“طلال سلمان: حول “الربيع العربي

Advertisements

They are not riddles: The release of the detainee Maatouq The emergence of Abu Mustafa into public The Sub – elections in Deir Al Zour ليست ألغازاً: تحرير الأسير معتوق إطلالة أبو مصطفى انتخابات فرعية في دير الزور

They are not riddles: The release of the detainee Maatouq The emergence of Abu Mustafa into public The Sub – elections in Deir Al Zour

سبتمبر 24, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The Americans and their allies endeavored to trade with the understanding accomplished by Hezbollah with ISIS after a clear victory on the militants of ISIS in the barrens of Lebanon and Syria. This understanding depended on transferring the remaining militants and their families along with their  individual weapons to Deir Al Zour in exchange of revealing the fate of the Lebanese kidnapped soldiers and liberating the martyrs’ bodies and a detainee who belongs Hezbollah. The Americans and their groups in Iraq and Lebanon accompanied with the satellite channels and newspapers funded and operated by Saudi Arabia hastened to distort the image of Hezbollah and the clarity of its victory and accusing it with the seriousness in fighting ISIS which the victories and the blood of the martyrs prove. The Americans have waged a war of disrupting the understanding by hindering the bus of the militants of ISIS in the desert, but Hezbollah did not get embarrassed, on the contrary it defended its understanding, showing the ethics of wars and the concept and the strategy of the positive psychological warfare in order to dismantle ISIS and to prepare for the surrender of ISIS’s militants in its next battles, it has perfected the use of the campaign which was waged against it to show how Hezbollah deals,  its fighting value, its military features and in preparation for the surrender of ISIS’s soldiers whenever they are besieged by its fighters, being confident that they will not be treated brutally as they treat their victims.

In the last stages of the understanding, the arrival of the convoy to its destination, and the release of the resistant detainee Ahmed Maatouq all the balances of forces which surround the war in Syria have been brought. The Americans as Hezbollah have made every effort, but this time the word of America was versus the word of Hezbollah and the war was in its peak at the borders of the Euphrates towards Deir Al Zour, till Jacob Amirdor said that Israel fought in 2006 to push Hezbollah to beyond Litani, it is two kilometers away from the borders from the side of khardali. Now Hezbollah is on the borders of the Euphrates expanding hundreds of kilometers, so within days the war of Deir Al Zour has been resolved, and the Americans announced that they stopped following-up the convoy which belongs to ISIS depending on a Russian request, that convoy continued its way and reached its destination, thus Hezbollah was able to liberate its resistant detainee. Therefore, it was proven that the word of Hezbollah was the influential, moreover America which tried to trade to undermine the understanding and did everything possible to disable its Implications has turned into a partner in implementing it in favor of Hezbollah, as it is a partner that offers the participation to liberate the detainees of Hezbollah on the day of exchange after the war of July to ensure the arrival of the martyr Samir Al-Kuntar liberated to Lebanon. These are the real balances of forces in the region for those who know the meaning of reading politics and strategies.

*****

The leader of Hezbollah Al Hajj Abu Mustafa has made a rare TV interview from Deir Al Zour after raising the siege, he emerged as a political and high intellectual leader, he chose his expressions very accurately. He talked within minutes what is enough to draw the course of the war in Syria and the path of Hezbollah in it. He said that emerging to media is a translation of the equation “we will be where we should be” into “we will be as we should be” When it is needed to emerge publically we emerge and vice versa. He said that the military steps are decided by the Syrian leadership and we carry out what the leadership demands. He added that the decision of the Secretary-general of Hezbollah of emerging to public is in order to show this axis of resistance in its strategic victory and in all its aspects from Russia, Iran, Iraq Syria, and Lebanon, where Palestine is the cause, giving every part of this axis a meaningful feature, Abu Mustafa read a written text and repeated sentences which he said twice, he was a distinctive leader in his performance, but many times he spoke fluently without a text, so the smoothness of the expression was an honesty and a credibility to a leader as his indication to the symbolism of the five pillars of the axis of resistance “friendly Russia, Iran is the Islam, Iraq is the Arabism, Syria of Al-Assad , and the resistant Lebanon”, with these pillars the resistance is wining by its morals, culture, courage, and faith.

*****

Few days ago immediately after the liberation of Deir Al Zour the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad issued a republican decree in which he determined the date of the sub-elections in Deir Al Zour on the thirtieth of September for a vacancy of a parliamentary seat, while the Lebanese officials are escaping from holding anticipating sub-elections for months and years. Between the security situations of Syria especially Deir Al Zour and the situations of Lebanon, we know the meaning of the existence of a country and the appropriate conditions for holding elections, and how the men in powers are. So those who say that the elections in Syria are blocked, their problem is not in the appropriate security and administrable conditions but the blocking, and those who are afraid to hold them on their account, will lose more when the date is postponed, so hasten to do so today, it is better than tomorrow or is not as bad as tomorrow.

*****

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

ليست ألغازاً: تحرير الأسير معتوق إطلالة أبو مصطفى انتخابات فرعية في دير الزور

سبتمبر 15, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– جهد الأميركيون وحلفاؤهم للمتاجرة بالتفاهم الذي أنجزه حزب الله مع داعش بعد نصر واضح على مسلحي التنظيم في جرود لبنان وسورية، يقضي بنقل ما تبقى من المسلحين وعائلاتهم بأسلحتهم الفردية إلى محافظة دير الزور مقابل كشف مصير العسكريين اللبنانيين المخطوفين وتحرير جثامين شهداء وأسير لحزب الله، واستنفر الأميركيون جماعاتهم من العراق ولبنان والقنوات الفضائية والصحف المموّلة والمشغلة من السعودية لتشويه صورة حزب الله ونقاء نصره، واتهامه بجدية حربه على داعش التي تتحدّث عنها الانتصارات ودماء الشهداء. وخاض الأميركيون حرب تعطيل التفاهم بحجز قافلة مسلحي داعش في الصحراء، فلم يُصَب حزب الله بالإحراج بل خرج مدافعاً عن تفاهمه مقدّماً فيه أطروحة في أخلاقيات الحرب وفي منهج واستراتيجية حرب نفسية إيجابية لتفكيك داعش والتمهيد لمسار استسلام مسلحيها في معاركه المقبلة، وأحسن استثمار الحملة ضده لتنقلب وجهاً من وجوه الدعاية للحزب وقيمه القتالية ومناقبيته العسكرية، وتمهيداً لاستسلام عناصر داعش، كلما حوصروا من مقاتليه، واثقين أنهم لن يعامَلوا بالوحشية التي عاملوا بها هم كل مَن وقع بين أيديهم.

– استُحضرت في آخر فصول التفاهم، ببلوغ القافلة مكان وصولها النهائي وتحرير الأسير المقاوم أحمد معتوق، كلُّ موازين القوى المحيطة بالحرب في سورية وعليها، فرمى الأميركيون بثقلهم ورمى حزب الله بثقله. وكانت الأمور هذه المرة كلمة أميركا مقابل كلمة حزب الله، والحرب في ذروتها على ضفاف الفرات ونحو دير الزور، حتى قال يعقوب عميردور إن إسرائيل قاتلت عام 2006 لتدفع حزب الله إلى وراء الليطاني وهو يبعد كيلومترين عن الحدود من جهة المطلة الخردلي، وها هو حزب الله على ضفاف الفرات يتوسّع مئات الكيلومترات، وخلال أيام حُسمت حرب دير الزور، فأعلن الأميركيون أنهم بطلب روسي أوقفوا متابعة القافلة الخاصة بداعش، فأكملت مسيرها ووصلت نقطة النهاية وحرّر حزب الله أسيره المقاوم معتوق. وكسر الإرادات هنا يقول إن كلمة حزب الله خرجت هي العليا، لا بل إن أميركا التي تاجرت للنيل من التفاهم وبذلت كل ما تستطيع لتعطيل مفاعيله، تحوّلت شريكاً في تنفيذه لحساب حزب الله، كما لو أنها شريك يقدم المساهمة لتحرير أسرى حزب الله يوم التبادل بعد حرب تموز، لضمان وصول الشهيد سمير القنطار محرراً إلى لبنان، هذه هي موازين القوى الحقيقية في المنطقة لمن يعرف معنى قراءة السياسة والاستراتيجيات.

– أطل القيادي في حزب الله الحاج أبو مصطفى في لقاء تلفزيوني نادر الحدوث، من دير الزور بعد فك الحصار عنها، فظهر قائداً سياسياً وفكرياً عالي الثقافة دقيق الاختيار في التعابير، قال بدقائق ما يكفي لرسم مسار الحرب في سورية ومسيرة حزب الله فيها، فقال إن الإطلالة على الإعلام ترجمة لمعادلة نكون حيث يجب أن نكون بمعادلة نكون كيف يجب أن نكون، فعندما يقتضي الظهور علناً نظهر علناً وعندما يقتضي أن لا نظهر فلا نظهر، وقال إن الخطوات العسكرية تقررها القيادة السورية ونحن ننفّذ ما تطلبه القيادة. وقال إن قرار الأمين العام لحزب الله بالظهور العلني ليظهر محور المقاومة في هذا النصر الاستراتيجي بتجلياته كلها، ومعه روسيا الصديقة، من إيران الإسلام إلى عراق العروبة وسورية الأسد إلى لبنان المقاومة ففلسطين القضية، مانحاً كل ركن في المحور صفة ملازمة ذات مغزى.

رأ أبو مصطفى في بعض كلامه نصاً مكتوباً وكرّر جملاً قالها مرتين، فكان قائداً مميزاً في الأداء، لكنه تدفق مرات بلا نص فكانت سلاسة التعبير صدقاً ومصداقية لقائد، مثل ترميزه لخماسية أوصاف أركان محور المقاومة، بهؤلاء تنتصر مقاومة رصيدها أخلاق وثقافة وشجاعة وإيمان.

– أصدر الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد قبل أيام وفور تحرير دير الزور مرسوماً جمهورياً يحدّد موعد الانتخابات الفرعية في دير الزور عن مقعد نيابي شاغر في الثلاثين من شهر أيلول الحالي، بينما يتهرّب بعض المسؤولين اللبنانيين من إجراء انتخابات فرعية منتظرة منذ شهور وسنين، ويحاولون تهريب الانتخابات كلها منذ سنين ويكرّرون المحاولة اليوم، وبين حال سورية الأمنية، وخصوصاً دير الزور وحال لبنان تكمن العبرة في الحديث عن معنى وجود الدولة، وعن ظروف مناسبة لإجراء الانتخابات، والأهم كيف يكون رجال الدولة، وللذين يقولون إن الانتخابات في سورية معلّبة، ولذلك لا يهابون إجراءها جواب بسيط، إن مشكلتكم إذن انتظار تعليب الانتخابات وليست الظروف الأمنية والإدارية المناسبة، أو الجواب إذا كانت في سورية ممكنة الإجراء ومعلبة، فلتكن عندكم ممكنة الإجراء ولا تعلّبوها، أما للخائفين من إجرائها على حساباتهم وأوزانها، فالجواب أنكم ستخسرون كلما تأجّل الموعد مزيداً من الحجم والوزن، فزمن هزائم مشروعكم سيتجلى أكثر وأكثر، فسارعوا إليها اليوم أفضل من الغد أو أقل سوءاً، واعملوا بالقول المأثور، «إن هبتَ أمراً فقَعْ فيه، فإن شدّة توقيه أعظم مما تخاف منه».

Related Videos

Related Articles

The Lucy Stein Gang Rides Into Moscow

September 18, 2017

by Israel Shamir for the Unz Review

The Lucy Stein Gang Rides Into Moscow

Can the Putin Fans League win municipal elections in New York City? Not bloody likely, you’ll murmur, and probably justifiably so. However, in the municipal elections last week, pro-American forces captured one third of the seats in Moscow. A great shock, slightly mitigated by the media silence that accompanied both the election and its results.

As a rule, I do not dwell much on internal Russian politics (as opposed to foreign relations). They are parochial, obscure and not democratic. That is true for internal politics in every country I am aware of, but in Russia, they aren’t even competitive. Kremlin wiseguys try and fix the results with all the subtleness of Democratic primaries under Ms Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This time they had a seemingly brilliant idea: wouldn’t it be nice if few people would turn up at the election booths? Only those requested to vote? So they had zero publicity, zero announcements, zero TV coverage. People were vaguely aware of the municipal elections but the affair was so low profile that very few cared to attend: slightly over ten per cent of the electorate. The cynical subterfuge flopped badly.

In Moscow (which is the only place in Russia that counts) the three main opposition parties, the Communists and the Nationalists, as well as Kremlin-friendly Socialists, were been decimated. Their votes had been snatched by pro-Western liberals, self-described as “those of good genes”, “the fair-faced ones”, “handshake-worthy”; all these epithets vaguely connected in Russian mind with prosperous Jewishness, of sorts, or with Jewified Soviet nomenclature. The best-known names include Ms Lucy Stein, a young Jewish journalist of some notoriety – she installed plaster copies of her breasts and filmed a staged act of a little boy being roughly treated by Putin’s police. Another one is Mr Maxim Katz, a young Jewish activist – he organized the delivery of flowers to the place of the opposition leader Mr Nemtsov’s assassination, allegedly with some profit for himself.

These youngsters (in their early twenties) have been led by Mr Dmitry Gudkov, a Russian Parliament Member and a son of a Russian Parliament Member. This sounds like the House of Lords, but Gudkov the Senior is an ex-KGB colonel, an oligarch and the owner of a bailiff business, rather than a hereditary peer. Gudkov’s people made a loose coalition with Yabloko (Apple, in Russian), a liberal party of some prominence in the Yeltsin years. They are against Putin’s policies, for the restoration of the Crimea to the Ukraine and for an alliance with the liberal West.

While other parties didn’t give a hoot, the liberals cared to come to the neglected elections, and they delivered their voters to the booths. For that purpose, they imported American technology, and one of Sanders’ operatives, a Russian-born Mr Vitali Shklyarov, who had come to set up what they called “a political Uber”, a web app for fielding candidates and getting voters. In addition, they vastly overspent their competitors.

Democracy in action? Forsooth! This was a clear-cut example of real (as opposed to imaginary) interference in foreign elections. While endless FBI probes have never produced any tangible proof of Russian interference in the US elections, and the Facebook investigation “revealed that it had sold as much as $150,000 in political ads to pro-Kremlin entities between 2015 and 2017”, the US interference in recent Moscow elections had been vast, powerful and effective. The pro-American forces spent over sixty million dollar in Moscow alone by very conservative estimates, and probably much more. And the funds came from abroad.

The very idea of Russian interference in the US elections had been flattering but silly. The Russians are not in the same league, in speaking of political technologies. The Americans are much more masterful, being trained in a competitive environment. The Russians’ only chance to have fair elections is adopting another American technology, namely the active fight against foreign interference. The Kremlin could and should investigate the path of every US buck to the Stein-Katz Gang, and deal with it as harshly as Americans are dealing with imaginary Russian interference. But would they? I doubt it. The wiseguys who mismanaged elections for Kremlin will do all they can to kill the story. No important Russian media carried it, by direct orders from Kremlin.

We have proof to back up our claims of the US interference in the Russian elections: a confession made by the coordinator for Open Russia, a political body created by Mr Michael Khodorkovsky. This oligarch, once the richest man in Russia, did nine years in a Russian jail for massive tax evasion, white-collar crimes, organized crime and conspiracy for murder, as brutal and ruthless a shark as ever swam murky waters of Russian business and politics.

Mr Khodorkovsky had been an American agent of influence for many years. Since being pardoned by President Putin, he moved abroad and became the focal point for the US-led clandestine campaign for regime change in Russia. Together with other exiled (and wanted) oligarchs, Tel Aviv-based Mr Nevzlinand London-based Mr Chichvarkin, Mr Khodorkovsky funnels money to Russia’s pro-Western opposition.

His coordinator Ms Maria Baronova had been quite close to Mr Khodorkovsky but parted with him some time ago. In her Facebook blog she admits that “Gudkov and Katz are a secret project of M. B. Khodorkovsky” while other elements of the opposition are a public project of Mr Khodorkovsky. In other words, the whole campaign has been organized from Washington, or perhaps from Langley.

As we learned from Wikileaks-published State Department cables, this is the current trend of CIA for orchestrating regime change: instead of sending money directly to the opposition with a courier, they employ oligarchs as go-between. This mode has been used in Syria since 2006, as well as in Lebanon, and now is being applied in Moscow.

The winners of the recent municipal elections in Moscow weren’t just the “fair-faced” children of nomenclature, but appointees of the US deep state. They did it using American know-how and American money. This is the real and very successful interference, and the organisers got away with it.

The Russian post-Soviet political system as organized by Putin’s wiseguys should share the blame. The Communists, Nationalists of Mr Zhirinovsky and Socialists of Mr Mironov have been tamed and house-broken so efficiently that they lost their balls, their will power, their desire for victory – and their voters, as well. People stopped to care about them. The ruling party United Russia isn’t better; it is a toothless clone of the toothless CPSU, the late Soviet Union Communist Party that was dismantled by Gorbachev and Yeltsin without a single objection from millions of card-carrying members. It is a party of people who want to have power and its privileges.

The Ukraine had been ruled by a similar Party of the Regions. Led by Mr Victor Yanukovych, the party fell to pieces after the coup, its members deserting the sinking ship as fast as they could. United Russia will also run away in a case of trouble; they will helplessly watch Mr Khodorkovsky enter the gates of the Kremlin and probably applaud him. The United Russia’s 70% of vote is no guarantee of support for Mr Putin’s independent course. It would be better for Putin to rely upon smaller but more reliable and devoted cadres. Lenin used to say, ‘a small anchovy is better than a big cockroach’.

(This is true for other countries, too, as Mr Trump and Mr Corbyn discovered: their big parties just aren’t reliable. A small and reliable party of their dedicated supporters would be a better bet.)

The Kremlin spokesmen comfort themselves and others by stressing very limited powers of the elected deputies. By law, they may deal with municipal questions only. However, it is not unusual for such bodies to reach for more power in a revolutionary situation. In France, in 1789, the elected parliament was intended to be an advisory to the monarch, but very soon it assumed all the powers and chopped off the king’s head. In the USSR, in 1991, the Russian Federation parliament had very few rights being subservient to the Soviet parliament, but it assumed rights and broke up the USSR.

Forget about Mr Navalny. Perhaps we should get used to the idea that the next president of Russia will be called Maxim Katz, and Lucy Stern his Foreign Minister. That is, unless Mr Putin will do a better job at the forthcoming Presidential elections.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

Related Videos

From the US Embassy in Kiev: Happy Independence Day, Ukraine!

August 24, 2017

This video was made by the US Embassy in Kiev and posted on YouTube with the following message: “On behalf of the American people, Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, and the staff at the US Embassy in Kyiv we wish all Ukrainians a joyous Independence Day holiday.”  At the end of the day the US Embassy personnel warmly greets the Ukrainian people with the words “Glory to the Ukraine” which everybody in the Ukraine (and Russia) will immediately recognize as part of the Ukronazi greeting of the Banderites “Glory to the Ukraine – To the heroes glory”.

Bravo America – you can be proud of this one (and then wonder “why do they hate us?!”)

Also, here is a photo of Mattis and Poroshenko greeting each other on the military parade (with participation of US forces).  Next to them, Yuri Lutsenko, ex convicted felon and penitentiary resident, now Prosecutor General (with no legal training), a bona fide Nazi and, according to persistent rumors, an alcoholic with mental issues.  Feel the love!

 

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

ERIC ZUESSE | 17.07.2017 | WORLD

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

The «Monthly Harvard-Harris Poll: June 2017» is the latest poll in that series, and it scientifically sampled 2,258 U.S. registered voters, of whom (as shown on page 30) 35% were «Democrat», 29% were «Republican», and 30% were «independent»). It indicates (page 24) that 37% «approve» and 63% «disapprove» of «the way the Republican Party is handling its job». It also indicates (page 25) that 38% «approve», and 62% «disapprove», of «the way the Democratic Party is handling its job». So: despite there being 6% more self-described «Democrat»s than «Republican»s, there was only 1% more disapproval of the Republican Party than of the Democratic Party; and, this indicates that there was a substantial disapproval of «the Democratic Party» by Democratic voters (more disaffection by them for ‘their’ Party, than Republicans have for theirs).

The answers to other questions in the poll also help to provide an answer as to why this is so, and why the voting public don’t hold either Party in high regard — why America’s supposedly ‘democratic’ (small-«D») politics is currently a contest between uglies, with neither Party offering anything like what the U.S. voting public want their government to do (i.e., it fits what this scientific study found actually to control U.S. politics):

(Page 27) 41% think «President Trump should be impeached and removed from office», and 45% think «no action should be taken» against him.

(Page 28) 36% think «the investigations into Russia and President Trump» are «helping the country», and 64% think they’re «hurting the country».

(Page 39) Of listed U.S. government officials, the highest percentage-favorable ratings were: Bernie Sanders (52%), Mike Pence (47%), Donald Trump (45%), Hillary Clinton (39%), Paul Ryan (38%), Elizabeth Warren (37%), Jim Comey (36%), Robert Mueller (34%), Nancy Pelosi (31%), Jeff Sessions (28%), and Rex Tillerson (28%).

(Page 40) The highest percentage-unfavorable ratings were: Hillary Clinton (56%), Nancy Pelosi (51%), Donald Trump (50%), Paul Ryan (45%), Mitch McConnell (42%), Jeff Sessions (41%), Mike Pence (40%), Jared Kushner (39%), Bernie Sanders (38%), Jim Comey (36%), and Elizabeth Warren (36%).

(Page 72) 48% think «President Trump colluded with the Russians during the election over the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta’s emails». 52% say «No» — Trump did not do that.

(Page 73) 54% say «associates of President Trump» did it; 46% say «No» to that.

(Page 74) 38% say «There is evidence» of such «collusion» by Trump; 62% say «No».

(Page 75) 54% say this is a «legitimate investigation»; 46% say it’s «fueled to create a cloud over the Trump administration».

(Page 79) 44% say «Keep the focus on the Russia investigation»; 56% say «Move on to other issues».

(Page 83) 73% say they are «concerned» that there has been «lost focus and energy by the administration and Congress because of the Russia investigation». 67% say they’re «concerned» about «future interference by Russia in U.S. elections».

(Page 95) 54% say «Yes» and 46% say «No» to «Do you think the so called ‘Deep State’ — the collection of intelligence agencies and holdover government workers from the Obama administration — is trying to unseat President Trump?»

(Page 96) When asked «Who do you think is more to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss of the election?» 67% choose «Hillary Clinton and her campaign team for running a weak campaign» and 33% choose «Forces like the Russians, former FBI director Comey, and the Democratic National Committee not having reliable voter data».

(Page 124) 74% «Favor» «Offering incentives for electric cars and renewable energy such as wind and solar». 62% «Favor» Setting much tougher emission standards for cars and other vehicles». 34% «Favor» «Putting coal, and all coal and clean coal plants, out of business». Today’s American public take global warming seriously — or at least more seriously than Republican public officials do..

(Page 133) 47% think it was «Right» and 53% think it was «Wrong» for Trump «to pull the United States out of the current version of the Paris Climate Agreement.”

(Page 151) 49% think «the media is being fair» to President Trump; 51% say «Unfair».

(Page 154) 21% «Favor «raising the U.S. government’s debt ceiling». 69% «Oppose».

(Page 155) 36% «Favor» «a government shut down» over the issue; 64% «Oppose».

What this poll found is basically the same thing that has been shown in many different polls. So: former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who was the last person who was able to win the White House without needing to rely upon billionaires in order to do it, was correct when he said that, «Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members». Anybody who refers to this government as being a ‘democracy’ is way behind the times, because it has been, ever since 1980, controlled by its aristocracy; it is an «oligarchy» instead of a democracy; it is a «regime» instead of a government that represents its public. This regime represents its aristocrats. And that is why the public’s disapproval of this country’s leaders is so high. That happens in a regime, not in a democracy. Both of America’s Parties represent this country’s aristocracy, not America’s public. The latest Harvard-Harris poll simply adds to the already-overwhelming evidence of this. But the basic evidence on the matter was the Gilens-Page study. In their section «American Democracy?» they said:

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of «populistic» democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

One of the aristocracy’s many magazines, The Atlantic, headlined on June 21st, «Is American Democracy Really Under Threat?» and tried to fool their readers to think the answer is no; but, of course, they were pointing, as ‘evidence’, merely to nominal adherence to ‘democratic’ forms, and ignored the actual evidence on the matter, such as Gilens and Page examined in depth, and such as the many polls that have also been referred to in the links here have additionally reinforced. None of this actual evidence was even so much as mentioned. The honest answer to the article’s title-question is not just «Yes» but more than that: their question itself is more like their having asked «Is there a danger of the horse being stolen?» after the horse was already stolen, and has for decades (since at least 1980) already been absent from the barn; so, that article’s very title is a deception, even without its text (which is written for outright fools who can’t recognize what constitutes «evidence» that is suitable for a given allegation). A better question would therefore be: Why do people still subscribe to vapid propaganda-magazines like that? All propaganda should be free of charge. But, of course, in a dictatorship like this, people pay even for the right to be deceived. It’s no longer free-of-charge. That’s just the way things are — really are. It’s shown in the data — not in anybody’s mere platitudes about the matter. People pay to embellish the lies that they already believe. Most people want that, more than they want to come to know the truth. The worse the truth is, the more that people crave the myth which contradicts it — they’ll pay good money to mainline that into themselves: evidenceless reassurances, such as that article. But anyone who takes that type of pap seriously, won’t be able sensibly to understand such findings as were reported in the latest Harvard-Harris poll.

Report: Oliver Stone’s Israel Remarks Censored By Stephen Colbert’s Late Show

Posted on June 17, 2017

[ Ed. note – The Duran has published a story saying that during an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Oliver Stone made a remark about Israel having far more influence over US elections than any supposed influence Russia may have exerted. It is of course a truthful statement, but it would be stunning to hear something like that ever spoken on American TV. And indeed, according to The Duran, the remark was censored out. This is particularly ironic, not to mention utterly hypocritical, considering that at one point in the interview Colbert made a sniping comment about Vladimir Putin supposedly suppressing freedom of the press in Russia.

Below is the full article from The Duran, and beneath that is a video of the Stone interview as it aired on the Colbert show. The remark about Israel is indeed missing, but the host’s snide comment about Putin being “an oppressive leader of his country who suppresses the free press and arrests his enemies” comes at about 5:45. There no doubt are hypocrites in Russia–just as there are every place else–but the difference is that hypocrisy doesn’t seem to predominate public discourse they way it does in America–something perhaps to ponder as you reflect upon Colbert’s quips about Russia and the audience laughter they provoke. No matter how hard Stone tries to explain his views about Putin, it is useless. The comedian (and to a large extent his audience as well) has wholly bought into the mainstream media narrative, or either he pretends to. ]

By Adam Garrie

Oliver Stone said Israel had more involvement in the US election than Russia. But the mainstream media kept this statement from the public.

Reports have surfaced that during his heated exchange with Stephen Colbert, Oliver Stone responded to statements from Colbert repeating the tired narrative about Russia interfering in the US election by bringing up an elephant in the room that many media outlets have totally ignored.

Stone said of alleged and thus far totally unproved Russian interference,

“Israel had far more involvement in the US election than Russia, why don’t you ask me about that?”

Colbert, quick to end that part of the discussion replied,

“I’ll ask you about that when you make a documentary about Israel”

This section of the interview was edited out of the final  broadcast, but multiple sources, including many pro-Israel sources testify to the existence of the in-studio exchange.

Few could reasonably deny that the pro-Israel lobby in the US is extremely power, well funded and influential.

Oliver Stone touched on a deeply important issue, one that clearly did not fit the anti-Russia stance of Stephen Colbert and his producers.


Related

Video

Oliver Stone Interview With Vladimir Putin

Posted June 14, 2017

Part 1 (English Subtitles)

Part 2 (English Subtitles)

Part 3

Part 4

President Vladimir Putin On Alleged Russian Election Interference

Source

(Full Exclusive) | Megyn Kelly | NBC News

Megyn Kelly sits down for an exclusive interview with President Vladimir Putin, asking him about allegations that the Russians interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Posted June 05, 2017

 

See also

The Real Danger in Demonizing Putin’s Russia

Putin to Oliver Stone: I suggested Russia joining NATO to Clinton: While Clinton replied that he “didn’t mind,” the rest of the American delegation became visibly nervous, Putin went on to say, smiling.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

 

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

%d bloggers like this: