2017 — Russophobia in America today is as intense as it was at the height of Cold War when terrified school kids had “Duck and Cover” drills and the public was obsessed with bomb shelters. However, all the drama about Russian hacking and collusion are a smokescreen. The real conflict is about geopolitical power struggle for world domination, which involves hundreds of trillions of dollars, massive egos of Machiavellian elites, and nations driven by memory of the past and visions of the future.

 

Why The West Hates Putin – It’s More Than What You’re Being Told

Op-Ed by Chris Kanthan

 

Here’s the big picture: it’s a geopolitical battle of USA+EU versus Russia+China. The US and EU are governed by the same banking and military-industrial overlords, while Russia and China – two independent countries – have made an alliance out of necessity. Why? If Russia falls, China will be the next. Get the bear, you get the dragon, and thus you get the world.

But here is the kicker: the globalists did trap the bear in 1991 when the USSR failed. However, rather than befriending the bear, they caged it and then starved, tortured and humiliated it for the next eight years. That’s when the bear tore down the cage and fought back.Betrayal in the 1990s

The biggest theft of the century happened in Russia in the 1990s, and the perpetrators were Wall Street shysters who promised miracles of capitalism, but instead dismantled the entire country. In the name of privatization, Russia was put up for fire sale 1. Everything you can imagine – oil/gas fields, gold/diamond mines, airlines, media, factories, you-name-it – were sold at 1/1000th of their fair price. A handful of Russians, carefully selected by the US, ended up with assets worth hundreds of billions of dollars. In exchange, each Russian got a “share” worth $7. The US taxpayers even subsidized this disgusting racket.

Under this shock therapy administered by American vulture capitalists, Russia’s GDP fell 40%. The country was loaded up with crushing debt from the IMF and the World Bank, and poverty and suicide soared.

The Russian military was in shambles and was badly losing wars to Islamic terrorists in Chechnya and Dagestan. Oh, these terrorists were the same Mujahideen from Afghanistan and were still funded by Saudi Arabia and armed by the US 2. To add insult to injury, in 1999, the West bombed Serbia – Russia’s staunch ally – and also gave NATO membership to three countries close to Russia.

Most Russian politicians, including President Yeltsin, were bought off and controlled by Washington, as Bill Clinton bragged to Tony Blair. 3

Putin’s Empire

Under these dreadful circumstances, Putin became the Acting President of Russia on Dec 31, 1999. Over the next few years, he took on the powerful oligarchs, corrupt politicians and the elites who formed the fifth column. With authoritarian KGB-style, he assassinated some pro-Western journalists, jailed opponents and consolidated his power. Putin was helped by raising oil prices, but he used the new wealth wisely. He grew the Russian economy, built up gold and foreign reserves, and significantly reduced the national debt.

1. Between 1999 and 2014, Russia’s GDP grew 10-fold 4 and its world rank surged from 22ndto 8th
2. Russia’s debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 100% in 1999 to 17% in 2016 5
3. Foreign reserves grew from virtually nothing to the 6th largest in the world 6
4. Gold reserves grew to become the 6th largest in the world as well 7

Putin started RT – Russia’s own global news channel, banned GMO, kicked out George Soros, and fought Cultural Marxism. He built more than 15,000 churches, encouraged families to have more children, and banned transgender/gay propaganda to children.

Finally, Putin rebuilt Russia’s military, crushed Islamic terrorists and, in a geopolitical stunner that transpired in Syria, prevailed against a mighty coalition of the US, Israel, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and 40,000 jihadists. 8

Putin’s diplomacy has also been remarkable. After the 2014 US sanctions and the precipitous fall in oil prices, every pundit and politician predicted the isolation of Putin and the demise of Russia’s economy. Fast forward to 2017, 144 US corporations and 62 countries attended Russia’s Economic Conference in St. Petersburg. In France, the new President, Macron, chose Putin for the first visit of a foreign leader.

In other words, Putin made Russia great again. This is why his approval rating is still over 80%.

Russia under attack

However, the globalists have had their own victories as well. In 2003-2004, pro-Russia governments in Georgia and Ukraine were overthrown by George Soros’ color revolutions. In 2014, the US staged a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrew a democratically elected leader, and replaced him with an unelected billionaire.

Ukraine has been a CIA target for decades. As Brzezinski wrote in his book, The Grand Chessboard, Russia will be paralyzed without access to Crimea and the Black Sea – the only Russian gateway to the Mediterranean Sea. Sensing danger after the 2013 coup, Putin quickly held a referendum in Crimea and annexed it. (More than 75% of Crimeans speak Russian as their native language, and Ukraine is vastly poorer than Russia, so the election result was predictable). 9

Another area where Russia was backstabbed: NATO expansion. Contrary to the promises made during the dissolution of the USSR, NATO has added 13 new European countries, which are all potential hosts for US/NATO military bases 10. Many of these countries are now part of the missile defense system. On the other side of Russia, the US has deployed THAAD in South Korea. What this means is that the US could first launch a nuclear attack against Russia, and then shoot down the missiles that Russia fires in response. The entire situation is extremely volatile and dangerous – Russia has more than 7,000 nuclear weapons.

All this bullying is just a symptom of the wounded egos of globalists who have failed in their attempts to conquer Russia. Not once, but six times in the last 200 years—1812, 1856, 1905, World War I, World War II, and the Wall Street takeover of Russia in the 1990s.

Rothschilds, Bolshevism and Hitler

In 1812, funded by the Rothschilds, Napoleon invaded Russia. In 1856, Britain and France attacked and took over Crimea—for the same reason that the US staged a coup in Ukraine in 2013.

In 1905, banksters on Wall Street – Jacob Schiff and others – funded Japan to attack Russia 11. In the midst of the war, the banksters tried to foment a revolution and overthrow the Czar. The guy who led the revolution was Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) 12. He would fail in 1905 and flee Russia, but would come back in 1917 using the same playbook, but using Germany instead of Japan.

Before World War I, Trotsky and Lenin raised millions of dollars from international banksters. Trotsky visited New York and got an American passport so he could sneak back into Russia 13. Flush with cash from capitalists, the communists (Bolsheviks) killed the Czar during World War I and quickly signed a peace treaty with Germany. Danke Schoen!

Thus, you see, the evil empire of the Soviet Union was a creation of America and Europe—a fact that is erased from the history books. The Soviet Union was a result of a civil war fomented by outside forces – a civil war in which the bad guys won. Bolshevism was a foreign virus that invaded Russia, killed tens of millions of Russians and tried to destroy Christianity – Russia’s religion for over 1000 years. However, when Americans think of “Russians,” they are only taught to think of the Soviet Union.

Fast forward to World War II, it was again Europe (Germany) that attacked Russia. 20 million Russians died fighting the Nazis, two million just in the city of Leningrad 14. Russia fought the Nazis for four years and destroyed 70% of Hitler’s army. However, the US came at the end of the game (in 1944) and got all the accolade for “defeating the Nazis.”

Moving Forward

Knowing all this, an objective person would not cast Russia as the enemy of the West.Russia will be an enemy only if we demand its subservience. Russia and China are determined to preserve their sovereignty. To that end, they are working on their own financial system (credit card, banking etc.) and international alliances 15. They are also trying to break free from the petrodollar system, which lets the US borrow trillions without repercussions. Of course, the globalists detest this challenge to the New World Order.

Since World War II, America’s knee-jerk response to any diplomatic challenge has been to bully or bomb. Eisenhower warned us and we ignored it: America’s military-industrial-banking-media complex has vast and undue influence. JFK advocated détente with Russia and withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, and he was reviled by the Deep State. Trump is facing a lot of animosity from the Establishment for the same reason. Globalists endlessly preach about the wonders of diversity, but hate countries who think different.

Global conflicts and wars are very addictive for the military-security complex, which craves 800 military bases around the world, $600 billion a year budget, and $35 billion/year of weapons export. Wars also mean massive debts for nations, which is exactly what the international banksters want. Global corporations are drawn to a unipolar world, since that guarantees them monopoly, cheap labor and raw materials, and access to customers. Social engineers and Cultural Marxists rely on monolithic corporate media to spread the same propaganda all over the world. Will the confluence of these forces refuse to accept a multipolar world? Will they push us into disastrous wars, potentially even a nuclear war? Let’s remember JFK’s “Peace Speech” from 1963:

 

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-university-19630610

 

=======================

 

IN THIS POST, WE EXPLAIN HOW THE VIRULENT ANTI-RUSSIA PROPAGANDA HAS BEEN AND IS BEING PROMOTED THROUGH THE MEDIA.

MOST OF THE MEDIA IN THE WEST HATE PUTIN. MURDOCH MEDIA AND SOROS MEDIA BOTH HATE PUTIN BEYOND BELIEF, EXCEPT THAT IN ORDER TO APPEAR BALANCED, MURDOCH [FOX NEWS] USED TUCKER CARLSON [UNTIL HE LEFT AND BECAME HIS OWN] TO APPEAR MORE UNDERSTANDING OF PUTIN'S WAYS... AND THIS ATTRACTED THE IRE OF THE GUARDIAN — ANOTHER MEDIA THAT HATES PUTIN...:

 

Fox News deals in Kremlin propaganda. So why not freeze Rupert Murdoch’s assets?
This article is more than 4 years old

Nick Cohen

If NewsCorp’s owner were Russian, there would be no hesitation in applying sanctions

f the west could find the courage, it would order an immediate freeze of Rupert Murdoch’s assets. His Fox News presenters and Russia’s propagandists are so intermeshed that separating the two is as impossible as unbaking a cake.

On Russian state news, as on Fox, bawling ideologues scream threats then whine about their victimhood as they incite anger and self-pity in equal measures. Its arguments range from the appropriation of anti-fascism by Greater Russian imperialists – the 40 countries supporting Ukraine were “today’s collective Hitler”, viewers were told last week – to the apocalyptic delirium of the boss of RT (Russia Today) Margarita Simonyan. Nuclear war is my “horror”, she shuddered, “but we will go to heaven, while they will simply croak”.

Russia would never give genuine western journalists airtime. But it can always find a slot for its favourite quisling: Fox News’s Tucker Carlson. He pushes out Russian propaganda lines or perhaps creates his own lies for Russia to use. Ukraine, not Russia, is the real tyranny. Nato provoked poor Vladimir Putin. The west is plotting to use biological weapons. Last week, he floated the theory that the war was not the result of an unprovoked invasion by a colonialist dictatorship but of the Biden administration’s desire to avenge Donald Trump’s victory in 2016.

It was a big hit in Moscow, reported BuzzFeed’s Julia Davis. “State TV propagandists loved it so much, Russia’s 60 Minutes included it not once, but twice in their evening broadcast – neatly bookended by the Kremlin’s war propaganda.”

Putin’s appeal to both the far right and the Chomskyan wing of the far left in Europe and North America is worthy of a study in itself. He was a dream for ultra-reactionaries: a white, Christian strongman, who was anti-liberal and anti-EU. His victories heralded a world in which might was right and morality was for losers.

In Europe, Russia’s atrocities have forced everyone from Arron Banks and Nigel Farage to Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini to find urgent reasons to change the subject. In the US, there remains a market for Putinism among a large minority of Republican voters. Their yearning for dictatorship, as evidenced by the support given to denying legitimate election results and to the fascistic forces that stormed Congress, is greater. The hatred of liberals in power is deeper.

Murdoch is boosting Russian morale and, conversely, undermining Ukrainian resolve by supplying a dictatorship with foreign validation. Do not underestimate its importance. Russians who suspect their TV anchors are state-sponsored bootlickers are more likely to believe foreign commentators who assure them that the lies they are hearing are true. Reporters risk their lives but Putin cannot fire or imprison Fox News presenters, steal their wealth or poison them with Novichok. Russian forces will not reduce their towns to rubble, rape them, torture them, burn them alive in theatres or shoot them in the head by the side of forest roads. Murdoch and his employees have nothing to fear from Putin. Their endorsement of Kremlin war propaganda carries conviction because it is freely given.

As useful to Russia is the wider chilling effect. I have seen journalists start off making eloquent and plausible critiques of the left’s hatred of free speech, for instance, or its tolerance of regressive religion, only to find that careers in the worst of the rightwing media come with a price tag. To succeed on Fox News in the US, they don’t have to agree with banning abortion or denying climate change but they must never make their objections public.

The UK’s sanctions regulations include among the reasons for freezing an oligarch’s assets “obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia”. The Biden White House promises to punish those “responsible for providing the support necessary to underpin Putin’s war on Ukraine”. On both interpretations, there is a plausible prosecution case for freezing the assets of Murdoch’s NewsCorp.

Because it is a media conglomerate, sanctions would be an attack on free speech. I say this plainly because so many writers and political actors pretend that they are not demanding censorship when that is precisely what they are doing. Nevertheless, in this case the threat to freedom is minimal. Murdoch would not be punished for revealing embarrassing truths about the west but for spreading demonstrable lies for a hostile foreign power.

If you still feel queasy, imagine if Murdoch’s media organisation were exactly as it is today and producing the same arguments the Kremlin uses to justify its crimes. The one difference is that Murdoch is Russian rather than Australian. I don’t believe there would be the slightest hesitation in removing him and his family from control of their businesses. Indeed, the UK, EU and US have already announced sanctions against Russian broadcasters and individual journalists. I have not heard anyone claim that they are attacking press freedom, rather than trying to cripple the propaganda capacity of a warmongering state.

The Murdoch empire contains the Times and Wall Street Journal, whose Russian coverage has been admirable, and HarperCollins, which with a bravery few other publishers would match, fought off a vicious legal assault by the Russian oligarchy and their pet London lawyers against a critical study of Putin’s power.

But good deeds count for nothing in assessing the desirability of sanctions. The tycoon Oleg Tinkov spoke for many rich Russians when he denounced the “massacre” in Ukraine and called for an end to the “crazy war”. The oligarchs the west has sanctioned are losing their fortunes and what little influence they had. Of course they hate Putin’s strategy. Western governments don’t care because, as Tom Keatinge of the Royal United Services Institute explains it to me, they know that a large portion of oligarchical wealth is at Putin’s disposal. Their private thoughts and, when they dare risk assassination attempts, public protests are irrelevant. The need to end war in Europe comes first.

Tender-hearted readers may object that Murdoch is now 90 and may well not be in full control of his organisation. But surely this is an argument for removing him? If in his dotage he is allowing himself to become a cross between Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose, it would be a kindness for western governments to save him from himself.

 Nick Cohen is an Observer columnist

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/07/fox-new-deals-in-kremlin-propaganda-freeze-rupert-murdochs-assets

 

MURDOCH IS BOOSTING RUSSIAN MORALE? NICK COHEN IS AN IDIOT...

 

2007 — Kasparov is a contributing editor of Murdoch's Wall Street Journal; so he already has a regular platform for launching his tirades on the "tyrannical" Mr. Putin. Normally, one doesn't get a spot on the op-ed page of the WSJ unless their politics are somewhere to the right of Augusto Pinochet. That's probably the case with Kasparov, too. In Saturday's edition of the WSJ, Kasparov delivered his latest absurd soliloquy disparaging Putin and recounting his agonizing 5 day ordeal in the Moscow poky.

https://rense.com/general79/why.htm

 

2014 — ANOTHER COHEN EXPLAINS:

With few exceptions, the Western media and most strategists have been very unfair in their comments about Vladimir Putin and his response to the Ukrainian demonstrations. According to Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton (he is also the author of Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War), there has been a “tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazines” which portray Putin in a very negative light and fail to take into account some larger things happening in the region. Here&Now Public Radio’s Robin Young recently interviewed Stephen Cohen, who opined:

…for nearly a decade, the American media has so demonized Putin that we’ve lost sight of him, and we’ve obscured the possibilities that are there and that he’s offered to enhance, through some kind of steady, calm cooperation, American national security.…

I can’t remember any Soviet communist leader being so personally villainized[;] that is[,] we wrote bad things about Krushchev, about Brezhnev, about Andropov, but we disliked them because they represented an evil system. We didn’t say [they] themselves were thugs, murderers, assassins, which are words that we attach to Putin.…

The American media coverage of Ukraine is wrong and inflammatory from beginning to end. The media refers to The Ukraine and The Ukrainian people striving for Western democracy and capitalism. That’s false. Everybody knows that at a minimum, there are two Ukraines. One part of it, mostly in the west, wants to attach to Europe. The other part of it in the east, and partly in the south, wants to remain close to Russia….

And this is caused by ethnicity, language, religion, politics, culture. So now we come to the second thing: Who precipitated this crisis? People say Putin did it, or the Ukrainian president, democratically elected, by the way, Yanukovych. But I say no. Why did the European Union tell the democratically elected president of such a profoundly divided country, two Ukraines, in November, that he must decide either/or, you’re either with Europe, or you’re with Russia?

That’s a provocation, and that’s where this began. And here’s what’s not reported. At that moment, in November and December, what was Putin’s reply? He said hey, guys, why does Ukraine have to decide? Why can’t the European Union and Russia help Ukraine out of its terrible economic crisis? And the answer was, in Washington and in Brussels, no way. Ukraine must decide.

Cohen referred to the leaked conversation between the top State Department official Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador in Kiev, in which she dismissed the EU with the F-word, as further proof that the US wants a new anti-Russian Ukrainian government and is prepared to participate in a coup to achieve that end:

Stop and think how that story was covered in the American media. The first lead was oh my gosh, she said F the EU. The second lead was who leaked this story? Oh, it must’ve been the Russians. Look at those horrible Russians. But that wasn’t the story. The story is what the top State Department official said to the American ambassador in Kiev.

And what she said is you and I are empowered to form a new Ukrainian government. And they’re actually discussing who should be in this government. And the new government is going to get rid of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.

Now we may hate Yanukovych. He may be a rat of the first magnitude. But in plain language, they were plotting a coup d’etat against a democratically elected president. And we know that in countries with fragile democratic traditions, when you overthrow an elected president, you are setting back democracy maybe decades [emphasis added].

When asked why, for nearly a decade, the American media has so demonised Putin, Cohen responded:

We in America have had three successive presidents who were by and large failures as foreign policy presidents. Nobody’s going to write a history of Clinton and say he was a great foreign policy president. Bush’s war in Iraq has tainted his foreign policy reputation forever. And Obama is not admired as a foreign policy president, whatever you think of him. Putin on the other hand has been an exceedingly successful national leader of Russia in foreign policy for 13 years. Mitt Romney said the other day in the Washington Post, that when it comes to representing a nation’s interest in international affairs, Putin has been a better president than Obama. OK, that’s politics, but it’s a plausible thesis. And you sense sometimes that Putin’s success has brought upon him this kind of vilification by the American media in particular. Now that’s a thesis. I don’t know. But we ought to think about it.

I want to put the discussion in the proper context, which investigative reporter and author Robert Parry calls “America’s Staggering Hypocrisy”. (Google Robert Parry’s “America’s Staggering Hypocrisy”, an excellent article about US foreign policies.)

My friend Patrick McKim, who served in the US Navy and on the Armed Services Committee for Senator Pete Wilson (R-CA) on the Seapower and Tactical Warfare Subcommittees during the Beirut bombing incident (he also attended the Naval War College’s Strategy and Policy Course, holds a Harvard MBA, has a sizeable library of military and naval biographies and actions, and knows a lot of high-placed people in the military and in politics), recently sent me a piece entitled “Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC”.

 

(For readers not familiar with Butler, I should point out that he was a Major General in the US Marine Corps, the highest rank at that time. At the time of his death in 1940, he was the most decorated Marine in US history, having received 16 medals, five for heroism.) In his abovementioned speech, General Butler said of interventionism:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight.

The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers.

There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to.

It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to.

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it.

Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914.

I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912 (where have I heard that name before?).

I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Regards,

Marc Faber
for The Daily Reckoning

https://dailyreckoning.com/the-real-reason-the-us-media-hates-vladimir-putin/

 

 

============================

 

SO DOES THE MURDOCH MEDIA HATE PUTIN? ONE WOULD SAY YES... BUT THIS HATE IS NUANCED BY MONEY THAT COULD BE MADE FOR THE GLOBALISTS, BY TRUMP SIGNING A DEAL WITH RUSSIA...

HERE WE NEED TO SEE:

In most articles, Putin is disparaged as "anti democratic"; a charge that is never leveled at the Saudi Royal family even though women are forbidden to drive, they must be fully-covered at all times, and can be stoned to death if they are found to be unfaithful. Also, in Saudi Arabia, beheading is still the punishment of choice for capital crimes.

When Saudi King Abdullah visits the US, he is not heaped with scorn for his regimes' repressive treatment of his people. Instead he's rewarded with flattering photos of he and George Bush strolling arm-n-arm through the Crawford sage.

Why is Putin blasted for "rolling back democracy" when American client, Mikhail Saakashvili, arbitrarily declares martial law and deploys his truncheon-wielding Robo-cops to beat protesters senseless before dragging them off to the Georgia gulag? The pictures of Saakashvili's bloody crackdown appeared in the foreign press, but not in the US. Rather, the media had all its cameras focused on Garry Kasparov (contributing editor to the Wall Street Journal and right-wing loony) as he was led off to the Moscow hoosegow in handcuffs for protesting without a permit.

* * *

Putin's real crime is that he serves Russia's national interests rather than the interests of global Capital. He also rejects Washington's "unipolar" world model. As he said in Munich:

"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign; one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

"What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization."

He added:

"We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law....We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force -- military force -- in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security."

Well said, Vladimir.

Putin's no saint, but he doesn't deserve the thrashing he gets from the western media.

And a final word on Garry Kasparov

On Sunday, while Putin's party "United Russia" was screeching to a landslide victory, Reuters News was busy taking mug-shots of the stony-faced Kasparov holding up Florida-style ballots claiming the voting was rigged. "They are not just rigging the vote," Kasparov moaned, "They are raping the whole electoral system. These elections are a reminder of Soviet elections when there was no choice.....Putin is going to have a hard time trying to rule like Stalin."

Stalin? So now Putin is Stalin? First of all, when did Reuters begin to take such a keen interest in voting irregularities? It must be a recent development, becuase they were nowhere to be found in the 2000 presidential election. And when did they start to pay attention to "political dissent"? They certainly never wasted any video-footage on the antiwar rallies in the US. Are we to believe that they are more interested in democracy in Russia than America?

And why is Reuters so eager to provide valuable column-space to a washed-up chessmaster who's only interested in making a nuisance of himself by bellyaching about voter fraud? That's not news; it's propaganda.

As for Kasparov and his silly accusations; he should be glad that he lives in Putin's Russia rather than Stalin's or he'd be in leg-irons right now boarding a northbound train to the Siberian outback.

What is Kasparov doing in Moscow anyway? And why is this little man --with virtually no political base -- such a big part of the western media narrative? Is he only there to discredit the election and throw a little more muck on Putin or is there more to it than that?

Garry Kasparov should give up politics and do what he does best; stand-up comedy. Watching Kasparov traipse around Moscow with his basket of sour grapes and his entourage of western media-stooges is like watching "Mr. Bean's Excellent Kremlin Adventure", a particularly lame performance in a dismal B-rated burlesque. It's painful to watch.

Kasparov's party, the "Other Russia" couldn't manage even a 2 per cent rating in the polls. The party is a complete dud. In fact, Reuters even (reluctantly) admits as much in its article.

Here's the clip. Reuters: "Kasparov and his "Other Russia" dissident movement are not standing in Sunday's parliamentary election because they could not get registered as a party. THEY ENJOY LITTLE PUBLIC SUPPORT AMONG RUSSIANS BUT HAVE A BIG FOLLOWING IN THE WEST." (Reuters) "Big following in the West"? Why doesn't that surprise me?

So, in other words, Kasparov has no base of support in Russia, and yet he gets his own camera crew and media team to follow him around recording every silly he says. That's just great. Who do they think he is; Nelson Mandela?

 

https://rense.com/general79/why.htm

 

======================

 

ALL THIS POST FOR ONE SIMPLE REASON: FROM TIME TO TIME, I MEET PEOPLE WHO HATE "BLOODY" PUTIN, LIKE CRAZY — AND THEY ONLY GET THEIR NEWS/OPINIONS FROM THE MURDOCH MEDIA WHICH THEY TRUST LIKE JESUS CHRIST. 

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT (WW3) HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA TO BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THE RUSSIAN SPEAKING PEOPLE OF "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

RESTITUTE THE ORTHODOX CHURCH PROPERTIES AND RIGHTS

RELEASE THE OPPOSITION MEMBERS FROM PRISON

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE EU.....

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….