AUDIO: WTF Just Happened in Russia?
Rolo Slavskiy joins James Corbett to discuss the crazy events in Russia this past weekend.
Did Yevgeny Prigozhin just lead a mutiny? A coup attempt? Was this a psyop? A false flag? A “special military operation” (to use the Kremlin’s lingo)? Or something else entirely? And, is it really over? If so, who won?
Buckle up and get your notebook ready, folks. This is going to be a data dump.
For links and sources click here, for more Corbett Report content click here.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Kissinger: Something bad might happen if Washington doesn’t accept the Multipolar World Order.
Washington: Stitch that, Henry!
(paraphrased)
Kissinger’s message was amplified by the sock-puppets at Zero Hedge and Infowars.
—
https://www.newswars.com/kissinger-warns-washington-accept-new-multipolar-global-system-or-face-a-pre-wwi-geopolitical-situation
NewsWars: October 15, 2022
Originally: By Zero Hedge, April 10, 2021
Kissinger Warns Washington: Accept New Multipolar Global System Or Face A Pre-WWI Geopolitical Situation
In a recent Chatham House webinar with former British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 97-year-old Kissinger called on the U.S. to create a balance with existing global forces . . . [see Newsweek article]
Kissinger’s career is washed in blood . . . However, his most recent statement about the U.S. and the international system is actually a mature proposal that would be beneficial for world peace if the Biden administration accepts his advice that the global order is changing. It is unlikely that Washington is ready to unilaterally end its hard and soft power aggression as it falsely believes it can maintain a unipolar order. It is always difficult for Great Powers to accept that the world has changed, especially when it is to their detriment.
In the end, Washington will have to resort to a strategy resembling Kissinger’s suggestion of finding equilibrium, whilst also accepting the multipolar reality that has been established.
—
https://www.newsweek.com/endless-us-china-contest-catastrophic-conflict-henry-kissinger-1579010
Endless U.S.-China Contest Risks ‘Catastrophic’ Conflict, Henry Kissinger Warns
March 26, 2021
Veteran diplomat Henry Kissinger has warned that the U.S. and China must come to an understanding on international affairs or risk “catastrophic” conflict that will benefit neither nation. Speaking with former British Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt in a Chatham House webinar on Thursday, Kissinger said that “endless” competition between the world’s two largest economies risks unforeseen escalation and subsequent conflict, a situation made more dangerous by artificial intelligence and futuristic weaponry.
Whatever happened to the old James Corbett?
—
FLASHBACK: Meet Henry Kissinger (2009)
update video: Aug 21, 2022
From: Episode 106 – Meet Henry Kissinger
Nov 1, 2009
Description: A war criminal, a genocidal eugenicist, a power-hungry plotter, a modern-day Machiavelli, a Rockefeller toadie. Meet Henry Kissinger.
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-106-meet-henry-kissinger
https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/ep106-kissinger:c
—
Episode 252 – Meet Zbigniew Brzezinski, Conspiracy Theorist
Jan 4, 2013
Conspiracy theorists like Zbigniew Brzezinski believe that organizations of interest work behind the scenes to manipulate world politics. They believe that false flag terror events are used to justify wars of aggression on political enemies. They believe that humanitarian rhetoric is used to mask military aggression, as in Syria. In short, they are realistic observers of world politics, just like Zbigniew Brzezinski. Join us today on The Corbett Report as we hear all about the conspiratorial view of history straight from the horse’s mouth.
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-252-meet-zbigniew-brzezinski-conspiracy-theorist
https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/meet-zbigniew-brzezinski-conspiracy:b
—
Don’t Mention Henry Kissinger!
Interview 1812 – Moving Ukraine Closer to NATO
Jun 23, 2023
54 Comments [which also don’t mention Kissinger]
Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:
Story #1: Invitation For Ukraine To Join NATO Not To Be Discussed At Summit
https://www.corbettreport.com/nwnw521
https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/nwnw521:f
—
Kissinger is also not mentioned in the lead article:
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/06/20/ukraine-still-pushing-for-nato-membership-commitment-at-summit
Ukraine Still Pushing for NATO Membership Commitment at Summit
The head of NATO says the alliance will not formally invite Ukraine to join
by Dave DeCamp
June 20, 2023
—
However, Kissinger’s reversal was discussed in an earlier article:
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/01/17/kissinger-changes-position-says-ukraine-should-join-nato
Kissinger Changes Position, Says Ukraine Should Join NATO
The former secretary of state said for years that Ukraine should be neutral to avoid a conflict
by Dave DeCamp
Jan 17, 2023
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a video address to the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Tuesday that Ukraine joining NATO would be an “appropriate outcome” of the war, reversing his previous position that Kyiv shouldn’t join the Western military alliance.
“Before this war, I was opposed to membership of Ukraine in NATO because I feared that it would start exactly the process that we have seen now,” Kissinger said. “Now that this process has reached this level, the idea of a neutral Ukraine under these conditions is no longer meaningful.”
—
Christopher Hitchens: The Trials of Henry Kissinger
(Referenced in Corbett’s 2009 video)
https://odysee.com/@LegionOfDynamicDiscord:0/-2002–The-Trials-of-Henry-Kissinger:2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trials_of_Henry_Kissinger
The Trials of Henry Kissinger is a 2002 documentary film directed by Eugene Jarecki and narrated by Brian Cox. Inspired by Christopher Hitchens’ 2001 book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, the film examines war crimes alleged to have been perpetrated by Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford.
—
I’ve not read the book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger
The Trial of Henry Kissinger is a 2001 book by Christopher Hitchens which examines the alleged war crimes of Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor and later, the United States Secretary of State for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Acting in the role of the prosecution, Hitchens presents Kissinger’s involvement in a series of alleged war crimes in Vietnam, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor.
Interesting take on the “rebellion:”
https://english.pravda.ru/opinion/156979-pmc_wagner_coup/
by Guy Somerset & includes a few bits I didn’t know. It’s a pro-Putin piece and rather sprightly.
James corbett cannot be trusted. He is another fine fellow who will only go so far and will self censor himself when questions of who the real enemy are come to light.
Henry Kissinger’s narrative is not coherent at this point.
– Andrew Anglin – The Unz Review – May 27, 2023
The IIA operatives are struggling to understand what just happened. And do they really think that the branch manager (i.e. Putin) has the power to launch a nuclear Armageddon?
—
https://www.unz.com/aanglin/kissinger-again-says-the-ukraine-conflict-is-natos-fault-but-also-the-ukraine-should-join-nato/
Kissinger Again Says the Ukraine Conflict Is NATO’s Fault, But Also, the Ukraine Should Join NATO
Andrew Anglin – May 27, 2023
(Republished from The Daily Stormer by permission of author or representative)
Henry Kissinger’s narrative is not coherent at this point. He was seemingly siding with Russia, then he switched it up and said the Ukraine has to join NATO. Now he’s mixing the seemingly conflicting narratives together. I guess we need to remember, regardless of what we think of Kissinger (I’m generally positive about his record, or at least not as negative as a lot of people on the right), that he is 100 years old, and you can’t expect him to be 100% on the ball.
He’s an authority because he’s a relic from when there were “adults in the room,” but he’s also 100 years old and therefore should not really be taken seriously. It is funny, however, that the Russians and the Chinese consider him one of the only voices in the West worth taking seriously. They just laugh off statements from the Biden people, but when Kissinger speaks, top authorities from both countries feel a need to make an official statement in response.
—
Links via article
https://web.archive.org/web/20230517163245/https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/05/17/henry-kissinger-explains-how-to-avoid-world-war-three
17 May 2023
Henry Kissinger explains how to avoid world war three
America and China must learn to live together. They have less than ten years
https://web.archive.org/web/20230602022155/https://www.rt.com/news/576488-kissinger-us-ukraine-nato
18 May, 2023
Kissinger changes stance on Ukraine joining NATO
The veteran diplomat now believes that Kiev should be allowed to join the US-led military bloc
https://archive.fo/0o3iI
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-great-strategist-henry-kissinger-turns-100-china-ukraine-realpolitik-81b6f3bb
May 26, 2023
Henry Kissinger Surveys the World as He Turns 100
The great strategist sees a globe riven by U.S.-China competition and threatened by fearsome new weapons and explains why he now thinks Ukraine should be in NATO.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230601075513/https://www.rt.com/news/576977-kissinger-ukraine-nato-stance
27 May, 2023
Offering NATO pathway to Ukraine led to war – Kissinger
The veteran US diplomat has clarified his shift of rhetoric on Kiev joining the US-led military bloc
Danny Haiphong says: Priggie is PUTIN his place. Now prepare for Ukraine’s demise.
https://youtu.be/U-NugJb8vVk
What just happened is the same thing that’s been happening since the “SMO” started – FUCK ALL.
I have been looking for evidence there’s a real serious war in Ukraine involving the Russian military since March 2022. I’ve never found any and when I have asked people to post evidence they don’t come through
All I have seen is
And now we’re getting told well actually the total Russian presence in Ukraine was Wagner.
Wtaf?
Anyone who knows anything about military, anyone who’s been in the army or studied warfare knows this is fucking ridiculous. There’s no private army that will have the man power, training and equipment of a professional fighting machine like Russia or NATO have. Russia’s armed forces have been constructed to meet and match and hold back, if not defeat, NATO’s best. Nothing is going to better them in the field and certainly not a private militia, however allegedly well trained or equipped.
Remember this is the Russian military that recently humiliated NATO in Syria where they were packing hardware of the very best and just ran rings round the West. The idea Putin would leave his superbly trained and equipped fighting force in barracks and send bloody Wagner in to defeat a NATO proxy army in Ukraine is pants on head insane. He wouldn’t ever do that in a million years. No one would.
But then he also wouldn’t see his troops get within spitting range of Kiev and then tell them to turn round and go home. That’s just more total insanity.
The only thing that makes sense of all this is if the war is for show and is being dragged out to last as long as possible. Some people think they don’t release the casualty figures because they’re so high, but I think it’s the opposite. I think there are very very few military casualties because while they are shooting off ammo and blowing up collateral they aren’t engaging each other.
Think about it, you can fake a lot of war footage quite easily by just doing what I described in my list, staging little demos of five guys firing off ordnance or getting your units to basically use infrastructure like it was a firing range. I reckon the did that in Mariupol and probably other places.
BUT – you can’t fake an official casualty list, can you.You need names and pack drill, dog tags. So, what do you do to cover the fact you don’t have them?
You don’t release official casualty figures is what. You keep it schtum and you plant rumours in the media about huge numbers of deaths, and you make fake “graveyards” full of empty grave with flags on them. Pretty easy when no one dares to question it because they are scared of disrespecting the dead,
The Wagner mutiny makes even less sense than Wagner being the only fighting force Putin deployed in Ukraine. It’s totally insane. The only way Wagner would stand a chance against the REAL Russian army is if it mutinied too, and if it had we’d all know.
And why the hell would Putin not make a move against Prigozhin?
I saw some idiot saying it was all 5d and a smart way to get Wagner into Belarus.
Except they seem to have forgotten the SMO was launched from Belarus back in Feb ’22.
This 5d super duper chess genius has just put Wagner back where they were before the war even started, how the fuck is this a clever move?
And come on guys, if Putin wanted Wagner back in Belarus he could just have sent them there any time.
The story is just getting crazier and crazier. I think mass psychosis is happening .
Incredibly long and complex comments below.
Who reads them.
If you ask me, the really big problem is that most of us, however caring, have completely lost plot.
Here we are in this, erm, cyberspace.
We are only here because we lost touch completely.
We tune in to find stuff, the sort of stuff that makes us go omfg, and find commonality amongst the others that go omfg to the same.
The problem is that to solve anything, to move forward isn’t here. Not here hearing stuff that fits your opinion, hearing stuff that doesn’t, requiring eloquent commentary.
No way…..
Its the person to person, one soul to another that matters in reality.
All these long tramps of opinion, expressed no doubt through need, and recorded here, and witnessed in digit space, are utterly meaningless and pointless.
Its the real world we have lost, and it’s the real world we must gain.
Here, I see the same people vocalising beleifs, but I see no conversation. Only preaching or disagreement.
This whole for at fails because the revolution isn’t here, online.
Its from one to another, person to person in the real world.
Balgorg, I’ve never seen an evidence that this site seeks to be relevant in the real world. You got that right.
Go easy, Penelope. Occasionally OffG needs to be reminded of an aspect of reality that some reader may be more aware of, but on the whole OffG has a good record in piercing the web of official falsehoods.
You probably remember what happened to the mythical Greek lady who persuaded Jove to reveal himself to her as he really was, instead of coming as a mere mortal animal. Or the shock when Faust found it easier to summon the Devil than to summon the Real World (aka the Earth Spirit).
The Real World is for too large and complex for any mortal creature to comprehend.
“The truth is scattered all around us, and we can pick it up only in bits and pieces” — Bantu Proverb.
Then why not stop wasting your time with us “Penelope”.
To lightly dismiss others’ contributions as “utterly meaningless and pointless” is self-important ignorance.
WTF Happened to James Corbett?
Contrary to the narrative pushed by Corbett, the plan was to defeat Kissinger’s Multipolar World Order. It never was “politics”. Rather, it was always a military operation. Trump was a “wartime president” in “a different kind of war”. It’s the “secret war” against the “invisible enemy” – the “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy”. The existence of which is denied by Corbett.
Everything else was just theatre or battlespace maneuverings. They (Pence etc) never had any intention of weakening US power or dismantling Nato. Consequently, they made deals with the Washington establishment and the MIC. The Epstein files and Durham investigation were only ever about leverage. And as with the quote from Hitchhikers, Trump’s role was to create theatrical distractions.
Question: When are people going to see through Corbett and his strawman deflections from what’s really happening in the world?
BTW: I could stand only 20 mins of the ep. 395 video. Corbett here is no different to Chomsky or Marianna Spring.
—
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-395-precedent-trump
Episode 395 – Precedent Trump
Corbett • 02/26/2021
So here we are in 2021, living in the smoking wreckage of Pax Americana. What was the meaning of the last four years? What lessons have been learned, and how will those lessons be applied going forward? What, in other words, was Precedent Trump?
Corbett Report Extras
Feb 26, 2021
From Alexander Mercouris:
“Putin Confirms Russian MoD Funded Wagner”
https://youtu.be/i-C4XJGO2xc
Priggy has been called out for cheek by the Head, and will lose all his Milk Monitor privileges.
That was a terrific story but I realized it was 100% fiction at 1:18 or thereabouts when the (not CIA) expert advised that there was no way Russia are clearing out neo Nazis from Ukraine because the Ukrainians elected Zelenski who is a Jew…
The implication being
1.Zelenski was elected in the real democracy and
2. as a Jewish leader combined with Ukrainian population neo Nazis cannot exist there
It’s classic manufactured BS rabbit holery or bury the conspiracy under endless BS conspiracies
WTF Happened in Russia?
To produce this sort of shite:
https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/russia-needs-novorossiya
Russia Needs Novorossiya
Nicholas Nicholaides
18.10.2017
Russia needs Novorossiya and Malorossiya – at least the part of Malorossiya that is east of the Dnepr river. These parts are not “ukrainian”, they never were and they never will be! These parts are as genuinely russian as Moscow or St Peterburg but because of a historical mistake – the break-up of the Soviet Union in stead of the modernisation of it – these parts are now outside of mother Russia.
. . . the “border” between Russia and former “Ukraine” has not been ratified by Russia after the break-up of the CCCP so in reality “Ukraine” does not have real established and ratified borders with Russia! This is a fact that should be used to either depose the Kiev nazi regime and make all of former “Ukraine” democratic, federated and pro-russian or to liberate the parts that are still not nazi-infected, that means Novorossiya and all lands east of the Dnepr river. When these lands are free from the nazis then there will be no american missiles there aiming at Moscow and no american navyships in Odessa harbor.
The future of Russia as an independent state and world leader in a multipolar world will be determined in Novorossiya.
The battle for Novorossiya (and eastern Malorossiya) will be determined in the Kreml. As soon as the russian leaders decide to liberate Novorossiya it will be so . . .
The map is debatable but the notion that Ukraine isn’t so much a state as a region is important for general peace and stability in the area.
The Germans found out about this during WW2. When they surged across the border into the USSR they were initially greeted as liberators by the people who lived there. As they went further east resistance stiffened (and it didn’t help that they squandered a golden opportunity by not pandering to the locals and their political leaders and aspirations but treating everyone equally as badly).
Anyway, the map of Ukraine regions (based on post WW1) was divided into three regions as west, center and east. You also have to recognize that on the western border there are Hungarians, Poles and others — its what comes from having a land border rather than a convenient sea.
What is it with you people digging up garbage history? And who are you to say that Ukraine isn’t a state? Ukraine became a fully defined, sovereign state in 1991 when the people voted overwhelmingly for independence. And it doesn’t need Russia or anyone else to ratify it.
—
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
A referendum on the Act of Declaration of Independence was held in Ukraine on 1 December 1991.[1] An overwhelming majority of 92.3% of voters approved the declaration of independence made by the Verkhovna Rada on 24 August 1991.
The Ukraine may be a state, but it’s not a nation. The Soviet Union itself was a state, you know …
“What is it with you people digging up garbage history?”
Everything else has proved useless to solve our problems.
Ya don’t like historical facts,
go Crimea River.
“this sort of shite”
So you don’t like the facts in your Link?
I agree. But the question is: Why hasn’t Putin bothered to liberate Novorossiya yet? We’re now a year and a half into his ‘SMO’ and all he’s really got to show for it thus far is Mariupol.
Yep, that’s the question– esp when only Russia has air power.
Only one answer – he doesn’t want to, it’s not the plan. The war is as fake as the pandemic and they want to keep it going forever, like the bloody pandemic
The Ukraine Crisis: What You Need to Know
The Corbett Report
28 Feb 2022
https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/the-ukraine-crisis-what-you-need
Corbett:
No, I got that impression from a pro Dugin site (see above) and from Putin’s blood-and-soil rantings. It was confirmed later by several rabid statements from Dmitry Medvedev – the loon in the attic at the Kremlin. By numerous ravings from Russian TV. By a host of social media clips of Russians attacking people in various “western” cities. And by a succession of Putinista sock-puppets (e.g. Steve Bannon) trying to claim that Ukraine isn’t a “real country”.
BTW: I don’t think that Putin is a “singularly evil psychopath”. Instead, as suggested by his friendships (see below), he shares a bond with others of a similar nature.
—
Corbett:
No, I’ve actually been trying to highlight the fact. But I’ve also been trying to highlight the friendships between Putin and Netanyahu; and between Bibi and Xi. However, I’m not sure I’m having much success!
Moreover, one of my hypotheses for the Prigozhin incident is that Kissinger is preparing the ground for the removal of Putin. This following on from Kissinger’s acknowledgement of the reality of the Ukraine situation (see earlier posts).
—
Corbett’s statement links to the following RT article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160203215117/https://www.rt.com/news/331194-putin-meets-friend-kissinger
Putin meets ‘old friend’ Kissinger visiting Russia
Feb 3, 2016
Russian President Vladimir Putin has met former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in his residence outside Moscow. The Kremlin said that the two have “long-standing, friendly relations” and that they have used the “opportunity to talk.”
The meeting is a continuation of a “friendly dialogue between President Putin and Henry Kissinger, who are bound by a longstanding relationship,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. “They communicate all the time, use the opportunity to talk,” he added. Putin “values” this opportunity to discuss pressing international issues as well as exchange opinions on global perspectives, Peskov said.
Putin and Kissenger have had over 10 tete-a-tete meetings so far, according to media reports. When Kissinger visited Russia in 2013 Putin said that Moscow always pays attention to his opinion and called the former secretary of state “a world class politician.”
What we need is a global ‘War on War’ ….
That way we can put a stop to all wars by declaring war on them.
It is so simple and obvious if you seriously don’t think about it.
That’s what real communists (Marxist Leninists) fight for
fight war not wars
crass 1978
Nice one! I’m surprised George Carlin never thought of it.
If there were really Russian enlisted army and airforce members in a war in Ukraine they are doing a great job at camouflage.because I have not seen one Russian soldier in Ukraine since this media psyop all began in February 2022!!! You are all victims of imperialist media repetition. You have completely abandoned the fact that those tanks in Ukraine with a “Z” on them were not Russian tanks. Russia doesn’t use a “Z” on their equipment. It’s a psyop. Putin uses this fake news to his advantage. I do not support either fascist side
F OFF AZOV BOY TROLL
much as operation ISIS, the odd black flagged truck seen driving through town and the place was bombed to ruins. I wonder, will the displaced Donbassions etc, ever return home ?
Here’s an interesting article which, while it presents yet another layer of intrigue, exposes what has to be the most truly deranged case of the pot calling the kettle black in human history (can you say USA?).
US Targets Wagner Group Over Gold Smuggling in Africa, UAE Firm Sanctioned – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization
Oh dear, the new spin – NATO now faces two threats from the east and therefore needs more preparedness… money… weapons…
https://dumptheguardian.com/world/2023/jun/28/nato-ready-to-face-threat-from-moscow-or-minsk-says-alliance-head-after-wagner-group-chiefs-exile
This being literally days after Wagner meant Putin was “weakened”, “humiliated” etc.
Is there anything that could happen that would bring the Fraud and Western MSM generally to conclude we need less NATO?
I thought that NATO was busy trying to make the case that it needed an “IndoPacific” presence.
The problem with this sort of organization is that its impossible to kill. There are just too many good jobs and too much money at stake. So expect it to mold its ideology to suit its environment with existential threats and challenges everywhere.
(Incidentally, I read an article in our paper a while back that said that the pro-bono Ukraine lobbying effort was being underwritten by the aerospace corporations. I am so surprised!)
I’m sticking with political theater as a pretext for deploying the military into civilian areas, preparing for timed zones / climate lockdowns / CBDC / More Death Clot Jabs, AKA Martial Law / Military Dictatorship.
Puppets being puppeteered. Kabuki Theater.
Government isn’t going to save you from government.
Good govt is precisely what saves you from bad govt. But Klaus certainly welcomes your giving up the field of battle.
Refusing to join w your fellow citizens in creating govt by and for the people is abdication
I suggest you learn and understand the word DEMOCIDE.
History has proven over 1,000s time, over 1,000s of years, that government is the one organization that kills and harms more people than any other organization that society has dreamed up.
If you are expecting government to save you, then you will be disappointed.
If thinking that Klaus, working with governments and corporations, wants to save us, helps you feel better in some way, then too bad for you.
If you are looking for someone to save you, then start by looking in the mirror.
thomas , creating good govt is not expecting someone else to save you. It’s accepting the responsibility of citizenship. Lack of govt– the world over– has produced only gangs.
I’m sorry that you are not old enough to appreciate the US constitution and living under its remnants, as we still did in the 50s You allow the perfect which you imperfectly imagine to be the enemy of the good.
You run into some rough times when you have to actually DO something and you want to chuck the whole thing. You’re a quitter.
Quote from Howard Zinn : “Don’t depend on our leaders to do what needs to be done, because whenever the government has done anything to bring about change, it’s done so only because it’s been pushed and prodded by social movements, by ordinary people organizing.” … “Democracy doesn’t come from the top. It comes from the bottom. Democracy is not what governments do. It’s what people do…
I agree that good government starts with people that are substantially of good character and ethical and that have a “good” moral code.
When the people are amoral, of poor character, and unethical, then government will do as it pleases and be above the law.
The other part of this consideration, is that each of us only controls one person in this world, and that is ourselves.
This is why tyrants will not give power back to the people peacefully, because they know the vast majority of people are too cowardice to risk everything to throw off the chains of oppression.
We all have to make a choice.
There are two aspects to good government. There are the people running the government, AKA the guards of government. Then the form of government that is expected by the people versus the form of government actually run by the guards of government.
Based on history, good government, is an oxymoron, because the natural progression of government is oppression and tyranny. Something we were explicitly warned about by our founding fathers.
I whole heartily appreciate the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. There is nothing about my previous response that would exclude this position. Our form of government isn’t the problem here. It is the guards of our government that We the People have not held accountable through vigilance.
Your expectation that there is a political solution to the near total corruption of the US government is naïve. The US government has been out of the control of WE the People since at least 1913. I would argue since at least the end of the ACW.
What I am asserting is that anyone expecting the current guards of government, or anyone that is selected politically to enter as a guard, isn’t going to save anyone except themselves.
The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights is essentially a contract between government and We the People. That contract has been substantially breached by the current guards of the government. The remedy for that breach is the full implementation of the Second Amendment.
The only quitters are the ones too cowardice to recognize the full purpose of the Second Amendment, still hoping that there is a political solution that can correct the deep seeded corruption within the guards of government.
I have made my choice and can be ready in a minute.
What say you?
We are here for a short time. Be the change you wish to see in the world. This is the only way to shift the course of history. Don’t forget to grow food.
Nukes may fall…they may.
And?
We have other things to do than walking around in long dirty boots in the field in windy wet cold weather putting potatoes in the soil while looking up in the sky from time to time after falling nukes.
There must be another way.
Am I the only person thinking that this fucking guy is deranged …?
WTF is this shit? How can anybody take this person seriously?
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/a-strongly-worded-legal-threat-addressed?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=520963&post_id=131314736&isFreemail=true&utm_campaign=795903&utm_medium=email
It’s obviously satire.
What is happening globally can be gleaned from history, a simple syllogism: every empire eventually faces the fate it is trying to avoid; everyone wants to avoid WWIII; so, we will get nuclear Armageddon. I have been silenced already in a number of sites. Anyone interested in reading my free e-book can click on the link below.
https://patternofhistory.wordpress.com/
Rolo spews a clever mixture of truth, half truth and lies to paint a black pill interpretation of everything the Russian government does. Depending on your perspective, the SMO can be spun as a disaster or as a sterling success. You can trust Lavrov or Rolo on any or all of the events. Take the retreat from Kiev for instance.
In general, Lavrov highlights the support from 80 percent of the world population for the SMO’s measured military method (which has include tactical retreats for political or military reasons) and the overwhelming evidence that Russia is destroying the hated NATO monster by a method of slow strangulation, death by a million paper cuts, importantly, avoiding civilian massacres. You can think his innuendo about Shoigu rise and Tuvan background is believable, or that maybe it’s just part of his technique to win you, over by making you believe he has some secret insider information. If you read his blog it is obvious that he has an insatiable fascist hatred of the Eastern looking slavs and thinks they should (along with the darker southern types he also despises) be confined to menial work at the Moscow fruit market. He also despises women by the way, boasting of his many (I would day “dubious”) conquests, while also tenderly referring to them as “front holes”
Putin’s formidable success in stabilising Chechnya, he interprets as a simple buying off Kadyrov. He’s not worth going on about really, though he does write well and spins a tempting and sometimes entertaining web of intrigue.
He’s not however the “only” analyst with access to Russian language media and who is willing to analyse and criticise the Kremlin’s mistakes. One that I find quite brilliant is Jacob Dreizen at the Dreizen report. I also enjoy my subscription to Dimitry Orlov. Today he has published a great piece entitled ” The Stupidest Revolt in History”.
The fact that we can even argue about whether or not Russia is winning the was is lot like how three years ago, when we were able to argue about whether or not there was a ‘plague‘ in progress: it suggests that we may have very different understandings of ‘victory’ or ‘success.’ Consider these very pertinent questions: https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/ukraine-what-would-victory-look-like
The conclusion of this talk that the war will just drag on
This is all down to incompetence and political infighting.
But isn’t the war dragging on just what they wont.
So they can make a lot of money selling all there aging weapons and restocking with new stuff as they plan and argue over reconstruction contracts.
With the level of debt that only war can deliver taking generations to pay off.
But it is all just incompetence.
Someone who does appear to grasp WTF has gone on.
https://bigserge.substack.com/p/russo-ukrainian-war-the-wagner-uprising?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
“setting off in an armed column towards Moscow”
There used to be a joke Q&A called, What is the height of the ridiculous?
I think that quote was one of the answers.
The title of the article” WTF has …..”. Reminds me of the whispering campaign against Harold Wilson, U.K Prime Minister in the 60s and 70s, who at the Labour Party conference confronted the campaign to undermine him said ” their are those who ask what is going on, well, I can tell you what is going on, I am going on. ”
Not many years later, he resigned unexpectantly !
The forced resignations of The Two Harolds (Wilson and MacMillan) marked the acceleration of Great Britain’s postwar decline into the UK. They were not nearly as great as Attlee but they were socialist minded, the last British prime ministers to introduce measures that improved the lot of the people.
Thanks for introducing me to bigserge. Excellent piece, pragmatic, clear-headed and logical.
The pussyfooting by Putin and Shoigu is beginning to create a swelling of resentment among the Russian population as a whole. The ordinary Russian people were never that keen on the liberal elite based in Moscow and Petersburg. And it seems that the ‘fake war’ theory is beginning to gain traction among the ordinary Russian people around the world who are beginning to awake from the new order. The Russian people seem to be solidly behind Pregozin and the Wagner group where the populace of Rostov-On-Don, were cheering on the Wagner fighters.
Putin and co. should be made aware that Special Military Operations (SMOs) are not won by minimal military input. But rather according to Colonel William Tecumseh Sherman, the US civil war leader:
‘’I am tired and sick of wars. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who had neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is Hell.’’
It surely is ‘Hell’ and Stalin and Zhukov certainly knew this.
Who would grasp Russia with the mind?
For her no yardstick was created:
Her soul is of a special kind,
By faith alone appreciated.
This short poem, which Tyutchev penned in 1866, is one that every Russian knows by heart. It is
hard to imagine a more comprehensive and clear definition of the essence of Russia or a more accurate key to the mysterious Russian soul. There is a widely held opinion that Russia does not belong either to Europe or Asia and that it has its own path.
Something many in the West don’t seem to grasp !
All in all, I wouldn’t idealise any exceptionalism. However, one can think of Russia and Germany before reunification as sharing the same features when contrasted with Western Europe: Germany was an economically backward, populous place with a poor soil, and all broken up into little states and on which warring nations fought and took and ceded pieces as spoils of war. Russian Empire was similarly a backward place with a majority of peasantry and to which the advances of faraway Western Europe couldn’t satisfactorily exploit; we have to take into consideration also the religious differences.
However, after 1871 Germany had completely changed and by the end of the XIXth century it became an exporting industrial empire to the astonishment of the world; we can then speak of two (adjacent by 1900 already without even counting Austro-Hungary, what a luck!) empires which were complementary to each other, made to each other. Russia had all the land and natural resources Germany needed and to which it could pour the surplus of its industrious people and Germany had all highly technical abilities and expertise Russia needed to advance its economy.
In 1922, these two states tried to initiate a cooperation known as the Rapallo Treaty but were quickly called to order in mid 1923, and attempts were since made to make sure any real economic alliance between two doesn’t prosper.
Jump forward to post WWII: According to a declassified memorandum of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State, (see FOI National Security Archive) the raison d’être of NATO are twofold: contain Soviet Russia and contain a possible resurgence in German militarism. But already in the mid-60s, these two objectives were proven to be unjustified since Russia as a military threat was very unlikely, busy she was known to be in trying to solve its internal economic problems in a world where it was becoming increasingly clear that power means economic power rather military, and having otherwise reached a stalemate situation with the US where nothing much in that department was happening. On the other hand, no signs of anything resembling militarism was possible in a divided Germany in whose Western part the Wehrmacht was under NATO’s control. Within NATO dissident voices were wondering about the role the US was *really* fulfilling in Europe after threats have been put under control, and anyway a more reasonable configuration without the US having to be de facto occupying a stronger Europe perfectly capable of setting and maintaining a stable equilibrium, as she often did in the past.
These dissident voices came principally – nothing surprising there – from the most advanced country in the continent, the one that was the most belligerent and second only to Germany: De Gaulle’s France. The argument is: US presence is now fulfilling an economic purpose; that of keeping Europe from expressing its legitimate economic advancement by freely associating with whom she wanted. The US can go home now and “let us breathe” (as Wilhelm II was asking of Britain). The US was wrecking and hijacking all economic businesses between Europe and other countries that could endanger its predominance. We are still there til today.
Because today we talk very much about commercial rivalry between the US and China and not enough of a fiercer rivalry between US and Europe whose economies have the same structure and are at the same level (well, sorry, US is busy flattening Europe now). China is a US baby and could have stopped its development anytime they wanted, and if they didn’t it means they didn’t want to and that it’s nothing near a threat. Russia doesn’t exist economically, a long standing feature unfortunately. Clausewitz was right about war being just the continuation of politics. Marx was more insightful: war is peace for peace means commercial competition, which in due time turns into warfare. I will disappoint here the believers in evildoers: governments don’t wage war for the sake of it; they do so for economic reasons, one of which is always the threat to the economic livelihood of the very governments (unemployment, inflation, deflation, currency devaluation or overvaluation, recession, etc, produced by competing international capitals). But there is no economic rivalry between US and Russia that’s why we won’t have any wars between them. The enemy number of the US is Europe.
My thesis (that of Michael Hudson and others) is that what is happening today in Europe is emanating from the US as a necessarily declining hegemon who prefers to bully and economically flatten Europe which happens to be admittedly under its protection but which is also its enemy N°1, rather than passively leaving ground like it is doing in other places. Amid global crises, US doesn’t want a strong or a recovering Europe to associate with the East, principally Russia which is a natural move under Capital: Russia has the “Raum” and natural resources, Europe has the infrastructure, the technical and industrial capabilities, the know-how. Now, Europe is importing its gas from US at a higher price than Russian gas and European see that and are no fools; they are seeing the bullying of Germany through NATO exercises and that of Poland and Greece now officially reclaiming war Reparations of 1.3 T and 300 B from Germany. If Germany shows a sign of sovereignty and looks for the second time since 1922 to Russia as a serious and equal partner, France will soon after follow suit and the rest of Europe, and the whole F. US geopolitics falls to the ground. Europeans know this and a new leadership may emerge in the future to replace the current lackeys for, Europe’s survival is at stake.
All in all, Capital is settling accounts while leaving the stage of History.
“If Germany shows a sign of sovereignty and looks for the second time since 1922 to Russia as a serious and equal partner, France will soon after follow suit and the rest of Europe, and the whole F. US geopolitics falls to the ground. Europeans know this”.
The SMO and the disastrous backfiring sanctions (Europe’s Wiley Coyote Moment) are making this plainer by the day. Why else has Germany’s stupid Stoltz sacked green AnnaLiza?
The Coming Revolution, I usually dislike long posts, but yours was worth reading. Thanks.
A point of disagreement: I find it necessary currently to acknowledge that elites now find their powerbase within their state becoming progressively secondary to their powerbase within the global psychopathy. “State” actors increasingly act in support of the emerging psychopathy– and treasonously against its people.
Nowadays if we are to meaningfully discuss “State” action one must explicitly acknowledge that the actions are being taken by certain elites and the degree to which those elites have signed on to the psychopathy.
Thanks. Decisions made by governments through the apparatus of the State have economic motivations covering a large spectrum including aspects that might appear non-economic at first sight; therefore yes, they always emanate from capitalist classes who move the economies within these nations; themselves in turn compelled by economic realities. The State is the official voice, the executioner of the capitalist class, and the dispute-settler between the different classes in society. That’s elementary understanding from the communist, but not exclusively, point of view.
Whether these interests are globally united under the same flag or whether they compete with each other, I agree with you. From my understanding of Capital, I can’t figure out all capitalist classes coming together under the same flag; there will always be competition between some factions coexisting with monopolising tendencies. Capitalism is a contradictory or zero-sum mouvement, in which wins somewhere means losses elsewhere. There is an objective reality within Capital that compel capitalists to agroup and re-agroup in competing forces regardless of ideology or other criteria.
Regarding psychopathy against people: Here is a question: We know that during the GFC banks were bailed out with taxpayer’s money. If we were told and convinced that the alternative would be a collapse of the banking system and therefore the economy, spreading globally in no time, implying an abrupt change in every-day living of societies, would you qualify the bailing-out as an act of psychopathy against people? Another question: Had Britain and France acknowledged Germany’s economic superiority and its world market dominance through cheap and high quality products, WWI wouldn’t have happened, but it is certain that Britain and France and others would have plunged into recession with mass commerce and industry shut downs, mass unemployment, recession, currency troubles, etc. and the resulting poverty and social unrest. Would you qualify the intrigue and machinations that preceded WWI and sought to prevent that scenario by encircling and isolating Germany and then provoking the war itself as acts of psychopaths against the people, psychopaths and people of whose nations to begin with? Were Britain and France (I mean their capitalist classes of course) right in provoking the war if the alternative would be mass poverty of their peoples or simply their inability to earn a decent living? The theory of perfectly free agents operating in perfectly free markets in a perfect free competition doesn’t work in reality. You see under the logic of Capital, one can’t prevent and must be prepared for losses and if you weren’t fierce, and efficient and good enough you disappear as an economic actor. But what if the actor represents the economy of a country with all its people?
You see maybe you don’t realise that our daily lives, everything we do is part of a gigantic web tightly connected and everything we take for granted like running water depends on some bank being solvable or a company being able to pay debts, wages, and sell at enough profit, or on the State for being able to collect taxes, etc. When crises hit a country or a group of countries, and crises are inevitable under Capital, which is part of what Marx and even other schools have proved, it affects of course the people; the capitalist class suffer less because they have the means of sheltering themselves but don’t expect help from their part, not because of any psychopathy but because the logic of Capital: making profit as an end is a practiced from the highest spheres of society to the humblest ones. We all earn a living working to someone who extracts profit, depend on someone who does, do it ourselves or simply as unemployed depend on the State that collect taxes. The system runs on this logic which we all tacitly accepted and use or forced to use and even if we didn’t accept it on moral or religious grounds as individuals, we must abide by the fact that everybody else or nearly so lives thanks to its logic, unless of course we live out of civilisation. So if we use that logic ourselves there is no moral justification, when the system breaks, to ask for the capitalist class to hand their profit to us, when we didn’t when the system was working fine. Second, we have what the capitalist class through the State or otherwise does to us that appears psychotic and which, again, could only be judged by what this class was certain to be avoiding such as the collapse of global banking system and global economy (no running water, etc) speaking of th GFC.
Bottom line: Under Capital an increasingly number of people suffer or die and a decreasingly number of people profit from that. IMO there is no psychopathy understood as a personal trait in the people who profit; they are compelled to do what they do to keep the system going or even to dismantle it in a controlled way while they build another system because we all use that system and our lives would by FUBAR without it; that is until things are really bad enough for us the working class, the cannon fodder, to be hard-pushed to devise another system out of the present one.
“The state is [….] the executioner of the capitalist class” !
You Wish ?!
That was really a bad way to express myself 😀 . I meant the State executes, carry out or realises the interests of the ruling class.
Germany under Bismark, the driving force and genius behind the unification of the patchwork of principalities and states, introduced the Zollverien to protect its latent industries from foreign competition whilst the British Empire had decades before had opened up to free trade. The consequences of this was as Germany became economically more powerful the BE became weaker. The Berlin Conference of 1888 recognised this fact as Germany demanded ” its place in the Sun “.
The Russian Empire had long recognised the need for economic and social reform but was handicapped by a number of historical factors ie the Mongel Yoke and the power of the landed gentry.
Nevertheless, Sergei Witte, 1849-1915 Russian politician and administrator, instigated a number of very important key reforms ie the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, introduction of the gold standard, incentives to foreign investment in industrial projects. All of these led to a very rapid expansion of the industrial sector.
Alas because of the shenanigans instigated by the central bankers ie Jacob Schiff amongst others this was throttled by the events of 1917 which Professor Antony C Sutton researched and documented in his classic WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION (voltairenet.org)
In terms of Germany, the BE, under the Milner Group, was determined to destroy the looming economic and military power of Germany by a series of secret treaties with certain European powers, a tidal wave of propaganda to coerce the citizens of the BE to view them as the ” Huns” and use the old playbook, which was used in WW2, Korea, Vietnam and now the Ukraine of deceit plus false flag operations to start wars. Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor wrote a book exploring the machinations of the real origins of WW1 About The Authors – Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor (ww1hiddenhistory.co.uk)
What linked the enmity of the BE was the heartland theory. as espoused in the File:The Geographical Pivot of History.pdf – Wikispooks. The other factor was the role of the central bankers in financing both the Bolshevik revolution and the Third Reich both of which have well documented. Indeed without the financial and industrial assistance WW2 in Europe and the Great Patriotic War would have been very difficult to wage.
It is also important to realise that the US has long been captured by the Central Bankers from the moment the 1913 Federal Reserve Act as documented by many researchers such as Edward G Griffen in his book The Creature From Jekyll Island.pdf (archive.org)
Therefore, its is not so much the US and its vassal states against the Russian Federation in their determination to protect its hegemony but it is the Central Bankers who are dictating policy to bring about a Global Neo Feudal World as described by an insider authorised by them to record their plans Professor Carol Quigley Tragedy and Hope : Carroll Quigley : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This documentary film from the book of the German Economist Professor Richard Werner, Princes of the Yen, gives an insight into their methods and rational for the destruction of nation states.
Princes of the Yen | Documentary Film – YouTube
Debates in pre-1917 Russia over whether the path to Communism could only be via capitalist economic and industrial development, or the country could jump over the capitalist (bourgeois) stage, were widespread…Lenin and the Bolsheviks were certain that Russia had to undergo capitalist economic stage of development…That’s why “Wall Street” backed them…Sutton’s “revelations” are startling only to those ignorant of the widespread debates amongst the Russian revolutionaries…
Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks believed in an ideology of reconstruction of man, the new Soviet man. The Central bankers wanted to to destroy Czarist Russia partly because of hatred partly because it was an obstacle in their plan of destroying nations in order to achieve a Global government
Thanks for all the references specially the last one.
But I have the same observation I made above to Penelope. In my view there is nothing strange about Capital rushing up to invest in Russia or Germany if there is profit to be made there. In fact it would be odd if it didn’t.
WWII was the perfectly expected and necessary result of WWI and the Versailles Treaty in the same way a bully is the necessary result of a seriously troubled childhood. Newspapers and informed public in the 1920s right after the occupation of the Ruhr were already talking about a second world war being instigated by how the victors were acting against the losers. Lloyd George was saying that already in 1919. That the bankers financed Hitler is just the means he would use to carry his plans but the motive for his action were elsewhere in the past, which made Hitler and made the peculiar German National Socialism; and if this banker didn’t give him money another will. I’m sure there are bankers who are aligned with German National Socialism and its mythologies and ideologies but they do so as convinced disciples not as bankers; as bankers they just want their money back, with interests; who is asking for loans and what should they do with the money doesn’t play in the equation for the banker as long as they can put up a collateral.
Here is something else: Germany after WWI didn’t incur in debts with the US to the contrary the other belligerents; so when the US got paid, that idle money got right to Germany; that doesn’t mean the US bankers were ideologically aligned with the Weimar or National Socialism; that’s how things work with Capital; it has no ideology and no religions and no allegiance; wherever it can reproduce itself there it goes. And the holders of those Capitals are just the puppets under its power.
Same with the Bolsheviks: Capital rushed there because everything was to made anew in Russia. The first “help” came from Germany for tactical motives during the war. It doesn’t mean that the bankers German or others were ideologically aligned with bolshevism.
The destruction of economies is a necessity under Capital which uses it to get out of slumps. It doesn’t mean that there are people who deliberately want to destroy people’s lives out of sheer wickedness; it means that to keep having that system without which civilised life is impossible, periodic destruction must occur.
We should pose the question of whether we are prepared to live without this system, that is, without our way of life as we got used to it; if we are prepared then we have to inform the big cogs of the system so that they can let it go bust and stop. But we still are not IMO. We like the system when it delivers benefits but we don’t like it when it produces wars and misery. But it’s the same system; we can’t have its positive aspects without the negative ones.
As I see it, the system has to exhaust itself and little by little as things get really bad we will be, out of sheer necessity, able to devise another way of living.
It is not that it is unusual that foreign investors put capital into countries but the purpose. On the one hand it may be purely to make a return on it on the other hand it can, and has been, be a more sinister purpose. For example, the Central Bankers invested an enormous amount of capital in both Bolshevik Russia and Nazi Germany. Yet, both were ideological enemies of Capitalism. So the question is why ? The Hegelian dialect comes to mind antithesis + thesis = synthesis.
WW2 was deliberating predicated from the moment the Central Bankers fostered it onto the German people.
Moreover, the Second World War could not have begun in Europe without the Central Bankers financial and industrial assistance to the 3rd Reich. For example, the patents to develop oil from coal or the ability to process high octane fuel for fighter planes. Antony C Sutton and Guido Preparata wrote books documenting this with undeniable proof as evidence.
https://archive.org/details/sutton-wall-street-and-hitler
This is getting very interesting.
“[T]he Central Bankers invested an enormous amount of capital in both Bolshevik Russia and Nazi Germany. Yet, both were ideological enemies of Capitalism. So the question is why?”
Simply because Capital goes wherever it can reproduce itself, or wherever it is called. I know, the objection would be how on earth German National Socialism or Bolshevism would accept a loan from a representative of the power of Capital, their archenemy? Because in the real reality, you know, walking the streets and all that, things and people are not as mutually exclusive as the labels we put on them. Before one is a Nazi or a Bolshevik or a Capitalist or a religious man or woman, one is a human being with imperious needs that override intellectual or religious considerations. In other words, the production of the human and the mode thereof, has pre-eminence in every situation. One might be ideologically, intellectually a convinced Bolshevik but that Bolshevik is made of flesh and blood and is hungry and needs tools and seeds for their soil and factories and machines for the working class, and – yes – guns and rifles to defend themselves in a very complex situation in every front; and they are seeing their comrades fall like flies; so what do you think Lenin can do? Seek help of course, and if that help for some reason can’t be gotten without external Capital then he will ask for it. It’s the harsh truth that reality knocks ideology or philosophy every time they cross each other. When we manipulate heavy historical contents like “Bolshevism”, “Capitalism” (we all are ”guilty” of that) as if they were simple forms we are taking the abstract meaning of the words while dismissing a lot of complex concrete realities under those forms and therefore that kind of discourse might lead to wrong conclusions (Bolshevism was created by Bankers, wrong IMO) when observation (Capitalists invested in Soviet Russia) contradicts premisses (Capitalism and Bolshevism are mutually exclusive).
But there is a theoretical explanation for that if we care to understand the point of history the Russian Revolution took place in. A combination of immediate circumstances (weakness of the czar, the influence of his German wife, influence of Rasputin, the recent 1905 Revolution, the explosive social mood and specially the outbreak of the war) have made possible to the Bolsheviks to accede to power. But they perfectly knew (it is so obvious) that there is no possible socialism/communism in one country for one thing that it would have to deal with the overwhelming pressure of surrounding imperialisms quite mature, bully and in full strength at the time, that would first of all make that socialism erect a State, an army, etc; and the necessary diplomatic and economic relations (no “Robinsonades” possible in the real world) it will be pushed to establish, considering the balance of power (one against a mature coalition of imperialisms conscious of its common interests), will make it adapt its economy toward a partly or wholly capitalist functioning. The tide of the surrounding Capitalist powers would inevitably alter the original plans made by Lenin and his company. For this reason, the Bolsheviks were following what was happening in the other nations, principally Germany and Italy, where unfortunately the Revolution didn’t succeed. Because of that, Stalin after having won over Trotsky, took power and followed an isolationist policy of “Socialism in one country”. The idea of “Socialism in one country” must be grasped on the ground and not taken only theoretically; that is simply a country which claims to be ideologically against Capitalism but that on the ground uses – has to use – all the categories of Capitalism for its survival in the point of History it finds itself in. This is why I don’t find it in the least surprising that foreign investments got there, ot that Lenin or Stalin make deals with capitalist nations.
What made Russia the way it was after 1917 was *not* the result of a plan by some shady bankers or it was not in any significant extent; it was a combination of historical circumstances that go far in the past. This doesn’t imply there were no Capitalists that benefitted from or helped to establish Soviet Russia, but if we can picture the establishment and development of Soviet Russia as a violent river, then the large waves that shape the river would be the result of the accumulations of years and decades and centuries of impersonal historical development while the tiny waves would be the share of recent personal participation.
The case of the German National Socialism follows the same argument and is easier to justify because GNS was *not* against Capitalism; it was against the international, imperial side of it; that to which Wilhelm II has succumbed and before him Britain and France and Russia and which precipitated WWI. They were ideologically for a national capitalism, national banking, with protectionist policies at first; but then they had to open up otherwise other nations would reciprocate their protectionist policies and won’t buy German made products. The contradiction between GNS’s ideological position against international Capital is contradicted by the fact, recognised by its first ideologues, that Germany at one time or another needed to burst out of its borders and sail into the world. Germany was a “volk ohne raum”; an industrial, populous on a insufficiently extended territory. The need to get imperialist is a necessity for advanced capitals to sell overproduction abroad; it doesn’t stem from a persona will but from an impersonal necessity (development of the forces of production, thus productivity, need for new territories to industrialise, to cut down unemployment, etc), specially so in the case of Germany. As Trotsky said, “Germany was suffocating within its borders” hence the first problems in the Sudetenland, Danzig, etc, many of the territories it claimed were striped from her in 1919. That foreign Capitals got in there and helped the war is really a secondary matter and only represents the physical means through which a purpose can be fulfilled, which must be fulfilled anyway. If Hitler hadn’t find the capitals he needed to develop his armaments and army and be in a position to face or carry out military action, he would have stolen it in some way, get it one way or another, because he’s being inexorably moved by a conscience heavy of years and decades of German and world History, not by some millions given to him by banker X or baker Y. As a matter of fact, colonisation is such a means to build that needed capital if one refuses traditional means, but at the same time it is a factor in the worsening of international relations. Things are locked up in a contradiction. A tragedy in the Hegelian sense which bursts in a war.
“ Simply it goes where it can reproduce itself..”
Professor Antony C Sutton in his well researched masterpiece, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, would beg to differ.
Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can
be made with the socialist powerbrokers. Suppose — and it is only hypothesis at this point — that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?
He then explores this idea in much greater depth with well documented evidence in his book.
Hitler could not have built up the industrial base of the 3rd Reich without the connivance of the Central Bankers. This has been very well documented by a great many researchers ie Professor Guido Preparata in his book Conjuring Hitler.
To reiterate the whole purpose of the Central Bankers funding both the Bolsheviks and National Socialist was to create a solution to a problem they had caused in order to create a new world order as outlined in Professor Carol Quigley’s book Tragedy and Hope which outlined their plans for a Global Feudal system ruled by them.
This process is still ongoing.
I haven’t quit this exchange. Just taking a break. 😉
Brianborou, I’m back
I have no doubt that the facts so rigorously documented by Sutton took place; in fact, I made a long comment quoting him on this forum a couple of years ago. This being said, Sutton wrote in the middle of the Cold War during which anti-Stalinist and anti-Communist propaganda – vaguely conflated by the general public – was raging; and in which, of course, the official position towards Russian government “ideology”, i.e. its open stance against Capitalism and capitalist countries, and of its practical policies was of a vigorous and unanimous opposition, and so was the position within the capitalist class.
So, upon discovering what he discovered, he was filled with indignation with the hypocrisy of some American capitalists who during the day spoke vehemently against Russian government and during the night struck business deals with it and so he wrote to expose this double-game. I don’t recall in which book he mentions it but he even made a trip to visit some of these “hypocrites” and confront them and was received with indifference; he also was discharged from I don’t recall what institution he was member of when he wanted discuss this matter.
Sutton wouldn’t have been filled with such indignation had he read Marx, and I can safely say that he is as profoundly an expert in the movements of Capital during WWII and perhaps during other time periods, as he is, pardon me the bluntness, profoundly ignorant in Marx’s thought. I say this upon reading this quote: “This erroneous idea [that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists] originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes.” This is a very strange thing to state (useful to his purposes?), but not entirely surprising considering the epoch (Cold War) in which it was written, even for the expert he is. Had he acquainted himself with the philosophy of Marx, with his understanding of History and of Capital, he would have asserted that Marx’s philosophy doesn’t critique capitalists but Capitalism; not bankers but banks; not bureaucrats but Bureaucracy; not functionaries but the State; not people of flesh and blood but the institutions.
Two quotes from Marx, among many others:
“To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them. [Last emphasis added]” – Karl Marx, Preface to First German Edition of Capital (1867)
“Later we shall see first how the capitalist, by means of capital, exercises his governing power over labour, then, however, we shall see the governing power of capital over the capitalist himself. [Emphasis added]” – Karl Marx, Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
I can find more quotes from Marx, If I wanted to, but what’s the point? One has to read the author himself, which Sutton hasn’t obviously read to any useful extent. This understanding, that capitalists are driven by a power outside their subjective will, and therefore are not to blame as persons, that the “enemy” can’t be the person in flesh of blood but the impersonal system that compels them to act in the economic sphere as they do, is foundational to Marx’s philosophy, itself inherited from Hegel’s philosophy of History, which is not the Crisis-Reaction-Solution as many in the “awake” circles keep mentioning; again, one has to read Hegel himself, not what some books or websites attribute to Hegel. Marx’s most famous work is called Capital, not The Capitalist Class, and his critique is of the Political Economy not the bourgeois who apply it, and the bourgeois economists are his rivals in the intellectual sense, with which besides he friendly corresponded, not his enemies. It would surprise Sutton and many others, even those who self-perceive as agreeing with Marx’s philosophy, to know that Marx praised the Bourgeoisie as the instrument of History that tore out the world from the superstitions of the medieval age into the enlightenment of science and technique that gave Capitalism. You see, Marx’s view is that we are transiting necessary stages of History, in which individuals are only instruments of the movement. That movement will cease after Capitalism had ceased from functioning and slowly morphed to what is termed Communism (without classes, therefore without a State, nor monetary nor wage systems). But again, not point in expanding much, reading the author himself is the thing to do.
So, Marx can’t consider the capitalists as his enemies without constantly contradicting himself. That others who claim espousing Marx’s philosophy consider capitalists their enemies is no justification for charging Marx with the burden. It only proves that they haven’t read him to any satisfactory extent, or that their position is not derived from their understanding of Marx but from other considerations. Conversely, that capitalists regard Marx or those who espouse Marx’s philosophy as their enemy is entirely their responsibility, not Marx’s.
So, in light of the above, what happened in 1917? As I elaborated in the other comment above, a revolutionary movement succeeded in taking power but was quickly absorbed by the larger tide of the surrounding capitalist imperialism, so that it had to adopt the capitalist system to survive, though grudgingly. It is not a Communism since in Soviet Russia, there is a State, wage and monetary systems. So in fact, according to Marx’s understanding, Soviet Russia has a capitalist mode of production with the peculiarity that the State owns the means of production. Many capitalists, local and foreign, who owned properties in Czarist Russia were expropriated under the Soviets, but necessity made that these properties had to be conceded to their former owners or others (undercover restitution) so that they could make investments for the advancement of the Union; that Soviet Russia preferred to have monopolists operate the economy reflects the monopoly the State has, for instance, in Foreign Trade (The State buys the goods made in the Union and exports them according to its planes). Formally being against the capitalist system, but having grudgingly to use it, they could at least dispense from one of Capitalism’s tenets: Competition of laissez-faire which had precipitated WWI; a position shared with German National Socialism. Therefrom the concessions the State was making to several monopolists to run sectors of the economy. No surprise in any of this according to Marx’s philosophy. It would be surprising if one thought that Russia was not capitalist, and therefore it had exited the Capitalist system, meaning its own and the West’s economic systems were mutually exclusive. There, Sutton indignation would have been justified. But, notwithstanding Stalin or the West labelling Soviet Russia Socialist or Communist it is in fact Capitalist.
Labelling a nation socialist, while it still has a State, wage and monetary systems doesn’t contradict and is irrelevant to fact that it is capitalist. All the above applies to German National Socialism. This IMO Sutton’s mistake, dispelled, the rest of Sutton’s account of the facts is reasonable – wrote about it in the last comment above.
(Continues)
The interpretation of these facts however leaves to be desired. Indeed, what does it mean that – paraphrasing – “Central Bankers creating Bolshevism and German National Socialism and then turning them against each other”? Does this question imply that they shouldn’t have done that? Why and Why no? For the first question, my understanding is that Central Bankers helped Hitler into Power because, Preparata himself admits as one possibility, they were certain he would rearm Germany, and, why not, they saw in him a bulwark against the Bolshevik “disease” as they called it. Well why not? It is, isn’t it, in the interest of Bankers to make profit and not see their business end because of Revolution. By the way, there was in Britain an atmosphere of an imminent Revolution, as was most Europe, at the occasion of Lloyd George wanting to send troops and arms to help Poland against Soviet Russia. So, yes; if I was a banker in 1923, I would see in Hitler my salvation. Nothing surprising in that; just Capital doing geostrategy to save its skin. How about Soviet Russia? Well, same reasoning: to make money. Turning against each other? Yes, of course. It was always, confirmed by Preparata, Britain’s fear that Brest-Litovsk or Rapallo happens again, because It means combining the industrious Germans with Russian resources, so it is understandable that, after having helped them, they saw that after all they may asociate with each other so, by all means, create problems between the two. There is nothing new here considering the inherent contradictions Capital is plagued with. In any event, Central Bankers’ action didn’t emanate from personal wickedness but from the necessity for Capital to keep reproducing itself and preventing any future obstacle to its expansion.
Regarding the Feudal system, did you know that international trade was almost halted in the 20s because many nations had exited the Gold Standard? The bankers wanted to restore the pre-1914 system or create a new one, so that trade could resume. Quigley talks about it near where he wrote about, paraphrasing, “the feudal control”, but doesn’t delve much into the financial problems. I have the details in a book by Francis Delaisi, The Battle of the Gold, 1933; precisely the year in which London Conference was held that sought to mend the international monetary system. I can’t write here all the details but Delaisi concludes that the monetary system was in need of a new international clearing house that could coordinate transactions etc. That’s the feudal control Quigley was writing about. The fact exists but our framing it as “Central Bankers want to control the world” whereas the action responds to an objective necessity of restoring a monetary system that has gone bust and has halted international trade. And does Quigley mean that Central Bankers are wicked for doing so? Or does he imply that they respond to the crises, and in that response, it seems that they are acting out of personal wickedness? And it is easy to know if they were acting out of wickedness by studying what would have happened if they didn’t act as they did?
We always return to the same question: Are we ready to live without the system?
True, the focus on the “not war” keeps attentions away from what’s happening to the economies of Western Europe…It’s like we’re being made to forget “It’s The Economy, Stupid !!”
Exactly, and it is noteworthy that we don’t hear much of the competition between the US and Western Europe, at least I don’t. It’s China, China, China…
Russia is an integral part of EurAsia. Has been for 1,000 years. “The West” was a 500 year old flourish of Atlantic countries — Portugal, Spain, France and U$UK; a spectacular flower that is dropping its petals. DeToquevillle predicted in 1820 — when Spain and Portugal had already faded but Britain and France were at the height of their bloom — that the 20th century would belong to the U$A but thereafter the pendulum would swing back Eastward.
The problem that Russia has had to confront was to confront 2 political, economical, social, cultural
blocks between East and West. If you live in Russia for a length of time, it becomes very apparent. When the Mongol invasion attacked the protogenetic Russian State, occupying Kiev, it thwarted the European influences on the future Russian state which permeated many West and East European countries. It created a polarisation in the elites of Muscovy after roughly Frobisher arrived. Peter the Great, along with many other prominent Russians, recognised the threat would come from the West. The West was an impoverished area that used deceit, duplicity and the age old tactic of divide and conquer to plunder, murder and commit genocide to enrich a very small elite.
A weed that strangles everything would be nearer the truth than the Shakspearian type metaphor of flowers regarding the West.
Whether the pendulum swings depends on whether the future is pre ordained. Mystic Meg comes to mind !
There are those who believe they are God’s Chosen People…And The Americans have their Exceptionalism…And the Russians, they have a Special Soul that stands them apart from all others…Three variants of Exceptionalism…
The Americans ” exceptionalism” resulted in the destruction of the indigenous people and 54 coups, colour revolutions and false flag revolutions since WW2 not forgetting your mummy is your daddy wokeness.
All of the gentiles, if they choose wisely, are the chosen people.
The Russians stand between 2 continents and have a long history of invasions, occupations and suffering but have produced outstanding poets and writers.
“(There’s) some crazy things going on in Russia……”
James’ opening (Framing) comment…
In the contest between Those-In-The-Know, and The Speculators, The latter are winning – hands down !! All those i subscribe to are name-checked, and given The Thumbs Down…
But i aint gonna cancel my subscriptions, not yet…I wanna keep my delusions a little longer…And anyway, i dont do Cold Turkey…
As for those who judge Russia on the basis of how they think the “Not War’ should have been / is being conducted, i;m gonna remain deaf to them, anyway…
a very sober take on the priggy thing here:
https://bigserge.substack.com/p/russo-ukrainian-war-the-wagner-uprising
and also now and again you come across somethng that reminds you of the sheer scale of what we are witnessing and the direction they are attempting to take us, the detail we now know is at times overwhelming and when more of us grasp who truly resides at the head of this operation then we all become stronger as we realise that the requirement to defy is imperative
concisely: the one they serve exists, it is real, evil personified and each and every one of them that servesd this has literaly sold their souls, more than that it is not just your freedom, your perceived wealth, hapiness and future they seek to take, it is nothing less than Your soul too
could the stakes really be any higher?
if you peruse the “whos who” contained in the article below remind yourself of how this “gang” cooperate and intermingle with the human trafickers, child sex trade, ritual murdering scum that saturate every level of power, money and control, it is truly breathtaking that we do actually live in such times and as we hurtle toward a conclusion we must always remind ourselves of which side we are on
https://expose-news.com/2023/06/27/bilderbergers-influenced-covid-tyranny/
heres a captured video of babylonian cult followers with a bonfire, see for yourself what emerges from the flames, you may find other pages from this writer interesting too
https://hiddeninthecrag.org/2022/11/28/the-yanukas-spirit/
I’ve tried to skim the first 30 minutes of this drivel, and all the fucking guy is doing is bragging about himself, without saying anything of substance.
Everybody with a hole in their ass is producing a fucking video or podcast, flaunting their acumen and explaining what precisely was this shithead Prigozhin up to. Fuck these videos already! Who has time to listen to hours and hours of yapping about speculations? Put whatever you think on paper where it’s easy to look through.
Be that as it may, let’s face it. This event is just about totally inconsequential. It would behoove everybody to stop splitting hairs, stop being fascinated with specific actors, stop myopically focusing on red herrings, and instead consider long-term ramifications.
The world clearly is at a crossroads, a historical milestone. We have a technological revolution, an energy crisis, an environmental crisis (regardless of whether real or faux), wholesale societal and cultural collapse of the Occident, total disconnect between financial and physical economy, you name it. One would think that any of this is something to worry about, not some fucking oligarch Prigozhin who went berserk after drinking who knows how many fucking bottles of vodka.
The world needs philosophers, visionaries, people capable of offering a vision for the future. Ideally one that is free, organic, and as prosperous for ordinary people as possible.
Clowns like “Waterfall of Verbiage” Corbett or this blogger ain’t it.
Alexander Mercouris: Putin Strengthened
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lzMJh0tBkE
The real alt media is literate in rituals this new lot couldn’t organize a piss up in a brewery (exactly how the MIC wants it).
Let me guess the Russia thing started on the highest point of the year in celebration of earth summer birth growth night and day is equal..SUMMER SOLSTICE.
The actual TV Russia invasion of Ukraine was 20 February 2022 (2222) Pluto returns in to the USA chart.
The inverters will do war kill death hate darkness fear etc etc on these dates.
Its measurable.
I never heard of Wagner until a couple months ago. If they were so pivotal in Syria from 2014 onward then why didn’t we here about Wagner from Vanessa Bealy years ago? Just because there is a Wikipedia page about them doesn’t mean it’s legit. I think it’s a psyop.. I think Wagner are a Ukrainian mIlitia. This entire “Russian Invasion” is fake news. If Russian military was really in Ukraine it would look nothing like the silly footage we have been watching. I think its all from the ongoing war in the east. Nothing new has happened except for the fake pandemic fizzling out in February 2022
Indeed, why was Ms Beeley so coy about mentioning Wagner? In fact, it would appear they made a significant contribution to the Russian war effort in Syria.
Well, that is what your being told. However, if it were true Ms Beeley would have mentioned Wagnrrrepeatedly. So, I think you are missing her point: was there really.a Wagner group in Syria?
https://rumble.com/v2wn5ei-mcduff-special-report-riley-waggaman-on-the-wagner-rebellion-june-27-2023.html
Another doubter.
One of OffG contributors mentioned about a year ago that the war in Ukraine was the first true Orwellian war, with the comment that this was something they would return to in another article.
I have been thinking about that ever since, and have been waiting for that article.
FROM the interview above in the audio, I have taken just one piece of information, that people in Russia, like us here, also think that their government is corrupt and working towards a one-world agenda.
I don’t accept that the Wagner boss is somehow on the side of the people.
I too was flummoxed by the media attention that Wagner was suddenly receiving, to much attention, that it seemed something was going to be done with the group, in the same way plot lines develop in a good book. You have an inkling of where the narrative may go.
Its also worth thinking about who the newly famed YouTube ‘exerts’ mentioned really are, and who is behind them, and vets their opinion, and scripts, New Atlas, Mercuriou’s, Ritter, Magreggor… And the military up date’s with detailed front line analysis. All on a platform that only recently you couldn’t say boo to a goose without the ceiling falling in.
Look forward to hearing more analysis about the Ukraine war, and why it’s Orwellian.
“who is behind them, … New Atlas, Mercuriou’s, Ritter, Magreggor”
The Truth.
You and your bum mates.
Thank you for calling out the “Nazi” hoax. Is there a link to the substack article?
Unfortunately, I can’t read the substack because the text and background hurts my eyes (is it intentional?), but the following (below) is one of only two references to Kissinger (the other is behind the paywall).
Putin is not a NATO agent. Rather, he is an agent of the central banking cartel (CBC). Kissinger is also an agent of the CBC – but higher up the pyramid than Putin. Virtually everyone within NATO was also controlled by the CBC. However, it’s been flipped. The Pence-Pompeo side controls the Pentagon (“there will be a smooth transition”) and it has all the files (Epstein etc). Hence, Kissinger has slowly been sliding toward the position of Pompeo.
BTW:
1) The SMO was intended to be theatre. The tanks would descend on Kyiv; Biden made the evacuation offer to Zelensky; he was supposed to flee; but he flipped the script.
2) The really smart move by Pence & Co was to bypass the fifth-columnist fake-MAGA by hijacking the Democrats with their pumped-up Putin hatred. That was genius!
3) “The Plan” is winning. It’s to derail Belt & Road; a.k.a. Kissinger’s Multipolar World Order. Instead, we’re heading into an era of Pax Americana 3.0 (1.0 = post-WWII; 2.0 = post-9/11).
—
https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/disastrous-putins-presser-with-state
14 JUN 2023
Rumors that Putin has been kept in the dark have been circulating for awhile and I lend them a lot of credence. Short of Putin being a NATO agent himself, recruited when he was a KGB colonel by Kissinger himself, tasked with destroying Russia, there isn’t really an explanation for why he would deliberately launch a disastrous SMO and by doing so undermine his legacy and everything that he and his friends have built. My theory is that he was given very bad info by his FSB and his oligarch friends who wanted to take over Ukraine and rule it themselves, like Medvedchuk.
—
Some of what Kissinger had planned.
https://www.brighteon.com/96de0656-cf59-48f8-8f0d-030b27b0bdb2
Brendon O’Connell (Talpiot)
40. The Break Up of The United States – Oded Yinon Comes to America for the Benefit of Israel
Feb, 2021
—
https://web.archive.org/web/20230517162335/https://www.economist.com/kissinger-highlights
May 17, 2023
Over two days in late April 2023, The Economist spent almost eight hours in conversation with Henry Kissinger. We have published an article assessing how America’s former secretary of state and national-security adviser sees an urgent need for America and China to repair their relations. We have also published a transcript of the interview. What follows here are eight highlights.
Mr Kissinger lauds Volodymyr Zelensky as an “extraordinary leader”, who is wise to welcome Chinese diplomatic efforts in Ukraine. He explains how he has changed his view to support Ukraine’s membership of nato (saying it is in Russia’s interest, too), warning that Europe’s leaders are wrong to waver on its membership.
—
Michael Pompeo: War, Ukraine, and a Global Alliance for Freedom
Jun 24, 2022
Hudson Institute
Putin’s war on Ukraine is a pivotal event in post-Cold War politics; this unjust war seeks to annihilate the existence of a free and independent country. What does this portend for world democracies? How does it impact America’s ongoing top strategic priority that centers on the existential threat from China? Why should a machinist in Wichita or a schoolteacher in Des Moines care about what happens in the Donbas?
Hudson’s Distinguished Fellow, the 70th U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, will deliver a major speech to answer all these questions followed by a conversation with Distinguished Fellow Walter Russell Mead.
Transcript:
https://www.hudson.org/events/2122-virtual-event-war-ukraine-and-a-global-alliance-for-freedom62022
Quotes the Hudson Institute, Mike Pence and Kissinger as fact. Lost in a dark wood indeed.
In this context, The Hudson Institute is just a venue for a presentation by Pompeo and is therefore irrelevant. Both Pompeo and Kissinger represent power – official, unofficial, covert. The powers represented by Pompeo and Kissinger are the two most dominant forces in the world today. What they say is important because they most likely have the power to make it fact – or at least cause a lot of destruction in the attempt.
How does one manage to come to twisted conclusions like that in our time…?
I could have written a comment like that 50 years ago, when Thatcher’s lies were all the rage…
She would have loved me.
Kissinger – the architect of the Multipolar World Order – is now supporting Ukraine’s admission to Nato. In doing so, he’s aligning with Pompeo. That FACT alone demands a “WTF!” analysis – and is a tad more significant than some sledgehammer wielding, Russian gangster throwing a strop!
—
https://thenewamerican.com/kissinger-putin-and-the-new-world-order
Kissinger, Putin, and the “New World Order”
by William F. Jasper
January 9, 2009
Kissinger, never one to let a crisis got to waste, has been busy on an important new-world-order project in Russia with Vladimir Putin. Although it has gone virtually unreported in the U.S. media, Kissinger has been featured prominently in the Russian media during his many trips over the past decade to Moscow to meet with Putin and Yevgeny Primakov, the former KGB terror master for the Soviet Union in the Middle East. In 2007, Kissinger and Primakov were appointed by Putin to co-chair a bilateral “working group” of Russian and American political insiders to tackle issues such as global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and nuclear threats.
Novosti, the Russian “news” agency run by Putin-friendly apparatchiks, reported on the new working group in an April 26, 2007 story, noting that “Kissinger, U.S. secretary of state from 1973 to 1977, has been a frequent guest in Russia since Putin took office in 2000.”
—
If you grew up during the Cold War you’ve got used to the idea that everything about Russia being is going to be painted in a negative light. This mindset actually goes back much further than the Cold War as well — with a couple of exceptions around WW1 and WW2 Russia has always been the threat, the unpredictable ‘bad boy of Europe’. Its ingrained in the west even though the only time Russians have ended up in the west has been at the end of wars that had started with an invasion and ended with the destruction of the invaders. (e.g. Paris at the end of the Napoleonic War, Berlin at the end of WW2).
Its a fact that NATO is openly hostile towards Russia. NATO was formed to confront the USSR post WW2 and like any large organization once the USSR went away it needed continuity so — naturally — it maintained its confrontation with Russia. In doing so its unfortunately following in the footsteps of Nazi Germany (their goal was a united Europe centered on Berlin that covered everything from the Atlantic to the Urals). So naturally NATO strategy will try to absorb Ukraine and in particular Crimea and its bases (and so dominate the Caucasus, the Middle East and so on).
The SMO reminds me of Barbarossa, the idea that Russian intelligence and military planning was woefully inadequate, resulting in huge, unnecessary, losses. Like 1941 there’s unfounded optimism quickly followed by rout followed by dogged resistance followed by a semblance of organized military planning. NATO, meanwhile, hasn’t learned anything from history. Ukraine has never been a unified nation, its basically three distinct cultural areas — western, center and eastern. The west will never tolerate domination by the east (Russia) but at the same time the east will never tolerate domination by the west. Minsk would have fixed this but it wasn’t in NATO’s interests to ‘fix’ while they thought they could ‘win’.
This has been a very interesting podcast but I think it misses the big picture, probably because its really just a sideshow. “The West” is really a mature version of the empires of old (although you have to figure that ’empire’ is more an economic entity than the nationalistic trappings many people associate with the word). Like all empires throughout history it goes through a life cycle, its supremacy continually being challenged until a contender comes along that’s big enough to take it down. We are seeing this process at work now with the real action being further east with China. Attempts by the west to maintain its economic dominance hinge on being able to undermine China; China isn’t just a challenge but one that might be catching. China can’t be taken down while Russia exists outside western dominance — together the two countries are most of Asia (Russia is primarily an Asian country pretending to be European). I don’t expect the “SMO” to end with a victory for the west, there’s too much at stake and, anyway, it would just be a pause before the whole thing cranks up again. It would have been better if Victoria Nuland had never existed — as our primary architect of policy in Ukraine she’s charted a course of unnecessary confrontation when in reality a standalone, neutral Ukraine would have been a fine bridge between the EU and Russia (this seemed to be the state before 2014 but anyone who knows our State Department knows they never can leave well alone what they don’t understand).
The powers granted to the two political divisions of government (legislative:article I and executive article II.) come from the Constitution of the USA. The constitution assigns domestic domain powers to the congress, and foreign domain powers to the executive. Each division has some veto power over the actions and decisions of the other(but it takes a lot to make a veto stick). The third division of government, judicial, is designed to keep restrict the activities of each division of government to its domain and to resolve issues that come up between the domains.
There are only two elected members of the executive(President and VP) and these two control the entire bureaucracy of the government. The Bureaucracy called the Department of State handles Foreign affairs..
Nearly everything the department of state does seems to be secret. Do how does the constitution expect USA governed American voters to monitor the activities of a bureaucracy that operates in the foreign domain? Seems to me the constitution was designed not only to keep the voters in the dark about foreign domain activities but also to allow a deeply hidden bureaucracy to develop that the voters cannot control by assertion of their rights in a political democracy (debate, journalism and vote).
Am I missing something, do the voters have a way to oversee the activities of their government in the foreign domain?
If so, what is that way, if not, what does that mean to the voters?
In a book written by a British soldier intellectual, Lieutenant-Colonel W.G.F. Jackson – yes they do exist! – he maps out all the invasions of Russia – all seven of them – who collectively failed miserably in an attempted conquest of the immense country. In the book ‘Seven Roads to Moscow’ this seems about the best historical record of what actually occurred.
Starting with the Vikings under Rurik, this was the first invasion 862-1228 and the last. This was be followed by the Tartars the Mongols, and the Poles for starters. Then came Swedes under King Charles under XII who were soundly beaten at the battle of Poltava in 1709. Next came Napoleon of course, 1812 then Hidenburg in 1914, and finally Hitler in 1941.
As Jackson surmised the military occupation and conquest of Russia which constituted such a vast area was beyond the capabilities of any European and even Atlantic powers, particularly NATO.
“Starting with the Vikings under Rurik, this was the first invasion 862-1228 and the last. This was be followed by the Tartars the Mongols, and the Poles for starters. Then came Swedes under King Charles under XII who were soundly beaten at the battle of Poltava in 1709. Next came Napoleon of course, 1812 then Hidenburg in 1914, and finally Hitler in 1941.”
No wonder General Montgomery said, If you want to win don’t ever march on Moscow.
But hope springs eternal in the human breast. In 2014 along comes NATZO with its rabidly anti-Jewish anti-Russian Ukro-Nazi Azov battalion led with Russian speaking Jewish comedian president as Commander in Chief. Anyone want to wager a bet on that crew?
i’ll wagner a bet, lol
As with everything else the media exaggerates the threat China poses. Think tank literature indicates China is a challenge but nothing else and neither its military capabilities nor its economic development poses anything near an existential threat to US. Besides, China was made bit by bit by Nixon, Kissinger and Brzezinski and the deliberate move continued long enough meaning China is a big country, advanced economy but nothing to be seriously worried about.
The real economic rival to the US is Western Europe which *is* at comparable levels militarily and economically (well, up til recently at least) with the US. But it seems the topic is taboo …
RE: Operation Barbarossa. The incompetence of Russian military maybe ascribed to the fact that until the very end, Stalin didn’t think Hitler would attack for it wasn’t clear if he was a rival to guard against but nothing more, or an enemy, and hence instructed his forces not to make anything that could be interpreted as preparedness to counter imminent invasion (a lot informers in Russia of course) even if the Germans showed up. Til the last minute, considering the intrigues and tricks played by the diplomacy, it wasn’t clear to the Headquarters of Britain/France, Russia, Germany who’s allied with whom. Germany had doubts WWI is being replayed; Russia suspected the British appeasers of Munich were setting the tone in London and were plotting with Germany against Russia. Finally, the British cabinet was still haunted by the “concept”, a reedition of Brest-Litovsk, or of Rapallo; and considering the agreement of 1939, it suspected an alliance against it. No one was really sure wether the others and which one (s) were friends or foes.
I suppose Britain was more convincing in the display of signs of friendship to each of the other two alternatively and turn them against each other.
I think that China is not a direct threat to anyone. Its problem to “the west” is that its catching. If you look at China’s history over the last couple of hundred years, from the time when Europe started taking an interest in it, its problem was that it was both highly productive and represented a huge market and source of raw materials. It was also militarily weak and divided so it was relatively easy prey for colonialism. This resulted in a very weak country that was actually saved from its natural fate — “an oversized version of the Philippines” — by the Japanese. Their barbarism and their threat to the west resulted in WW2 which, upon their defeat, led to a window of opportunity for the Chinese to rid themselves of colonialism through the foundation of the PRC. We left that country desolate and isolated surrounded by a hostile alliance (ASEAN). Through a combination of patient, hard work and some extremely deft diplomacy China has become once again a global power — it can look the old colonial powers in the eye and its strong enough to resist them.
The problem for us older colonial powers isn’t China — its not interested in invasion and conquest, its the real life version of Ankh-Morpok (“We can own you wholesale”). The danger it poses to us is that all the other ex-colonies who have been struggling with legacy economic systems and cultural ties to ‘the west’ could look at China’s spectacular progress and think “Hey, we can do this too”. The Chinese won’t stand in their way, in fact it will encourage them. Its just more business. Leaving us a bit high and dry.
Russia can ride along with this, too, because the old USSR was ideologically opposed to colonialism and actually was a supporter of numerous national liberation movements. Whether modern Russia is on the same ideological page or not is debatable but they’ll get carried along by the tide. (Our efforts at ‘free market reforms’ post 1991 in Russia didn’t exactly endear them to us, anyway.)
“The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us; but he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. His attack is psychological, Damien. And powerful.”
[The Exorcist 1973]
They’re all liars and demons.
I wonder how long this dark age will last…
“They’re all liars and demons.”
Cheer up. When Pamino cries out in despair;
“Dann ist es alles heuchelei”
Pamino is already near to discovering that Zarastro is the Good Wizard, and the Queen of the Night is “an Evil Woman who means to deceive The People”.
“I am that negative spirit forever working for bad, and I feel frustrated because good keeps popping up” — Mephistopheles in Faust, by 18th century German evolutionist Wolfgang von Goethe.
A good point!
Did you know that Peter Blatty worked for Air Force intelligence in the Psychological Warfare Division as Policy Branch Chief? The Exorcist was used to get people to reassert their faith in Christianity and get them back to church as employment and inflation worsened
Yes.
But Blatty wrote a good story, with a lot of relevant food for thought, as well as being an excellent allegory concerning drugs and alcohol.
If he thought that he could get people back into the church with The Exorcist, he should have known better, although I would expect him to have moderate success with the Catholic denomination, where ritual and dogma seem to be the whole point…
I listen to get some clarity in this confusing issue… The first 22 minutes don’t explain anything at all. In fact, I am more confused than before.
I hope the rest is better.
22 minutes. that’s better than i could muster, because the podcast kept cutting out. to the point that i switched over to Scott Ritter’s take. one thing about Ritter, if you don’t know what “direct” is, just watch him. not sure what planet he hails from, but he sure knows how to pound home his message.
“Scott Ritter … not sure what planet he hails from, but he sure knows …”
Hails from Planet Truth. Ritter was one of the “12 Just Men” who resigned a top job rather than bolster the lies about WMD in Iraq. And he sure knows his business as a Chief Weapons Inspector.
Ritter reminds me of what a French politician said about Churchill during the wilderness days when Neville Chamberlain was in power:
“I do not know which is the more remarkable: that the British have such a useful man as Churchill; or that they choose not to use him.”
Maybe he really is a spook and that’s why he can’t be clear and concise.
The authoritarian lust of Alpha males. More addictive than drugs or sex. More deadly than a plague of cancer.