russia’s ally Syria was defending itself against the jihadists, as the U.S. itself is, but she was asserting that our country, the United States, has actually been supporting those jihadists because they’re trying to overthrow Syria’s anti-jihadist government, which is supported by Russia. She was interviewed hostilely by both the liberal newsmedia and the conservative newsmedia — both Democrats and Republicans — and was condemned especially by the Democratic Party’s leadership — for her leading this anti-aristocratic position, and for her displaying this moral courage, even in the face of the aristocracy who buy ‘electoral’ wins, such as seats in Congress, and ultimately buy even America’s Presidencies, the people who occupy the U.S. White House.

(As regards Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s famous assertion that «Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe», the only sense in which that statement is even conceivably realistic is that the settlement at the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 was for the U.S. and Russia to have a balanced level of mutual-deterrence nuclear forces: the concept of maintaining Mutually Assured Destruction, or «MAD», which had prevented another world war, was to continue, to the mutual benefits of both sides, and of the entire world. But that is very different from continued mutual hostility and a nuclear-arms race, such as the neoconservatives (all the way from John McCain to Hillary Clinton) want. After the end of the Soviet Union, that costly arms-race wasn’t supposed to continue. George Herbert Walker Bush and his agents all assured Mikhail Gorbachev that the Cold War would be over if communism ended and the Warsaw Pact ended. The U.S. aristocracy just doesn’t want to fulfill its side of that bargain — they lied; they want conquest.)

As I look at the viewer-comments that are posted on all of those videos of Gabbard presenting this position — a position which is rejected by all of the U.S. Establishment — I get the impression that her position wins such broad public support, that Representative Gabbard would, if she becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee for President in 2020, sweep the White House and the Senate and the House, and become, as Abraham Lincoln was in the 1860s, a President who would, temporarily, conquer America’s aristocracy, which this time owns the giant ‘defense’ oligopoly firms, instead of owns the most slaves.

Here, for example, was a typical statement from Lincoln — the first and only progressive Republican President (the only one, because his Party got taken over by the U.S. aristocracy immediately after he was shot dead in 1865); it’s dated 3 December 1861:

——

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and, with their capital, hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class — neither work for others, nor have others working for them. In most of the southern States, a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters; while in the northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men with their families — wives, sons, and daughters — work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital — that is, they labor with their own hands, and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed, and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again: as has already been said, there is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States, a few years back in their lives, were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all — gives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. No [Page  53] men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty — none less inclined to take, or touch, aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost.

——

Here was a typical statement from Gabbard, this one condemning the then Democratic President Barack Obama’s hyper-conservative (or extremely pro-aristocracy) proposed TPP commercial treaty with Pacific-Rim countries:

——

gabbard.house.gov

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: ITC’s Report Confirms TPP is A Bad Deal for the American People

May 20, 2016 Press Release

Washington, DC — Today, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, released the following statement after the International Trade Commission (ITC) released a report on the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s (TPP) projected impact on the U.S. economy:

«The International Trade Commission report confirms what we have known all along—the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is a bad deal for the American people.  We’ve heard from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers, and set the standards for global trade.  The ITC’s report tells us the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas, and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don’t even account for the damaging effects of currency manipulation, which is not addressed in the deal, environmental impacts, and the agreement’s deeply flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process that empowers foreign corporations to supersede our sovereignty and domestic rule of law. This report further proves that the TPP is worse than we thought, and will benefit Wall Street banks and multinational corporations on the backs of hard-working Americans and our economy».

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard strongly opposed «fast-track» Trade Promotion Authority when it came before the House last year and has continued to speak out against the TPP.  Earlier this year, Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, Rosa DeLauro and other lawmakers released a joint op-ed on why the American people deserve better than the TPP.

——

Gabbard’s anti-TPP position, and her anti anti-Russia position, happen actually to be intimately connected, because a major motivation for Obama’s geostrategy behind all three of his mega-‘trade’ deals — TPP, TTIP, and TISA, all three of which were greatly facilitated by Congress’s passage of «Fast Track» — had also been designing it so as to exclude both Russia and China (as well as the other BRICS countries) from belonging to any of these proposed huge trading-blocs. TPP, TTIP, and TISA, were thus intended actually as huge collective acts of «trade war». For example: «TISA involves 51 countries, including every advanced economy except the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)». The U.S. aristocracy are like a giant boa-constrictor, with an unlimited appetite for conquest, and they cannot succeed without their alliances with the aristocracies of other nations. Gabbard repeatedly has said that she wants to do everything she can to help «ending our country’s interventionist regime-change war policies». A progressive believes that being more aggressive isn’t necessarily being stronger, but can (and often does) cause a nation to become weaker, and less prosperous — even if not for its aristocrats, who thrive by invading other lands.

Both Lincoln and Gabbard are Representatives (and, in Lincoln’s case, subsequently a President) who courageously waged ideological battle for the public, against the aristocracy — they were/are progressives. The main difference between them is that the aristocracy today wages its warfare against the public differently than it did in 1860. Whereas nowadays it derives the biggest source of its power from selling weaponry and energy and disease-care products and financial services (including to U.S. soldiers), in Lincoln’s time it was selling slaves and the products of slaves. So, today’s government has been designed for the ‘defense’ firms, whereas until 1860 it was designed for the slaving firms.

Though the times have changed, the basic ideological struggle remains basically the same as it always has been: the aristocracy versus the public. And, like Representative Abraham Lincoln did in the 1850s,  Representative Tulsi Gabbard in our time has been making very clear, by her courageous actions and statements, on which side of the ideological divide she stands. It’s the same side that Sanders himself stood on: the progressive side. He would be terrific — in her Cabinet, or in her White House: like William H. Seward was, to Abraham Lincoln.

‘The Euro’ by Stiglitz: Even fake leftists say ‘exit’

January 29, 2017

by Ramin Mazaheri

‘The Euro’ by Stiglitz: Even fake leftists say ‘exit’

“The Euro”, both the monetary system and the book of the same name by Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, can appear complicated.

Take heart from Noam Chomsky, who wrote that nothing in the social sciences cannot be understood by the average bus driver in a couple of minutes – this is not calculus or physics, after all.

Give me just three paragraphs to simplify everything:

Stiglitz successfully makes two indisputable academic assertions: The euro has failed in its promise to bring about prosperity and security, and that there is nothing in its organizational structure which allows for the possibility for change.

Take a moment and realize these do not constitute an attack on the euro – these are clear facts, the former of which is clear to anyone. You’ll have to take his academic word for the latter assertion, unless perusing the euro’s structure is your idea of a fun Saturday night.

After covering the entirety of the Eurozone crisis from France, it is impossible to refute my assertions that the Eurozone has failed to bring about prosperity and security for the average Frenchman, and that there is nothing in the mainstream political structure which allows for the possibility for change.

Trust us. The first part is the main part, anyway.

I thought I’d revisit Stiglitz’s book, seeing as how the National Front’s Marine Le Pen may win the presidency in a few months largely thanks to her promise to leave the euro.

It’s vital to realize that it is not just right-wing ignoramuses like me and Le Pen who want out of the Eurozone – a mainstream, Nobel Prize-winning economist has reached the same conclusion. What I am saying here is: You don’t have to agree with us, but you cannot denigrate euro-exiters by calling us stupid or racist like you did Brexiters or Trumpers – at some point you have to openly debate.

“The Euro” is very good and worth reading. If you want know the truth about the Eurozone, read the analysis of someone who has no personal stake in it, like Stiglitz.

But believing that the euro should continue should be referred to as “Islamic market fundamentalism”, not because it has one single thing to do with Islam, but because then it would hit home with the average Westerner just how fanatical “market fundamentalism”, or “neoliberalism” truly is.

Such a term should make the deranged ideological basis of the Eurozone crystal-clear: Neoliberals are not at all constrained by the facts of 25 years of failure in Africa, a lost decade in Latin America, and nearly-lost decade in the Eurozone – Stiglitz makes this point repeatedly throughout the book.

What Stiglitz fails to do is to point out that the simple root of the Eurozone is capitalism and that this is the ideology which must be questioned, not simply its capitalist variant of neoliberalism.

I can easily relay a bunch of his facts, combine them with my on-the-ground experiences and convincingly make the urgent case that the Eurozone is flawed and must be abandoned or replaced.

But this is not that column.

I want this column to be about something else, and I will get right to the heart of the matter:

Stiglitz is about as leftist an economist as the mainstream media is permitted to report on.

That is why my headline calls him a “fake leftist”- I don’t think any economist would call him a “leftist economist”, but for all intents and purposes he is as economically left as the average person can find without caring enough to dig deeper.

Stiglitz is on the left of the right-wing; which makes him a centrist-tending-right. That he is consistently presented as a “progressive” economist is the mistake this column seeks to make right.

And like so many “progressives” who fall short of real leftism, even Stiglitz cannot believe his own eyes or his own words.

Fake progressives always let them off the hook

So many times in “The Euro” Stiglitz delivers a devastating conclusion about capitalism, only to immediately lets it off the hook by claiming bafflement as to how this could possibly happen. This failure is intellectually indefensible, intellectually unsatisfying, regressive and violently damaging. This passage is, unfortunately, typical.

“Austerity has always and everywhere had the contractionary effects observed in Europe: the greater the austerity, the greater the economic contraction. Why the Troika would have thought that this time in Europe it would be different is mystifying.”

It is not mystifying – this is what capitalism does over and over. Just as they sought in Africa and Latin America, neoliberals want to impose labor code rollbacks and deregulate; in Europe they wanted to end the gains Europeans have fought decades to win. It has worked in France – Hollande rammed through the “Macron Law” last year despite mass protests, and he arrested thousands of demonstrators to achieve it.

Time after time Stiglitz presents a devastating indictment which totally attacks the premise that capitalism is concerned with good governance and promoting even basic equality, only to soft-pedal backwards.

“But the eurozone programs have been a success, in the sense that the German and French banks have been repaid….Perhaps the real goals of Germany and the other creditor countries have indeed been achieved.”

For those not following Europe closely, this is exactly what has happened since the European Sovereign Debt Crisis began and why people have lost faith in the Eurozone: the rich countries of France, the Netherlands and Germany have no solidarity with the average Eurozone citizen at all (which is endemic in capitalism), and are ruthlessly waging economic colonization against the poorer nations (which is endemic in capitalism). It is the banks of France and Germany which have been bailed out, not the average indebted person in Greece or Finland, as Stiglitz repeatedly proves.

Spain and Ireland didn’t even need a bailout in 2009: They had a fiscal surplus and healthy debt-to-GDP ratios, but not anymore. Greece is now actually running a fiscal surplus! No matter – they are slated to be paying back banks further west and north for perhaps decades.

Stiglitz says these things, backed by academic facts, all the time in his book.

And yet with that seemingly ironic “perhaps the real goals” statement –a question mark is missing, which must be a grammatical error because it is clearly a question – Stiglitz simply ends the matter and moves on to a new topic. Tellingly, it is “The Need for Growth”.

Perhaps if Stiglitz were not trapped by capitalist ideology, by capitalism’s obsession with growth, he could have pursued his own hypothesis (which matches with reality) even further. But he didn’t, he dropped the potato once it got hot, or he doesn’t realize he has a capitalist-programmed obsession with “growth”.

A cynic might say that this was the intent of the law: to preserve power relations. But I am convinced that the rule in Europe was driven more by ideology and misguided economic beliefs than narrow self- interest.”

It is not at all cynical to say that capitalists in the Eurozone have not yet rectified a long-standing criticism by the left: that capitalism needlessly and inefficiently promotes international competition and imperialistic rivalries. Leftists have said this for decades, are saying it now, and will say it forever until 1) capitalism stops doing it, which they won’t (can’t) or 2) capitalism finds a solution to this problem, which they can’t (won’t).

Either Stiglitz, with all of his honorary degrees, has not read basic leftist economist thought, or he has forgotten it, or he has ignored it in the confirmation bias of his definitely non-progressive adoration of capitalism.

Like all capitalist promoters, and like all mainstream media members who live in a 24-hour news cycle, instead of taking a longer view Stiglitz is guilty of viewing the Eurozone as some sort of isolated case in capitalism when the moment arrives from clear conclusions and logical condemnation. He remains in his ivory tower, and his telescope does not take in the full historical view.

“Its construction (the ECB) was based on ideological propositions that were fashionable at the time (Stiglitz is discussing the ECB’s mandate, which is limited to only inflation, and not growth, employment, etc.) These beliefs, however, are increasingly questioned, especially in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis.”

An obsession with inflation is not a “fashion”: this is a fundamental concern of capitalism throughout its history. Why? Inflation is called “the great leveler” for a reason – it reduces the values of the most immense fortunes. The rich have far more to lose than anyone else from inflation!

It also reduces debts, so God send us inflation! At least for the poor debtors, who will be able to pay off their burden and stop being tortured.

Inflation also reduces the power of interest – without that power, bankers/moneylenders will have to actually work for a living, which is why they fear it so.

Finally, lacking the stability provided by communistic cooperation, an inflation-induced downturn also spells chaos, and that could force a revolution and compel the wealthy to flee to some other country with only a part of their ill-gotten gains (see revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba and Iran for examples).

Stiglitz knows that for all these reasons an obsession with inflation is fundamental, not fashionable.

“The dismal (economic) forecasts made it clear: the Troika’s grasp of the underlying economics was abysmal”.

Really? All those eggheads with their salaries so much bigger than mine don’t understand their own domain?

The problem here is not that people with a PhD do not “grasp” their own field – the problem is their ideology.

It is not a conspiracy of stupidity or a confederacy of dunces – it’s the promotion of capitalism over communism.

The ideology of communism shows clearly that the Eurozone was indeed a conspiracy – a money-lending cartel on the grandest scope. And why would such a scope be out of the reach of banks whose yearly gross corporate product can exceed half of all nations in the world?

Stiglitz says that from 1999-2007 the Eurozone had a short period of success – “divergence reigned” – i.e., rich countries loaned to poor Eurozone members (economic redistribution). But what happened is those loans were called in during a crisis, and they could not be repaid.

We know that bankers routinely aim for such a scenario to happen. What happened in the Eurozone has happened all over the 3rd world during the 2+ centuries of European-led imperialism – indebted countries were picked apart by foreigners.

To say that the bankers/Eurozone planners/Troika didn’t know what they were doing is pathetic. Stiglitz has too much sympathy, perhaps, or not enough contempt for negligence.

Was it just an accident, a slip, that they opted for a property tax that would have inflicted pain on ordinary Greeks, rather than one that would have hit the oligarchs?”

This is – somehow – an honest question from Stiglitz, and a less ideologically-rigorous reader will be lulled into complacency and sympathy for those who are orchestrating the re-colonization of Greece.

Stiglitz poses the question but he never takes a stand. This is as far as a person like him is willing to go – fake leftism. The leftism that nobody wants to associate with. The leftism that loses. The leftism that embarrasses leftists to say that they are leftists.

To take a stand would force Stiglitz to change his fundamentally pro-capitalist view, and it would risk all those honorary degrees. (I have a t-shirt which reads “Where’s my bailout?”. Where’s my honorary degree, huh? Hundreds of unpopular leftist reports and French tear gas attacks don’t cut it, eh?)

For those who do go further we conclude: “No, it was not an accident! It happens all the time. Such pro-oligarchy decisions are routine in capitalism. This is just one measly little example you have publicized and you haven’t even interpreted it correctly, Dr. Stiglitz, PhD, Esq, Rev., DDS,!”

Why care about ‘alternative facts’ when ideology is neglected?

Facts don’t matter because in the social sciences ideology filters everything, people. Again, this is not calculus or physics – if it was, then economic policy wouldn’t be disputed and austerity wouldn’t still be reigning.

The capitalists have an ideology and they won’t call it “Islamic market fundamentalism” so they call it “neoliberalism”, and it is the foundation of the Eurozone.

You want to be a capitalist and not an “Islamic market fundamentalist”, you complain? The Eurozone is necessary, you say?

Fine. Let’s judge the Eurozone on your own neoliberal terms: As a capitalist you obviously accept that economic downturns and depressions are simply a part of life, and you are willing to make everyone suffer the consequences.

But the judge of any capitalist policy is how long and how deep your capitalist downturns are, and by this fair gauge the EU has totally failed. This will be a lost decade. I pity the poor and unemployed youth because they are suffering for the refusal to accept the facts which impose a change of ideology.

There is an alternative to the Eurozone – it has not been decreed by God. As Stiglitz writes, monetary systems come and go. If structural limitations prevent us from changing the euro then the euro has to go.

Capitalist reader, even your emperor is cold from wearing no clothes: Germany has averaged 0.8% annual growth since 2007 – that is failure, and this is your leader and success story?

Joe oughtta know better

But Joseph Stiglitz, with all his egghead degrees that make him so much smarter than me and your regular bus driver, should know extremely well how capitalism ravages everything because isn’t he reading economic literature from the left at least some of the time?

That is not clear. But I say Stiglitz should know better because he is from Gary, Indiana, my former hometown.

Gary, if you don’t know, is the American industrial hellhole par excellence. It is the poorest, Blackest, most violent city in America, per capita. White flight, racism, capitalism, pollution, drugs, guns, blocked futures – it all the stuff nobody wants.

You cannot compare it with a stereotypical Soviet-era counterpart because there is humiliating racism, deadly violence and crack instead of vodka.

Gary truly is the foul, steel-fume belching armpit of America. Most people in nearby Chicago are too frightened to even stop there for gas…and mainstream media/politicians couldn’t care less.

Gary’s dismal past, present and future should have been enough for Stiglitz to renounce capitalism, but it wasn’t.

Like most “progressives” who do not go far enough to make any real or lasting difference, the tone throughout his book is that Stiglitz “sincerely cares”. He really, truly does and…this only makes him more enlightened than your average, selfish fascist.

Like most of his fake-leftist peers he never discusses “class”, but loves to discuss the environment. And if there was an economic component to transgender bathroom rights I’m reasonably sure Stiglitz would have focused on that as well.

He – by blinding himself to a true leftist interpretation – by being content with being “mystified” in the most non-poetic ways in the most dismal of “sciences” – he creates a false impression of what “progressive” should truly mean.

The best that such a half-hearted progressive like Stiglitz can do is provide us ammunition for the struggle – and he does in “The Euro”.

This makes him without fault, but it does not earn him great praise. Somebody in his influential position should break free of his mainstream confines and propose real solutions instead of trying to fix what he clearly knows is fundamentally broken: capitalism.

Being “mystified’ should not earn you prizes in economics – the people deserve immediate solutions.

The Euro has proven there is no “Third Way”

Urbane, cultured, human rights-loving Europe has not been able to show that one is able to combine a capitalism and communism in a capitalism-centered system.

This is exactly what the Euro was supposed to do. Capitalism is simply too strong and must be confined in a drastic manner.

The Eurozone has allowed European imperialism to turn on itself. This should be as crystal clear to you by now as it is to an increasing number of Eurozone citizens.

What is working, and even despite the global recession, is combining capitalism and communism in a communism-centered system.

China is booming; Cuba has had steady 2% growth since the Great Recession started, despite the genocidal blockade; since 1989 in Iran (communism’s ignored victory) only one country in the world has increased their Human Development Index more – South Korea.

Destroy the euro, yes, because it has been created in a way so that it is possible to reform, as Stiglitz repeatedly demonstrates. It was an economic union before there was a political union, and the pain of muddling through to finally get that political union correct is going to hurt hundreds of millions of people for decades – that price is too high.

There has to be another way, even though pro-euro people repeatedly cry TINA: There Is No Alternative. The euro was, after all, created in 1992 – the USSR was over and so was “history”. This anti-democratic philosophy has been inscribed in the euro’s genetic structure, per Stiglitz .

But the only way any pan-European project can ever possibly succeed – and Stiglitz repeatedly notes this as well – is through solidarity.

What he doesn’t say is that there is no pan-national solidarity ever in capitalism.

He holds up the US model as an example, but the US has always been, fundamentally, the same country. It’s not as if the US merged with Native American tribes or territories of freed Africans. Europe requires their own solution, not just a US copy, just as Cuba requires their own model, Iran their own model, etc.

The euro has undoubtedly decreased the sentiment of solidarity so vital to something like the euro ever having a chance of working. Greece distrusts Germany, Germany distrusts Portugal, France distrusts everybody including other Frenchmen, etc.

There can be no doubt about that. The capitalist euro project has ruined European solidarity, and I – intrepid reporter on the ground – can report to you that I see no “solidarity boom” on the horizon. I see the far-right, racism, protectionism and closing of borders. Why? Well, the euro has failed to bring about prosperity and security, dummy – you can even ask a capitalist reactionary like Stiglitz!

Modern history proves that any sort of solidarity – especially pan-national or racial – requires a commitment to communist ideology. The USSR was the only empire built on affirmative action, after all.

Communism is the only way forward, as we’ve all known for decades. The question, if there is one, is not “if” but “how much”.

Stiglitz, and his fundamentally pro-capitalist fake leftist ilk, can see that but they look away.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

What if I told you that a vacuum cleaner is not dangerous? by Scott

Via The Saker

What if I told you that a vacuum cleaner is not dangerous? by Scott

The Old Rome and the Third Rome came together and they are winning. Cat Motja

The Battle for liberation of Germany. Part I.

Recently while talking to my German pal, I said that Russians liked Germans more than any other Europeans. With the exception of Serbs, of course. He swallowed his beer and didn’t respond, probably because he didn’t believe me.

Next, I saw some of Motja’s thoughts and ideas about Germany, which were very similar to mine.

As an illustration of some of Cat’s points, I want to begin with a story of a young Russian nurse, who worked in one of the Moscow hospitals where she met a young German doctor who came there to do a year-long medical fellowship.

They liked each other, they dated, they fell in love and decided to start a family together.

He thought that for his career it would be better for him to work in Germany, and he went back home and took his bride along with him.

A month later, however, she returned to Moscow, and told to all her friends and wrote on her blog that she had escaped absolute horror, and that she would never, ever return to Germany. Naturally, people asked her legitimate questions like “Is he a sadist?” and “Did he torture you?”

Her answer was: “No, not at all. Actually he is a perfectly nice guy.”

Since he was the one working and she was enrolled at school, they rented a small apartment that they kept absolutely freezing, because it was too expensive to turn on the heat.

After coming home from work, he would turn every single light off and sit in the dark, for the same reason they never watched TV. They never went out, never went to a bar or a party, never invited friends over, and no one ever invited them. For dinner he would take one slice of meat, one potato and one piece of bread and he would serve the same for her. She wasn’t allowed to flush the toilet during the day, for fear of the water bill.

People wrote comments to her saying that it could be because he was the only one working and that things would be different once she got a job. She said that didn’t believe this to be true, because (and this is the most important part) he was absolutely happy with his life and considered this way of living to be the best and the only way. He even criticized Russians for being wasteful for living in warm apartments, having many holidays with so much food and going out too frequently, since it wasn’t productive.

As far as I remember she soon married some Russian guy and went on having a life that most young professional Russians have, which might look from outside as having too much of good time.

To get an idea, glimpse at these candid pics of the Russian villagers’ life.

The abandoned groom went on living his frugal, German life — which is getting promising every moment in terms of becoming even more frugal.

What I am trying to say is that how incredibly easy is it to indoctrinate people into believing that self-abuse and depravity is good for them. How easy is it to instill into them an idea that unnecessary sacrifice is their national character trait.

 

===

From Cat Motja’s twitter feed

As a reminder, back in 1996 when the US and international occupational regime in Russia had rigged election and re-elected Yeltsin for the second time, it was Chubais who had conveyed the threat of the Western governments. On Feb 6, 1996 in Davos Chubais said, ” if a communist elected as president of Russia this would inevitably lead to BLOODSHED.”

Do you understand? They were saying to the Russia’s military and security services that they would drown the country in  blood, if their occupational government is toppled.

This week in Davos…

  • Chubais:World has turned upside down. This kind of horror in Davos I remember only once, in 2009 at the time of the financial collapse. This year the most correct description of the common feeling in Davos is the feeling of horror from the global political catastrophe.”

Commenting this Chubais’s interview, Peskov said: “We don’t know what’s going on in Davos, but here in Moscow everything is in order, there is no “horror,” we keep working.”

Among the menagerie of magical creatures populating the Slavic folklore, it has been noticed a house-elf type of evil spirit who, existing along with people in their dwellings, creates mayhem and devours positive energy. The creature’s name is Chubas in Russian, Chubis in Ukraine and Chubais in Latvian. The creature doesn’t eat bread and meat, doesn’t drink kvas, but nourishes itself on people’s grief and pain. First, chubais moves into just one house, and if it isn’t chased out, it can devastate an entire region. In fairytales it’s being depicted as a rusty colored rat with human face.

I didn’t write about so called “assassination attempt” in Macedonia in December.  I will write about this later, when I get more facts, but in case someone from Macedonia reads this, please don’t believe when media tells you that Russia is behind “color revolution,” political assassinations, or any kind of putsch.

There is a way out….

Putin and Germany

  • In August 2014, President Putin said that we can never forget the lessons of the World War II. However, German people cannot be held for thousands of years  responsible for what Hitler had done.  Many Germans had died fighting with fascism, also.

Our country was in war not with Germany, but with the Nazi Germany. Germans were the first victims of Nazism,”  said Putin.

A Russia-Germany Military union would make all other military unions obsolete.

 

Their favorite thing to do is to separate us into groups and then to pin us against each other.

Let’s take, for example, this innocuous text title: “Whom should WE consider to be Slavs?’

It’s an interview with Vladimir Napolskih, corresponding member of Russia’s Academy of Science RAS, doctor of history, professor, senior researcher of the Institute of social communication at Udmurt state University.

Accordingly, WE call those people Slavic who speak Slavic languages or at least think in Slavic languages.”

Thus , the Slavs lived in Eastern Germany in the middle ages, but most of them (except for the Sorbs) lost their language and identity, and today their descendants, the Germans, which impossible to call Slavs, and to separate them from the Germans “of non-Slavic origin” is also impossible.”

Do you understand how this info virus works? They tell us that if we live across the border from Russia, we are not Russians, even if we speak the Russian language. We are Ukrainian or Belorussian.  If some of us live across the next border and don’t speak a Slavic language, they are not even Slavs, teaches Mr. Napolskih.  For thousands of years they were Slavs, but suddenly, in one day they stopped being them. He even suggests to us that we don’t know who we are because we “lost our identity.” Do you get this?

Forget about some alleged “brilliant genetic research” that can allegedly prove one’s relation to someone living thousand years ago. This research are not available for Slavic people. Instead, some members of the Russia’s Academy of Science use a rule of thumb: if you speak a Slavic language, you are Slavic, if you speak a different language, you are not. If you live on the territory of Russia, you are Russian. If you happened to be across an artificially created border, you automatically stopped being Russian. So, if I speak and think in English, that makes me automatically Anglo-Saxon. Right?

This what cat Motja calls the Matrix: a carefully created web of delusion of the Western liberal ideology, which slices and pulls apart everything that constitutes human life, from countries, nations, states, legal systems and economies, to religion, science and knowledge itself. And why stop there? They went and deconstructed human biology by dividing us into a dozen of genders, and millions of ethnic and social groups.

Out of this plethora of new entities, what nationality they dedicated to be an “aggressor?”  Russians.

Now, guess what gender is being called an “evil oppressor?”  The white men.

This infallibly leads me to a logical conclusion that the liberal ideology wasn’t created neither by Russians, nor by white men.

I recommend you to listen to  Sargon of Akkad’s lecture on the Death of Social Justice that culminated in Donald Trump’s victory.  Only one caveat, he offers a brilliant analyses of losers, however doesn’t say much about the winners.

I think he is afraid to say what Cat Motja says:

“The Old Rome and the Third Rome came together and they are winning. “

 

=====

Cat Motja on Germany, Russia, Old Romans and beyond

Part I

Those who say that Putin will become stronger because Trump won don’t understand the process that takes place.  Trump was able to win only because Putin has fought for years and won against our common enemies.

Concerning Germans and the orchestrated attacks on them: Germany is our brotherly nation. There ARE two strongest nations in this universe, Germans and Russians. That’s why the enemies of this world consolidate their efforts to place us on a collision course.

It has been like this for centuries. First they separated us, then they do everything to instill a mutual animosity towards each other, and after that they push our two strongest nations to collide, so they would EXTERMINATE us with our own hands.

If we could take from mice their broadcasting powers and explain to the Germans, I am sure they would understand. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of understanding. When a person understands, then they won’t let someone take advantage of them. The same with the Germans; the most important for them is to understand why they have been constantly programmed to be against Russians. Next time, if someone makes a noise for them to go against Russia, they will recognize this particular person as a mouse who wants them to go and exterminate themselves while killing Russians.

That’s why one of the most crucial things that should be done immediately is to introduce an Amendment to the Constitution of Germany that would require a referendum of all German lands to grand the Chancellor permission to start an  invasion of any foreign country, with a provision that if even one land disagrees an invasion won’t take place.

====

The Center of the consolidated armed forces command of the Middle East, the Balkans and Africa, will be located near Shoigu. We will provide logistics and intelligence in terms of the satellite images, operative reports, new weaponry, so they would be able to follow Shoigu’s commands. Just like in Syria, everything was tested in the most difficult real war conditions.

In the parallel universe mice will try to stage a putsch against Trump, to topple Putin, to kill Zolotov and to chase Kadyrov to Jordan’s border. Their schizophrenia will last for several months, at least.

====

You most likely have read the poll conducted amongst the population of different countries about the possibility of the World War, meaning a real “hot” war. The results are dispiriting, meaning that people en mess demonstrated how brainwashed they are, like gold sand. They don’t notice wars around them, they don’t notice that they live under occupation, and they have no clue that we have just avoided the biggest catastrophic war in the history of humanity, thanks to Putin.

The occupation of the former territory of the USSR had started at once, after Gorbachev agreed with the conditions of capitulation. According to those conditions, our military withdrew from Europe, we were obligated to destroy ourselves,  peacefully following the created for us schizophrenic Matrix. We were obligated to willfully surrender our territories, to divide ourselves, to abandon our people, to pay in reparation to the USA rubles that we worked with blood and sweat to earn. For that they shipped to us frozen chicken legs called “Bush’s legs” and tested on us experiential vaccines, and so on.

We were obligated to pay the West with our scientists and children. We had no right to know where our children were going, and what was happening to them. We allowed the occupational authorities to sit on our necks everywhere, from the Kremlin to Duma.

They wrote for us our Constitution, and laws. they created the political parties, approved by them, they created our Media and staffed it with their people, that we had to financed, even so they worked exclusively for the benefits of the occupying powers.

Their main task was to hide and obscure the fact of the occupation. They wrote school textbooks for our children. We signed an enormous quantity of treaties, limiting our ability to develop new weapons. Our army had no rights to move on the territory of our country without Washington’s permission, and so on and so forth, including a ban on the development of new medications, and a ban on the production of many different vaccines.

We had no rights to open new scientific laboratories without Washington’s permission. We agreed to limit our work on development of our territories and economy.

The list is very long. When it became clear that Russia’s federation was approaching the disintegration point with the scenario similar to the USSR disintegration, and that the process was working and we approached the point of no return, a revolt took place in the Kremlin. This revolt had been carried out by former KGB intelligence officers.

At this moment, our enemies didn’t yet make a decision to start a war against us. They still had certainty that those unlimited possibilities that they received as the occupying force would let them keep the process under their control. They thought that they could eliminate undesirable people who came to power by using the force of the representatives of the occupational international coalition inside the RF.

The first serious stage to strangle our nation had started right after Khodorkovky was arrested, and Berezovsky, Gusinsky and other representatives of the global micehood, who were acting as guards in our open air death camp, were kicked out of the country.

The very first attempt to rebuild the army and go into international waters was violently stopped by open demonstration of force, when the US shot and sunk nuclear submarine “Kursk.” To announce that the submarine was destroyed by the Americans would mean the next logical step, to declare that the Russian Federation was in a state of war with the USA-NATO. At the time, that war would be unquestionably lost by us with all the terrifying consequences for the entire population.

We wiped our tears, clenched out teeth, and started working to prepare for today.

First, we needed to set up a secret weapon construction bureau,  where we could develop new, better weapons. It was extremely difficult. Most scientists were taken from the country and worked for the West.

Inside Russia, dozens of scientists were killed; they were killed on first suspicion. Their deaths were staged as accidents or robbery attempts.  None of those murders were ever investigated. Mossad and the CIA knew our every sneeze. Information was reported to them from the first day of occupation. Mossad and CIA could check any paper anywhere they wanted.

I am going to skip the large chunk of events to get closer to our situation today to highlight one very important aspect — the Hour X putsch didn’t succeed because of one  very imperative reason: Putin and Shouigu created what they could create per agreements with the occupational international  coalition, but they created this something in a completely unexpected manner.

I am talking about EMERCOM of Russia or MCHS. It’s a modern army that covered an entire territory of the Russian federation. This army received modern helicopters, the most advanced weapons, and trained troops. The amount of weapons and troops was so massive and included substructures, that all the comprador and traitors forces from the Police and other power structures, and with their Bolotnaya-Medvedevs, and other sold-out former comrades, and members of the occupational “Fronde,” simply couldn’t match the power of the new armed forces commanded by Shoigu.

The Chief Occupant had become hysterical, and in the first time in history in the UN they declared Russia to be a “defeated country,” and not the country of “winning democracy.”

To be continued….

 

Scott Humor

%d bloggers like this: