Sunday 25th of October 2020

you have been philanthropied: bomb the russians and laud your overlords — the democratic pussy grabbers of social change...

overlords

The article below is basically BULLSHIT as promoted by the Democrats. It has no nuances, no proofs — and THE MAIN CULPRIT WHO GOT DONALD TRUMP ELECTED IS AUSSIE UNCLE RUPE. Not Putin.


In the run-up to the general election on Nov. 3, our series examines how US President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden diverge on key issues by identifying important stories that highlight what the candidates would do differently on the global stage.

Foreign policy experts are still debating what exactly Russia gained from its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election. Although it successfully unleashed internet bots, fake news and wild misinformation into American political life, Moscow in 2020 is strategically and economically weaker in many ways than it was when Donald Trump was elected four years ago.

With Russia’s troubles tied to the collapse in global oil prices, its government faces public opinion at home that is increasingly critical of President Vladimir Putin. And domestic opponents could be emboldened — even if deeply frightened — by the failed poisoning attempt on leading dissident Alexei Navalny.

RelatedIt's 'much riskier' now to stand up to the Kremlin

Russia’s currency has recently tanked, and market watchers say the ruble’s downward slide correlates with Trump’s declining odds of beating Democratic challenger Joe Biden. Traders assume Biden would be much more likely to impose stricter sanctions on Russia.

Here we examine the likely differences between a future Biden or Trump administration on US election meddling, the Ukraine scandal, relations with Putin, handling of the Navalny attack and tumult in Russia’s backyard.

Election meddling

The US remains traumatized and paranoid about continued Russian attempts to sway voters. While Moscow’s propagandists undoubtedly played a role in Trump’s 2016 victory, their full impact is still being debated. 

Accusations about collusion with Russian operatives have dogged the Trump presidency since day one, despite Republicans often dismissing the allegations — which have resulted in jail sentences for several Trump associates — as a hoax. 

An investigation by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller made public in 2019 ultimately proved Russian interference but did not have sufficient evidence of a conspiracy between Trump’s team and the Kremlin. And obstruction of justice charges failed to materialize due to the prohibition on indicting a sitting president.  

Meanwhile, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the House Homeland Security Committee in September that Russia is “very active” in current election efforts, primarily to “denigrate” Biden’s campaign. Wray said social media, state media, online journals and proxies aim to sow divisiveness and weaken the “anti-Russian establishment” in the US. Facebook has also uncovered a Russian troll farm targeting American voters.


Yet Attorney General William Barr, in comments last month on CNN, sought to undermine the US intelligence community’s assessment that Russia is once again interfering in the election and boosting Trump’s reelection bid. Instead, he emphasized China’s attempts to promote Biden. But Barr also announced earlier this month that the findings of a probe investigating the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia inquiry won’t be released until after Election Day, pushing back against Trump's pressure to disclose the results sooner. 

Biden, for his part, said in a September town hall Russia will pay an “economic price” for meddling if he takes the White House, explaining that Putin promotes discord in the US — and for European allies. 

Ukraine scandal

Trump’s Ukraine scandal, an outgrowth of Russian election interference in 2016, led the House of Representatives to impeach Trump in December — though the Senate then acquitted him in early 2020.

The basis for the House inquiry was a push by Trump surrogates to force Ukrainian officials to provide damaging information about Biden and buttress questionable theories related to Russian influence peddling. Trump withheld — and later permitted — a military aid payment to Ukraine mandated by the US Congress, as part of an apparent quid pro quo with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. 

RelatedWhat Ukrainians think about Trump and his 'quid pro quo'

During this election’s first — and perhaps only — presidential debate, Trump again tried to redirect voters’ attention to Hunter Biden, Joe’s son whom Republicans accuse of corrupt dealings in his work for Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

And just this week, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani again returned to this theme after giving the New York Post a hard drive that purportedly contains damning photographs and emails from Hunter Biden. But the veracity and source of its contents are unclear, as Giuliani reportedly cultivated contact with Ukrainian parliamentarian Andrii Derkach — who is closely tied to the Russian government and was sanctioned by the US. Federal investigators are currently looking at whether the laptop left at a Delaware repair shop is linked to a foreign intelligence operation.

Biden has shrugged off Trump’s claim that his son received a $3.5 million payout from the wife of Moscow’s former mayor, an unfounded allegation stemming from a GOP-led Senate committee’s report. And ranking Democrats in the Senate have called the Republican document a “failed effort to manufacture dirt on Vice President Joe Biden … rooted in a known Russian disinformation effort.”

Rapport with Putin

The Trump administration has been tough on Russia in some respects. It has sanctioned Russian officials and companies, fought Russian natural gas projects in Europe, and given military backing to key Eastern European allies — including “Fort Trump” to counter Russia in Poland

Yet H.R. McMaster, ousted from his role as White House national security adviser in 2018, accused Trump of “aiding and abetting” Putin through descriptions of the US election process as “rigged” and attacks on mail-in voting. And another former national security adviser, John Bolton, infamously claimed that he feared leaving Trump alone with Putin at a 2018 summit and said Trump failed to mention election interference in his conversations with Putin. 

Trump critics have pointed out the lack of strategic cohesion to oppose Russia’s leader and the inconsistency between his own ambivalent statements and actions by his administration. But there is less ambiguity around Biden’s views. 

A possible Biden administration is expected to increase the pressure on Moscow, working with European partners to take a harder stance. However, the Obama administration — in which Biden was an instrumental foreign policy figure for eight years — was often criticized by Republicans as weak in dealing with Russia. Obama’s “reset” in relations was followed by a string of Kremlin successes in reclaiming Crimea and turning the tide in Syria’s civil war.

Biden referred to Trump as “Putin’s puppy,” which in turn provoked Putin — on the occasion of his own 68th birthday last week — to describe the Democratic candidate’s words as “quite sharp anti-Russian rhetoric.”

And though Biden is remembered for pro-opposition messages during a 2011 vice presidential trip to the Russian capital, Putin spoke favorably of Biden’s arms control position. Trump officials haven't yet been able to renew the New START arms-reduction treaty, but Biden has expressed support for extending that agreement.

Navalny poisoning

After the German government confirmed Kremlin nemesis Navalny was poisoned by a nerve agent widely known to be used by the Russian government to take down its enemies, Trump avoided any condemnation in response to a question from the media during a press briefing.

"I don't know exactly what happened, I think it's tragic,” Trump said. “It's terrible, it shouldn't happen. We haven't had any proof yet, but I will take a look." The remarks stood in contrast with statements from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who had only harsh words for the Russian government. The head of NATO — which Trump has often sought to attenuate — called Russia’s use of Novichok an “assassination attempt.”

Trump deflected mentions of Russia by highlighting his decision to sell anti-tank weapons to Ukraine’s government for help in battles against Putin-backed fighters. But the president’s tone was also starkly different from adjectives used by senior administration officials who called the poisoning “clearly reprehensible,” expressing “grave concern” about Russia’s “malign activities.” 

"A Biden administration will confront Russian aggression from a position of strength, even as we work to maintain strategic stability," said Biden spokesman TJ Ducklo. "Unlike this administration, which has never taken the Russian threat seriously, Joe Biden will rally our allies to deter Russian aggression as a united front and protect the interests of Western democracies.”

Some analysts speculate that future US responses to such incidents will occur in cyberspace, and the public may never find out about retaliatory moves — an approach signaled by Biden himself just before the 2016 election. 

Chaos in Russia’s neighborhood

If Trump wins next month, it would be up to Congress to punish Russia for its role in helping him. But if Biden emerges victorious, then US diplomats under his watch could go to great lengths proving — in Russia’s backyard — that the new US commander-in-chief is not beholden to Putin. 

In some respects, Russian success in America is mere popular perception that US electoral politics is hopelessly bogged down by mudslinging and partisan gridlock. And for Washington, there are many avenues to respond at the flashpoints along Russia’s territorial edges. 

Russia’s interests are at stake nowhere more clearly than in Belarus, where authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko is clinging to power amid raucous pro-democracy protests. Biden’s campaign website says Lukashenko is “hiding in fear from his own citizens, refusing to accept the will of the people” and calls this “a sign of a weak, illegitimate autocrat, not a strong leader.” And, Biden said, “Trump refuses to speak out” or “offer his personal support.”

RelatedHow Europe's last dictator could fall

In Nagorno-Karabakh, the region of the South Caucasus disputed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the fault line between the US and Russia is less apparent. Yet Biden released a statement on Tuesday saying that he was “deeply concerned by the collapse of the October 10 ceasefire.” He also chided Trump for being “largely passive, and disengaged, throughout this recent period of escalation.” Armenian-American voters have been especially disappointed.

Unrest in Kyrgyzstan after a contentious election may turn out to be another complex situation, but nonetheless an additional country in Russia’s sphere of influence that the next US president would be hard-pressed to ignore.

Regardless of who is at the helm in Washington, Moscow is likely to face a bumpy road ahead — from Russia’s western flank to the steppes of Central Asia.



Read more:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-10-16/explainer-how-russia-benefits-disrupting-us-election-again


The article above is basically BULLSHIT as promoted by the Democrats. It has no nuances, no proofs — and THE MAIN CULPRIT WHO GOT DONALD TRUMP ELECTED IS AUSSIE UNCLE RUPE. Not Putin.


The World is a public radio program that crosses borders and time zones to bring home the stories that matter.

 
Major funding provided by
[rich philanthropic anti Ruskies organisations]

Carnegie Foundation of New York

https://www.macfound.org

https://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/goalsandobjectives



and of course:

https://www.fordfoundation.org


Justice begins where inequality ends

We’re building a world where everyone has the power to shape their lives.

In 1936, Edsel Ford—son of Henry, the founder of the Ford Motor Company—established the Ford Foundation with an initial gift of $25,000. During its early years, the foundation operated in Michigan under the leadership of Ford family members. Since the founding charter stated that resources should be used for “scientific, educational and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare,” the foundation made grants to many kinds of organizations.

After Edsel and Henry died in the mid-1940s, their bequests turned the foundation into the largest philanthropy in the world. Henry Ford II, Edsel’s eldest son, assumed leadership of the foundation, and he and the board of trustees commissioned a blue-ribbon panel, led by H. Rowan Gaither, to explore how the foundation could best put its greatly increased resources to use.

The seven-member Gaither Study Committee recommended that the Ford Foundation become an international philanthropy dedicated to the advancement of human welfare through reducing poverty and promoting democratic values, peace, and educational opportunity. In 1949, the trustees unanimously approved the panel’s ambitious recommendations. Over the next decades, Henry Ford II remained a key figure in the foundation, serving as president and as chair and member of the board of trustees and overseeing its transformation from a local Detroit foundation to a national and international organization. He retired as a trustee in 1976.

In 1953, the trustees decided that to fulfill its expanded mission, the foundation should base its operations in New York. The foundation leased space in the city until 1967, when construction of a headquarters building was completed. That iconic building, designed by Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo and Associates, was later designated a landmark.

The foundation is an independent organization, led by a distinguished board of trustees whose 16 members hail from four continents and bring leadership and expertise in a wide range of disciplines. Today we are stewards of a $12 billion endowment, making $500 million in grants around the world every year. Led by Darren Walker, our 10th president, we remain committed to our enduring mission—and to our legacy of bold, creative support for social change.



Gus: Sorry, I need to go and clean my brains with soap...

worse than oblivion?...

What would totalitarian governments of the past have looked like if they were never defeated? The Nazis operated with 20th Century technology and it still took a world war to stop them. How much more powerful – and permanent – could the Nazis have been if they had beat the US to the atomic bomb? Controlling the most advanced technology of the time could have solidified Nazi power and changed the course of history.

When we think of existential risks, events like nuclear war or asteroid impacts often come to mind. Yet there’s one future threat that is less well known – and while it doesn’t involve the extinction of our species, it could be just as bad.

It’s called the “world in chains” scenario, where, like the preceding thought experiment, a global totalitarian government uses a novel technology to lock a majority of the world into perpetual suffering. If it sounds grim, you’d be right. But is it likely? Researchers and philosophers are beginning to ponder how it might come about – and, more importantly, what we can do to avoid it.

Read more:

Existential risks (x-risks) are disastrous because they lock humanity into a single fate, like the permanent collapse of civilisation or the extinction of our species. These catastrophes can have natural causes, like an asteroid impact or a supervolcano, or be human-made from sources like nuclear war or climate change. Allowing one to happen would be “an abject end to the human story" and would let down the hundreds of generations that came before us, says Haydn Belfield, academic project manager at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge.


Toby Ord, a senior research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) at Oxford University, believes that the odds of an existential catastrophe happening this century from natural causes are less than one in 2,000, because humans have survived for 2,000 centuries without one. However, when he adds the probability of human-made disasters, Ord believes the chances increase to a startling one in six. He refers to this century as “the precipice” because the risk of losing our future has never been so high.

Researchers at the Center on Long-Term Risk, a non-profit research institute in London, have expanded upon x-risks with the even-more-chilling prospect of suffering risks. These “s-risks” are defined as “suffering on an astronomical scale, vastly exceeding all suffering that has existed on Earth so far.” In these scenarios, life continues for billions of people, but the quality is so low and the outlook so bleak that dying out would be preferable. In short: a future with negative value is worse than one with no value at all.

This is where the “world in chains” scenario comes in. If a malevolent group or government suddenly gained world-dominating power through technology, and there was nothing to stand in its way, it could lead to an extended period of abject suffering and subjugation. A 2017 report on existential risks from the Global Priorities Project, in conjunction with FHI and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, warned that “a long future under a particularly brutal global totalitarian state could arguably be worse than complete extinction”.

Singleton hypothesis

Though global totalitarianism is still a niche topic of study, researchers in the field of existential risk are increasingly turning their attention to its most likely cause: artificial intelligence.

In his “singleton hypothesis”, Nick Bostrom, director at Oxford’s FHI, has explained how a global government could form with AI or other powerful technologies  – and why it might be impossible to overthrow. He writes that a world with “a single decision-making agency at the highest level” could occur if that agency “obtains a decisive lead through a technological breakthrough in artificial intelligence or molecular nanotechnology”. Once in charge, it would control advances in technology that prevent internal challenges, like surveillance or autonomous weapons, and, with this monopoly, remain perpetually stable.

 

 

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201014-totalitarian-world-in-chains-artificial-intelligence

 

 

Do not fear Artificial Intelligence. Fear the idots who are still humans, with the power to obliterate your planet.

the two ingredients of a revolution...


The fall of the Western Model

 


by Thierry Meyssan

 

 

The Western model, based on capitalism and democracy, no longer manages to defend the general interest or guarantee popular sovereignty. By accumulating these two failures, it brings together the two ingredients of a generalized revolution.

The crisis of capitalism

Historically, the crisis of the West began with the crisis of American capitalism in 1929. At that time, the majority of books and newspapers claimed that the concentration of capital sterilized the economy by preventing competition in many areas. While famine was raging in the US, three political models were proposed by the press at the time to break the economic deadlock:

Leninism with the nationalization of all productive goods at the risk of destroying all individual initiative;

- the fascism of Lenin’s former representative in Italy, Benito Mussolini, who planned not to fight against the concentration of capital, but to organize it within corporations, at the risk of making employees lose all possibility of resisting abusive employers;

- Franklin Roosevelt’s progressivism, for whom technology was supposed to revive the economy and provide the solution as long as competition was restored by dismantling large corporations (according to Simon Patten’s doctrine).

It was Lenin himself who noted the failure of his economic theory during the Civil War. He then liberalized foreign trade and even allowed some private enterprises in the Soviet Union (the New Economic Policy - NEP). Fascism could only develop at the price of terrible repression. It was swept away by the Second World War. Progressiveism remained the rule until the 1980s when it was challenged by the deregulation of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

This fourth model is now also challenged by the destruction of the middle classes caused by globalization. President Bush Sr. thought that with the disappearance of the USSR, the search for prosperity should replace the military rivalry between Washington and Moscow. He allowed some US companies to form an alliance with the Chinese Communist Party and to relocate factories to the Chinese coast. Even though Chinese workers were not trained at all, the cost of their labor being twenty times lower in China than in the U.S., these companies accumulated colossal profits that allowed them to impose a much greater concentration in certain sectors than in 1929. Moreover, they made most of their profits not from the production of goods and services, but from the income from their liquid assets. Capitalism changed its nature once again. It was no longer productive, but had become financial.

Chinese workers, having gradually trained themselves, have now become as costly as US workers, so that relocation now affects their own country to the benefit of Vietnam and India this time. We’re back to where we started.

The US companies that have undertaken to relocate their jobs to China and to financialize their activities have managed to amalgamate their ideology of "economic globalization" with the globalization of the use of new techniques; two unrelated things. Indeed, while new techniques can be used everywhere in the world, they cannot be used at the same time, as they require energy and raw materials.

They have therefore convinced Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to divide the world in two: on the one hand a zone of global consumption, around the USA, Russia and China, and on the other a zone of resources to feed the former. The Pentagon then decided to destroy the state structures of the Broader Middle East so that the people of the region would not be able to resist this project; what George W. Bush called the "war without end". Indeed, eternal wars began in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, each time allegedly for different reasons, but always with the same aggressors, the jihadists.

In 2017, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping decided at the same time to fight against this phenomenon, the former through protectionist nationalism and the latter through economic nationalism. However, Trump’s proposed tax reform was rejected by Congress: the Border Adjustment Act would have liberalized exports and taxed all imports at 20 per cent. For his part, Xi Jinping created a body to monitor the conformity of corporate objectives with those of the nation, the United Front, at the 19th Congress of the CCP. A state representative was introduced into the board of directors of each major company.

Trump’s failure to get his tax plan through led him to try to obtain the same benefits by declaring a customs war against China alone. The CCP responded by trying to both develop its domestic market and direct its overproduction towards Europe. The latter immediately paid the price. As always when governments are not attentive to the plight of their people, the economic problem causes a political crisis.

The crisis of democracy

Contrary to popular belief based on the appearance of things, it is not the choice of a new political regime, but the defense of collective interests that provokes revolutions. In the modern world, it is always about patriotism. In any case, those who revolt think, rightly or wrongly, that their rulers are at the service of foreign interests, that they are no longer allies but enemies.

The international order that was imposed after the Second World War was supposed to serve the general interest, whether through some form of democracy or through some form of dictatorship of the proletariat. However, this system could not function over time in non-sovereign states such as those of NATO or the Warsaw Pact. At one time or another, the rulers of these states were led to betray their people and serve their suzerain, the US or the USSR. This system has been accepted all the time during which, rightly or wrongly, everyone thought it indispensable for living in peace. This reason no longer exists today, but NATO is still there, now without legitimacy.

NATO, a kind of Foreign Legion of the United States and the United Kingdom, thought up and created what has become the European Union. Initially, it was a question of anchoring Western Europe in the Western camp. Today, through treaties, the European Union subordinates its defense to NATO. In practice, for the peoples of the EU, the North Atlantic Alliance is the military component of a whole of which the EU is the civilian component. NATO imposes its standards, builds the infrastructure it needs, and is financed through opaque institutions. All this is hidden from the eyes of its inhabitants, who are explained, for example, that the European Parliament votes on the norms, while it merely ratifies the NATO texts presented by the Commission.

There is no doubt that, although they suffer it without flinching, the citizens do not accept this organization: they have not stopped opposing the idea of a European Constitution.

At the same time, the concept of democracy has been profoundly transformed. It is no longer a question of guaranteeing the "power of the people", but of submitting to the "rule of law"; two irreconcilable concepts. From now on, magistrates will decide for the people who will have the right to represent them and who will be deprived of this right. This transfer of sovereignty from the peoples to the judicial systems is indispensable to maintain the effective domination of the Anglo-Saxons over the members of the EU. Hence the relentlessness of Brussels to impose the "rule of law" on Poland and Hungary.

The revolt

The collapse of the standard of living of the little people in the USA under Barack Obama led to the election of Donald Trump. The acceleration of relocations from Europe as a result of the customs war between the USA and China provoked the movement of Yellow Vests in France.

This popular revolt materialized in the first weeks of this movement (with the demand for the Citizens’ Initiative Referendum -RIC- by Étienne Chouard). It was in line with the candidacy of the humorist Coluche for the French presidency in 1981 ("All together for their ass") and the demonstrations of the Italian humorist Beppe Grillo in 2007 ("Vaffanculo", meaning "Fuck them"). Gradually, the derision is accompanied by ever stronger and more obscene anger.

It must be understood that the question of the rejection of US military domination preceded that of economic globalization, but it was the latter that opened the revolt. In the same way, it is necessary to distinguish the patriotic demands of the Yellow Vests, with the national flag at the head, from those of the Trotskyists who quickly took control of their movement and hijacked it by attacking symbols of the Nation, vandalizing the Arc de Triomphe and the statue of the Marseillaise.

In short, the current revolt is the fruit of both three-quarters of a century of Anglo-Saxon domination over the members of the European Union and the hyper-concentration of globalized capital. Taken together, these two crises form a time bomb that, if not defused, will explode to the detriment of all. This revolt has now reached a real awareness of the problem, but is not yet mature enough not to be subverted by European rulers.

By not even trying to solve the problems posed, they hope to enjoy their privileges for as long as possible, without having to assume their responsibilities. In doing so, they have no choice but to push for war or risk being overthrown with great violence.

Thierry Meyssan
Translation 
Roger Lagassé


Read more:https://www.voltairenet.org/article211269.html

Read from top.

meanwhile at the S-400 rocket launch...

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Turkey will not have any consultations with the United States regarding tests of the S-400 air defence systems purchased from Russia, Washington's approach is not binding, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday.

"The tests are correct; they have been carried out and they are being carried out. The approach of the US is not binding for us in any way because how can we not test the means that we have? Of course, we are not going to consult with the US on that. Not only for the S-400, but also many other heavy and light weapons. Some of them are purchased from the US, we also carry out tests for them, and now, in a similar fashion, we will continue conducting tests and drills", Erdogan said, as aired by the broadcaster TRT.

 

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202010231080860086-turkey-not-going-t...

 

 

If I was a conspiracy theorist, which I could be, I would suggest that the USA do not mind that Turkey got the S-400 and is testing the weapon system. A few Turks on the launch-pads could be double-agents that would be relaying information, launch codes and software to their "handlers" in the USA. Knowing this, the USA would develop ways of distracting the system into failure... The denial of Erdogan can only point to a double-game...

 

Read from top.