105

Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia

by Kit

Mark Rice-Oxley, Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII.


The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a weapons lab that might not even exist anymore. Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
For example, Mark Rice-Oxley’s column in today’s Guardian:

Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury, one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war.

Read this. It’s from a respected “unbiased”, liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet, and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces “fact checks”, but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.

Its agents pop over for murder and shopping…

FALSE: There’s no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The “public inquiry” was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which contravene British law regarding a fair trial.

…even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.

TRUE…sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here…is that WE let them. Oligarchs have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin’s government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That’s why you have wanted criminals like Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he’s down to his “last 270 million”.
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe literally billions in tax, and our government lets them get away with it.

Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia’s own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous adversaries that it secretly envies.

FALSE: Russiagate is a farce, anyone with an open-mind can see that. The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen, Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, and allegedly campaigned for many candidates, and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.

It bought a World Cup,

FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?

…invaded two neighbours…

False: A European Union investigation found that Georgia was to blame for the start of the (very brief, very humiliating) Russo-Georgian war. It lasted a week. That a week-long conflict started by the other side is evidence of “global threat” in a world where Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have happened is beyond hypocritical…it is delusional.
Regarding the second “neighbour”: Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been “invaded” by Russia many times…but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The “anti-terrorist operation” in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died. The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias…many of whom espouse outright fascism.

…bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.

MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory, al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria’s major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists and US-backed mercenaries.

And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.

FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move. America then moved their AEGIS “defense shield” into Eastern Europe. Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position for any country. Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush and Cheney if he has a problem with it.

And before the whataboutists say, “America does some of that stuff too”, that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally awful it doesn’t mean that Russia isn’t.

MISLEADING: America doesn’t do “some of that stuff”. No, America aren’t “occasionally awful”. They do ALL of that stuff, and have been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure and count.
We are so used to American crimes we just don’t see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps. Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has “invaded two neighbours”, the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin’s government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America’s human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not “whataboutism”. It’s a standard rhetorical appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn’t be fair, fine, but don’t expect other people not to point out your double standards.

As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself. Boycott the World Cup? That’ll teach them!

FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in Syria, they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain’s attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for years.

Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions….Of course, the vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.

TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley’s column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia so that people will support US-UK warmongering.

Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state

FALSE: Putin’s government has decreased poverty by over 66% in 17 years. They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.

Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?

MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum…something which requires explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don’t NEED to explain why Russian power is like this, because he hasn’t yet established that it is.

I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic, social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.

MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as “rebirth” is an absurd joke. People sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.

At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.

TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin’s government in pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia’s health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?

The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.

PROJECTION:…he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been down, for decades. Poverty is increasing all the time, food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people, now live in poverty.
In that same time, as stated above, Russia’s poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.

What is to be done? I wouldn’t respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.

Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a “problem” so he can pitch us a “solution”.

There are only two weaknesses in this bully’s defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don’t bother with sanctions. Just say: “No thanks, we don’t want your business.”

FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I’m reading too much into this, then here…

The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.

Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, “envious” Russians aren’t equipped to make their own decisions. We need to step in. “Public opinion” turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.

Maybe it’s time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.

The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we’ve been hearing about how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our “values”? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ – their existence was reported in the Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight face.
Russia is such a destabilising threat to “our democratic values”, such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he’s doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It’s all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they’ll realise that before it’s too late. For all our sakes.


Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

Filed under: featured, latest, On Guardian, Other Media, Russia

by

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pincus
Reader
Pincus

Really. IT’S very difficult to comment on Guardian articles. Comments are often blocked.

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

Don’t be too hard on Mark Rice-Oxley. His career as a bit-part actor in TV serials has tanked, so now he is trying to reinvent himself as a cheaper version of Peter Pommyranter. It’s the dream of every double-barrelled Tarquin or Marcus these days – doing battle with the Beastly Bolsheviks, eh? Tally-ho, what fun! And what juicy pay-cheques for the truly unprincipled.

Google Talpiot Program
Reader
Google Talpiot Program

This is one of the most ridiculous articles posted on “Off-Guardian” – absolutely sycophantic in it’s portrayal of Russia and high misleading.
Yes, the Guardian article was absurd as well – but this is just the other side of the coin.
How can anyone actually post this with a straight face?
“TRUE…sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here…is that WE let them. Oligarchs have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin’s government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That’s why you have wanted criminals like Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he’s down to his “last 270 million”.”
The idea that Russia is actually anti-oligarch ideologically is crazy. Putin is surrounded by ultra-rich oligarchs. Many of them corrupt as can be.
Yes, they’ve attacked/dealt with corrupt oligarchs too but it’s about which oligarchs supported Putin and which didn’t. Not because of an anti-oligarch policy.
The oligarchs criticised and prosecuted by Putin’s government were more liberal (often Reform or atheistic Jews – most the oligarchs are Jewish) – they were also more pro-west in their leanings.
The ones backing Putin have turned to be more conservative, both religiously and politically, often actually supporters of the racist cult of Chabad Lubavitch.
Putin would not have come into power without the support of many oligarchs. That’s just documented fact.
That’s only one part of the article – there is much wrong with this overly pro-Russian piece.
Real analysis needs to take the criminality and problems of all leaders into account. Too easy to fall into binary thinking like this which is a trap.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

Putin was/is not powerful enough to take on all the oligarchs. They wield great influence inside and outside Russia. Therefore, he has had to ‘play’ them and he appears to have done so with great cunning or, perhaps, wisdom.
You are right we should be worried about the Chabad Lubavitcher thing. Like Trump, Putin has rejected the ‘globalist’ model supported by Liberal Jews and runs with the ‘nationalist’ one. Whether such developments, if ongoing, will result in more sovereignty for the “sovereign nations” concerned is doubtful if such nations are bound at their core by governments’ common allegience to the Chabad ghouls.
It would be more than interesting to know what we cannot know….. is Russia trying to lead the world away from the system herein described (link below) or nor? (as described to FSB (KGB) students by Russian professor Alexandreyvich).

Questions:
1) Is Putin really on the same page as Chabad (an utterly supremacist Satanic outfit)? Or playing the international Jew as craftily as he can?
2) Is Putin, likewise, serving the “Conceptual Power” above world governments or is he (and Russia) working to change the system?
Hoping the latter … but one day we will know.

Admin
Reader

The article doesn’t say the Russians are anti-oligarch “ideologically”. The oligarchs were created by the West, and as you say supported western interests as part of their self-interest. Therefore in trying to reclaim Russian control of Russian raw materials and industry, the Putin govt of necessity needed to curb the oligarchs. Those least interested in co-operating with this are the ones who moved their money overseas. No one questions that do they? Combatting Russian capital flight would benefit the Russian economy and penalise the oligarchs least sympathetic to Putin. No one questions this do they?
You seem to be disagreeing with your own misreading rather than anything in the actual article.

Google Talpiot Program
Reader
Google Talpiot Program

“The oligarchs were created by the West, and as you say supported western interests as part of their self-interest.”
That’s not really what I’m saying. The oligarchs weren’t necessarily created by the West but more by the power vacuum left after the end of the Soviet System. There was a huge black market under the USSR which is why a lot of more criminal elements were able to snatch up all the important assets – they had the means.
It’s not even purely about self-interest either – many of the oligarchs were more “liberal” or pro-Western in their ideological outlook than the current pro-Putin lot.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

The major oligarchs who bought up Russia’s natural resources were funded by western banks via agents like Berezovsky and the unutterable , lying, whining creep Bill Browderevitch.

Freedom Fighter
Reader
Freedom Fighter

So no oligarchs are around Putin?
Abramovich with his aluminium empire who has backed Putin all the way?
In fact Putin wouldn’t be in power without him?
Berezovsky initially supported Putin and helped him into power as well. Putin went after him after he criticised him in his media outlets as Putin is generally want to do with opposition.

michael lacey
Reader
michael lacey

Often like to comment on Guardian articles but a lot of articles blocked to comment !

Lenka.Penka (@edik_austin)
Reader

Mark Rice-Oxley, Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII

You missed out Luke Harding…. he’ll do anything for a quick quick at Russia… that is when he is not the self-styled “Putin’s greatest enemy”.

mark
Reader
mark

The KGB are probably still breaking into his house to open his windows and turn off his central heating.

vierotchka
Reader

The KGB doesn’t exist any more – it vanished along with the USSR a quarter of a century ago.

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

And rearrange the books on his bookshelves, as he famously claimed….

Lenka.Penka (@edik_austin)
Reader

quick snipe that is….
The Guardian does seem however to nauseatingly toe the neo-liberal line most of the time – getting quite embarrassing.

Lupulco
Reader
Lupulco

A excellent summing up of the hypocrisy our supposedly elected leaders.
I have had a running E-mail with my local MP on a similar theme to the above article.
I asked the simple question, how would the UK react if someone acts against the UK’s sovereignty in a similar to the way NAT/US acted against Libya and Syria.
Now we have seen [if it is proven to be true and not a false flag operation] how they reacted. Totally double standards.
I have forwarded this article to my MP, in an attempt to show how corrupt our system of Democracy as become.

wardropper
Reader
wardropper

“Not even the 2003 media frenzy to get pubic opinion behind the illegal war on Iraq reached these heights”
Exactly.
But “depths” would be a better word.
Professional liars don’t get to inhabit the heights.

Rev. Spooner
Reader
Rev. Spooner

We too can give it to the Drear old Queer and all her Jamesty’s lemmings.
One should aim for the vulnerability and here it is—-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rice-Oxley –
the ass holes’ weakness, his digital tombstone, his pride and his wikipedia page. Go and edit it and use facts and easily proven falsehoods used by the ass hole. If challenged , don’t back down.

john
Reader
john

boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mail
Reader
mail

Rice-Oxley is absolutely right.
He should go and sort out Johnny Russian and villainous Vlad at once.
I can lend him my old army tin hat if he needs it.

mail
Reader
mail

When I first heard Luke Harding talking about how the FSB kept breaking in to his Moscow flat and turning off his central heating and tampering with his alarm clock, I just assumed he was a paranoid crank in need of professional help, or a bit of a tosser.
But then I realised that poor Luke was the victim of a KGB trained poltergeist. When Putin was a colonel in the KGB, he set up a programme to recruit all the poltergeists in Russia and train them in intelligence work. All the poltergeists in Russia are now directly controlled by the KGB.

John Marks
Reader
John Marks

The headline out of yesterday’s Independent was straight out of James Bond, complete with music.
Today they’ve upped the stakes to “Putin’s got 24 hours”.
Nobody stops to think that the oligarchs’ rise after the fall of the Soviet Union came to an end when Putin was elected. That’s why they got out, bought Chelsea FC (Abramovich), the Independent (Lebedev), etc., etc. And this spy-caper was seized on and magnified with glee once they saw the amount of publicity it could be used to create.
The Indie doesn’t allow comment on these lead articles.
Oh, and on the Skripal case, there is still NO evidence . . .

Frankly Speaking
Reader
Frankly Speaking

I wrote 4 comments against this Russophobic article and 3 were removed by the mods. In one of them I highlighted that if the same tone would have been used in an article against another nation, just for example Israel, it would rightly be treated as anti-semitic and even considered as hate crime by the Police.
The stink of hypocrisy from the Guardian and almost all the English press has made me absolutely convinced that the public are being softened up for a direct conflict against Russia. My guess is that it will kick off within the next year. I think that Putin has mis-calculated because NATO know that the Russians don’t yet have the capability that they boasted of recently, it’s largely still in development, so NATO needs to move now before they are further constrained. The lunacy of such a move is lost in their desperation to go to war.
Several weeks ago I predicted that there would be some false-flag event that would lead to a boycott of the World Cup in Russia, there’s no way that the neocons can allow Russia to be portrayed positively.
Why wage a war against Russia? It’s mad surely? A few years ago there was an independent and conservative estimate valuation of their KNOWN natural resources being worth at least $76 TRILLION. The bankrupt US, UK and EU financial and economic systems sooner or later NEED to be under-pinned by real wealth, not false promises to pay, otherwise they WILL collapse. Additionally China, India and other nations are increasingly stopping using the dollar and it’s placing the US in urgent dire straits and they will take action with their neocon allies.
God help us, the Russians won’t fight a war on their own terriroty ever again. If they feel genuinely threatened they will go pre-emptive. If the Americans feer a pre-emptive strike then they of course have their own ability and desire to strike pre-emptively too. The real question is, which cowboy will draw first?

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

Forget the Guardian you once knew. It’s dead and gone,. The name alone was rescued, by cash influx from the American neocon sponsors – the Roosevelt Institute, the Atlantic Council, and numerous other shady far-right organisations. Only Poor Old Polly Parrot remains from the Old Days, still squawking from her perch as ever.
Have a look at the new names who have arrived. Daniel Boffey, a Mail-on-Sunday hitman hack, with the qualms and morals of a stoat. Nathalie Nougayrede – a French neoliberal extremist pro-NATO hardliner, who has (just) been given control of the ‘Europe’ section of the paper. Rafael Behr – a hardline pro-NATO extremist.
Don’t even think fondly about the Guardian any longer. It is now a bought-and-paid-for vehicle of NATO policy.

jdseanjd
Reader

Viewing The Guardian as a subverted organ of disinformation & social control, I am reminded of The Catholic Church, another subverted organ of disinformation & social control.
now we have the lunatic pipsqeak Rice-Oxley shilling madly for war: back in the Middle Ages we had St. Bernard of Clairvaux shilling frantically for an invasion of The Holy Land, which the Pope duly mandated. Plus ca change, eh?
This brings me to the uncannily accurate predictions for three world wars, seen in a vision & written down in 1871: http://www.rense.com/general80/pike.htm
Could the origins of the entire madness be Satanic?
William Guy Carr, a WWII Canadian naval intelligence officer spent 42 years investigating the worlds’ woes & came up with a one-word answer: Banksters.
I recommend his 1955 book: Pawns in the Game.
John Doran.

nick
Reader
nick

maybe nuclear war is what these maniacs NATO really want, there are perhaps now enough underground bases built with the trillions missing from the US budget, maybe the psychos plan to move to New Zealand or Argentina until the fallout settles while imposing military rule on whats left of the rest of the world

jdseanjd
Reader

Who knows?
The “enviro” movement, actually Fascism behind a green cloak, is prepared for a cull up to 95%. & Hiroshima & Nagasaki were habitable about a year after being bombed
The anti-nuclear scare is just a pro-oil corral. http://www.c3headlines.com & click on Quotes: the maniacs condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

jdseanjd
Reader

A superb, sane & thorough work of forensic journalism. Thank you Kit.
Mark Rice-Oxley seems an obviously lunatic little pipsqueak shilling frantically for WWIII, on a dying Fascist rag posing as a liberal left wing publication.
He shills now only to the brain-dead or the half asleep.
The Russians are well aware of the “Colour Revolution Game”.
Putin admits the US “partners” deceived him grossly & brazenly in Ukraine.
Any such efforts will be firmly squished on Russian motherland soil.
John Pilger sees the MSM now as an arm of Empire: that arm is withered & dying.
People now take their news from fines sites like this.
I now prefer MSSM: Main Slime Stream Media MSSM to project the Nazi connotation.
The entire Western Rothschild Central Bankster AngloZioUS Empire is now a Fascist enterprise promoting “Austerity” for the serfs & wealth, power & plenty for the 1%.
The Hunger Games is where they’re herding us.
John Doran.

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

The Hunger Games is where they’re herding us.
Are you sure that was the appropriate literary reference?

jdseanjd
Reader

Yep, that works also.
John Doran.

John Marks
Reader
John Marks

Mr Oxley doesn’t seem to realize the danger isn’t Russia. It’s this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/egypt-tv-atheist-kicked-off-live-believe-in-god-islam-muslim-religion-allah-blasphemy-illegal-a8247651.html
which is being propagated by born-again Christian America (and Blair/May Britain) and Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, both of which support Egypt’s tyrant.
The past (1945-1989) will certainly be a different country if this overtakes us.

vexarb
Reader

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin’s 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.
The most important part of Putin’s March 1st speech:
https://thesaker.is/the-most-important-part-of-putins-march-1st-speech/
And on the village level, because that’s where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who lives in the Crimea: … “the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We’ll see how it pans out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain kind, gentle and innocent ‘businessmen’ who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three.”

vierotchka
Reader

An ABSOLUTELY MUST READ:
https://cluborlov.blogspot.ch/2018/03/better-nukes-for-safer-planet.html
Excerpt:
“If you like peace, then it seems like your best option is to also like nukes—the best ones possible, ones against which no deterrent exists, and wielded by peaceful, law-abiding nations that have no evil designs on the rest of the planet.”
Putin to the USA:

flaxgirl
Reader

What an eye-opener, especially to a know-nothing-on-the-subject like me. The Freudian illogicality-of-dreams comparison is fascinating.
“So far, the Western reaction to Putin’s speech has closely followed the illogic of dreams which Sigmund Freud explained using the following joke:
I never borrowed a kettle from you
I returned it to you unbroken
It was already broken when I borrowed it from you.
A more common example is a child’s excuse for not having done her homework: I lost it; my dog ate it; I didn’t know it was assigned.
In this case, Western commentators have offered us the following:
There are no such weapons; Putin is bluffing
These weapons exist but they don’t really work
These weapons work and this is the beginning of a new nuclear arms race”

Manda
Reader
Manda

“When the Americans dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they only did this because they could do so with complete impunity”
The fact remains that they did so and there was no threat to the existence of US. To me, that fact shows a cruel, cynical and an exceptionalism that knows no moral, ethical or humanitarian bounds.
” Their goal was simple: make it possible to launch a first strike on Russia, destroying much of its nuclear arsenal; then use the new American ABM systems to destroy whatever Russia does manage to launch in response. On February 2, 2018 the Americans decided that they were ready, and issued a Nuclear Posture Review in which they explicitly reserved the right to use nuclear weapons to prevent Russia from using its nuclear deterrent.”
I rest my case. My hope is the Russian Federation has done enough to deter US/allied aim of destruction or absolute subordination of Russia but the fact remains the US/allies show (in many threats and actions) a disregard for humanity and the Earth that Russia has not displayed.
I am far more afraid of our own governments and the powers pushing them than Russia or China…

mark
Reader
mark

I think they have. Do a search on Klub missile. This is a nuclear cruise missile self contained inside a normal shipping container with all its systems. It can be loaded on any articulated lorry, rail flatcar, or ship, and is indistinguishable from any other shipping container.
Russia has the Perimeter/ Dead Hand doomsday machine, a completely automated system that ensures a nuclear response in the event of a US sneak attack. This has been in place since the 1980s.
These are separate from the systems revealed by Putin recently. In the 1960s, Russia was very weak in WMD terms compared to the US. Russia had a project to build a monster nuclear bomb so powerful that it would destroy the whole world when detonated. They would load this on a large merchant ship and sail it up and down the coast. Then if America carried out a successful sneak attack, the matelots on board would light the blue touch paper, and goodbye world. A sort of strike from the grave, a massive party pooping operation to spoil the celebrations in Washington. Russia has a lot that isn’t known about, underground cities in Siberia. One Satan missile can destroy an area the size of France or Texas.
There have been some studies predicting 285/ 650 / 1,000 million fatalities on the first day of war. A war would only last a few days. Differences in GDP don’t matter.

MinutebisMitternacht
Reader
MinutebisMitternacht

“I am far more afraid of our own governments and the powers pushing them than Russia or China…”
Me and my family too.

mail
Reader
mail

In the 1960s, Russia was much weaker than the US in terms of nuclear weapons. So they came up with a project (which in the event they did not pursue) to build a single monster nuclear weapon that was so powerful that it would destroy the whole world. They would load this monster bomb on board a large merchant ship and sail it up and down the coast. Then if Russia was destroyed in a sneak attack, the matelots on board would light the blue touch paper, and goodbye world, spoiling the celebrations in Washington. A final gigantic party pooping strike from the grave. Maybe Putin will resurrect the idea.
For similar reasons, in the 1980s, when they were convinced they were being set up for attack by Ronald “Evil Empire” Reagan, the Russians developed a Dr. Strangelove type Doomsday Machine, called “Perimeter” or “Dead Hand.” This is still operational.
They also have the Klub missile. This is a standard shipping container that can be loaded on to any articulated lorry, railway flatcar or merchant vessel. It contains the missile itself and al its control and support systems. So if you want to destroy these systems, you have to take out every shipping container in the 6.5 million sq. miles of Russia.
All this MAD nonsense begins to make some kind of sense when you watch the faux Left Guardian journos like Luke Harding frothing at the mouth and burbling away about how we have to teach Johnny Russian a lesson.

flaxgirl
Reader

I am far more afraid of our own governments and the powers pushing them than Russia or China…

Me too.

Brutally Remastered
Reader
Brutally Remastered

Great link and funny. Thank you.

vierotchka
Reader

If you read the whole article, there’s nothing funny or humorous about it. This is a serious and excellent article.

Jay Q
Reader
Jay Q

Take a look at this wretched piece in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/10/sergei-skripal-case-proved-charge-putin-attempted-murder
I wonder how much longer the general readership over there will cotton on to the pro-war and propaganda agenda of the Guardian and leave it en masse? It’s as dishonest as The Sun.

mark
Reader
mark

This is nothing new. The Faux Left Guardian always was just a piece of Zionist toilet paper, going back to the old Manchester Guardian. It was shilling for Israel even before Israel existed.

Alan
Reader
Alan

It appears Mr Rice-Oxley is a little out of his depth. I’ve read more informative pieces in the Skegness Standard.

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

Excellent. Reblogged at Steel City Scribblings