Vladimir Putin recently made comments on the seriousness of global conflicts that can lead to nuclear conflict. Patriots worldwide should pay close attention as the globalists build their dangerous nuclear arsenal.
In stark contrast to attempts in numerous western countries to stifle free speech online, Russian President Vladimir Putin defended Internet freedom during a conference...
A prominent Swedish lawmaker asserts that Hungarian billionaire George Soros's influence on European politics and policies make him "one of the most dangerous men,"
WHO guidelines for sex education recommend that children aged 0-4 be taught about “masturbation” and “gender identity.”
The World Health Organization’s ‘Standards for Sexuality Education in
Europe: A framework for policymakers, educational and health
authorities and specialists’, advises children be taught about sexually pleasuring themselves and transgenderism before they’ve even fully learned to talk.
The WHO advises that children aged 0-4 are given “information about
enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s body… masturbation.”
Toddlers are also to be encouraged to “gain an awareness of gender identity” and given “the right to explore gender identities.”
In the ages 4-6 bracket, educators are urged to “give information
about same-sex relationships” and “help children develop respect for
different norms regarding sexuality.”
Social media networks are removing material and banning people who criticize the World’s Health Organization’s guidelines.
Given that the global health body is pushing such sickness onto
toddlers, the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw funding is
looking better every day.
Tech giants such as #Facebook and #Google stack vast amounts of user data which "they are happy to hand over to governments", according to NSA whistleblower Edward #Snowden speaking to a human and digital rights conference in London via video link from Moscow on Saturday. "Everything you've done, everything you've typed into their search box, everything you have clicked on, everything you've liked," said Snowden addressing the audience in the UK Open Rights Group Conference (ORGCON19).
According to Snowden, governments were using this data to target
journalists, dissidents, immigrants and other vulnerable individuals to
protect their own control.
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A Finnish political economist and
author highlighted predicaments of nations that refused to adopt
strategies of resistance against US unilateralism, saying Ukraine, for
instance, became “the poorest” country in Europe after succumbing to
Washington’s bullying.
“Look
at Ukraine; they succumbed to USA bullying and propaganda and now their
country has become the poorest in Europe although it used to be the
industrial powerhouse of the Soviet Union,” Jon Hellevig said in an
interview with the Tasnim News Agency.
“And look at Germany,
France, and the whole European Union. Subjugated to the USA, they are
being ruined with a stagnant economy for more than a decade and deep
social and cultural crises,” he added.
Jon Krister Hellevig is
a Finnish lawyer and businessman who has worked in Russia since the
early 1990s. Hellevig was a candidate in the European parliament
election in 2014. He is the managing partner of the Moscow-based law
company Hellevig, Klein & Usov. Hellevig has written several books,
including Avenir Guide to Russian Taxes (2002, 2003, 2006 English and
Russian editions); Avenir Guide to Labor Laws (2002, 2003, 2006 English
and Russian editions). Expressions and Interpretations, a book on the
philosophy of law and the development of Russian legal practices;
Hellevig takes actively part in public discussion of current affairs and
social structure contributing with articles and commentary in the
media. He regularly lectures at international seminars on various
topics.
Following is the full text of the interview:
Tasnim:
International developments are full of examples of how regional and
trans-regional countries have successfully adopted strategies of
resistance against oppression and unilateralism that have borne good
results. As you know, countries like Iran, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and
Palestine have protected their national sovereignty against foreign
threats and achieved many gains through this strategy. In contrast, some
countries have adopted a strategy of appeasement or reconciliation when
being hectored and bullied by world powers. Given the experiences of
these resistance countries, what do you think about their approach and
the concept of resistance?
Hellevig:
Naturally, resistance is the only choice, come what comes. At the same
time, the resistance strategy must be smart and strive to build bridges
to other countries outside the enemy. Tasnim: Do you think
countries that currently toe the line of major powers like the US ought
to emulate these experiences of resistance countries to protect their
independence and stand against unilateralism?
Hellevig:
Obviously they should. It’s a question of both the material and moral
well-being of the people and their very existence in the long-term. Look
at Ukraine; they succumbed to USA bullying and propaganda and now their
country has become the poorest in Europe although it used to be the
industrial powerhouse of the Soviet Union. And look at Germany, France,
and the whole European Union. Subjugated to the USA, they are being
ruined with a stagnant economy for more than a decade and deep social
and cultural crises. The traditional way of life of those European
countries is rapidly being destroyed with their social structures torn
apart. In fact, the very existence of those nations is now at risk.
Tasnim:
In an op-ed article written for Tasnim, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme
National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, warned the European countries
of the risks of inaction regarding the US administration’s unilateral
policies, saying the current EU leaders will be held accountable for
Europe’s future challenges. Shamkhani criticized Europe for becoming an
unimportant and passive actor that accepts humiliation at the hands of
the US and has to live with the destructive effects of Washington’s
unilateralism that have affected several international treaties. What is
your take on that? Isn’t it better for the EU to stand up to US
bullying and unilateralism?
Hellevig:
The European Union and its main constituent countries are not
independent nations as they have been taken over by US-led globalists.
Their armies belong to the US umbrella organization NATO, their
intelligence services are CIA branches, their media is owned by the
globalists, their capitalists are totally at the mercy of the US market
and its bullying terms, etc. Given these circumstances,
independent-minded politicians do not have a chance to come to power,
not in the individual states nor the totally undemocratic European
Union.
The problems are fortunately building up in the European
Union and with President Trump’s erratic policies the relationship is
becoming increasingly fraught. But things must get much worse before the
European people will mature to free themselves from the globalist yoke.
I am afraid, it will take an enormous financial and economic crisis to
bring that about. But this crisis will come for sure, sooner or later.
Paradoxically, an attack on Iran might be the final trigger for that.
And this is what holds the Americans at bay from Iran, at least for the
time being. On the other hand, the US economy is so bad with enormous
asset bubbles in every field of the economy, stock markets, housing
etc., massive budget and trade deficits and skyrocketing debt.
Therefore, there might be some people in the USA who could possibly
consider war and ensuing financial crisis as a means to extract the
country from those problems, to let everything crash and start the
global economy anew from ground zero.
Russian President has slammed European leaders for allowing immigrants to “kill, plunder and rape” with impunity.
In an interview with the Financial Times
just ahead of the G20 summit, the Russian leader slammed Western
leaders’ attempt to destroy ‘traditional family values’ and warned that
liberalism was dying: “[Liberals] cannot simply dictate anything to anyone,” Mr Putin told the newspaper.
Putin added that liberalism conflicted with “the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population,” and criticized Chancellor Angela Merkel for allowing millions of refugees to spill into Germany in 2017.
“This liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to be done.
That migrants can kill, plunder and rape with impunity because their
rights as migrants have to be protected.”
Dailymail.co.uk
reports: He added: ‘Every crime must have its punishment. The liberal
idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests
of the overwhelming majority of the population.’
The G20 – the countries with the largest and fastest-growing
economies – are meeting in Osaka, Japan today and tomorrow and posed for
the famous ‘family photo’ of world leaders, including Britain’s Theresa
May, China’s Xi Jinping, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Salman and their
host, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
The leaders of the G20 meet in Osaka, Japan.
The first major meeting was between Donald Trump and the Russia’s
leader where the US President hailed their ‘very, very good
relationship’ with Russia’s leader, adding: ‘It’s a great honour to be
with President Putin’.
An extraordinary moment then followed their handshake as Trump told
Putin: ‘Don’t meddle in the election, please,’ with a smile on his face,
turning to grin at the Russian leader.
In sharp contrast, Mr Putin faced a far frostier head-to-head with a
grim-faced Theresa May as the two shook hands this morning. The Prime
Minister is due to demand he takes responsibility for the nerve agent
poisoning of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury last year and tell him to hand
over the Novichok assassins sent by the Russian state to kill their
former agent.
Outgoing
British Prime Minister Theresa May looks miserable as she poses for
photo standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin
Mr Putin has reserved special praise for Donald Trump for trying to
stem the flow of migrants and drugs into the US, just before the men met
today.
Vladimir Putin today said British claims that his agents carried
out the Salisbury poisoning are ‘not worth five pounds’ – but justified
attacks on Russian traitors saying: ‘Treason is the gravest crime
possible and must be punished’.
The Russian President will meet Theresa May at the G20 in Russia
today where the Prime Minister will demand he admits to the Novichok
attack and hand over the two spies sent to kill Sergei Skripal last
year.
Mrs May has said her decision to speak to Putin in Osaka is not a
return to ‘business as usual’ with Russia, whose leader today sought to
laugh off claims he ordered the poisoning.
Mr Putin told the Financial Times: ‘Listen, all this fuss about spies
and counterspies, it is not worth serious interstate relations. This
spy story, as we say, it is not worth five kopecks. Or even five pounds,
for that matter’.
But in a chilling admission about how he believes his country should
‘punish’ like Skripal, who was secretly sharing secrets with the
British, he added: ‘Treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors
must be punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the way
to do it. But traitors must be punished.’
And in admission that he is willing to take risks to protect his
country, he said: ‘He who doesn’t take risks, never drinks Champagne’.
Earlier Putin said Anglo-Russian relations were beginning to improve
ahead of his face-to-face meeting with Theresa May at this weekend’s G20
summit in Osaka, Japan.
Relations have been rocky since the UK pointed the finger at the
Kremlin for the attempted assassination of former Russian spy Sergei
Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in March last year.
Mr Putin said: ‘I think Russia and UK are both interested in fully
restoring our relations, at least I hope a few preliminary steps will be
made.’
But in a chilling admission about how he believes his country should
‘punish’ people like Skripal, who was secretly sharing secrets with the
British, he added: ‘Treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors
must be punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the way
to do it. But traitors must be punished.’
And in admission that he is willing to take risks to protect his
country, he said: ‘He who doesn’t take risks, never drinks Champagne’.
Trump’s critics have accused him of being too friendly with Putin and
castigated him for failing to publicly confront the Russian leader in
Helsinki over Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
A U.S. special counsel, Robert Mueller, conducted a two-year
investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and
whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow.
Mueller found that Russia did meddle in the election but that the
Trump campaign did not illegally conspire with Russia to influence the
vote.
In a further attempt to lighten the mood, Trump sought common ground
with Putin at the expense of the journalists who had gathered to catch
the leaders at the outset of their meeting.
President Donald Trump said it was an ‘honor’ to be meeting with the Russian leader
‘Get rid of them. Fake news is a great term, isn’t it. You don’t have this problem in Russia but we do,’ Trump said.
World leaders kicked off one of their most high-stakes G20 meetings
in years Friday, with rows brewing over a bruising US-China trade war
and climate change despite a more conciliatory tone from US President
Donald Trump.
After lashing out at friend and foe alike en route to Osaka in
western Japan for the meeting, Trump appeared in a less combative mood
when meeting fellow world leaders face-to-face.
Fresh from describing traditionally close US ally Germany as
‘delinquent’ for not paying enough into the NATO budget, he was effusive
when meeting Chancellor Angela Merkel.
‘She’s a fantastic person, a fantastic woman and I’m glad to have her as a friend,’ he said.
Dan Lyman, Infowars’ European correspondent, joins Alex Jones
live via Skype to give an exclusive recap of the Davos Economic Forum
2019 as well as to inform listeners of foreign troops being used to
force French citizens participating in the yellow vest protests to cease
and submit to the European Union.
Fidesz believes George Soros’s people “are pulling the strings of the European Commission’s leading politicians” and demands an explanation, Fidesz MEP Tamas Deutsch said at a press conference on an unrelated topic in Budapest on Saturday.
Deutsch noted that daily Magyar Idok learned that U.S. billionaire Soros had met for talks with the EU leaders on at least 20 occasions. Soros held talks with Jean-Claude Juncker, Frans Timmermans, Emmanuel Macron and Dimitris Avramopoulos, he added.
A poster slamming George Soros in Szekesfehervar, Hungary (Photo by Attila Kisbenedek / Contributor via Getty Images)
Deutsch said it was “absurd” that a person claiming to be a philanthropist who represents the official viewpoint of not a single country can meet with EU leaders more frequently than the prime minister or head of state of any EU member state.
Near the United Nations Glass Palace in New York, there is a metallic sculpture entitled “Evil Defeated by Good”, representing Saint George transfixing a dragon with his lance. It was donated by the USSR in 1990 to celebrate the INF Treaty concluded with the USA in 1987, which banned land-based short- and mid-range nuclear missiles (a reach of between 500 and 5,000 km). Symbolically, the body of the dragon is in fact made with pieces of US Pershing-2 ballistic missiles (originally based in West Germany) and Soviet SS-20 missiles (originally based in the USSR).
But the nuclear dragon, which in the sculpture is shown as dying, is now being reborn. Thanks to Italy and other countries of the European Union, which, at the United Nations General Assembly, voted against the resolution presented by Russia on the “Preservation and Implementation of the INF Treaty”, rejected by 46 to 43 with 78 abstentions.
The European Union – of which 21 of its 27 members are part of NATO (including the United Kingdom, which is currently leaving the EU) – has thus taken a uniform stance with the position of NATO, which in turn has taken a uniform stance with that of the United States.
Source: PandoraTV
The Obama administration first, followed by the Trump administration, have accused Russia, without any proof, of experimenting with a missile from the forbidden category, and have announced their intention of withdrawing from the INF Treaty. At the same time, they have launched a programme aimed at renewing the installation of nuclear missiles in Europe to guard against Russia, while others will also be based in the Asia-Pacific region against China.
The Russian representative at the UN has warned that “this constitutes the beginning of a full-blown arms race”. In other words, he warned that if the United States should once again install in Europe nuclear missiles pointed at Russia (as were the Cruise missiles based in Comiso in the 1980’s), Russia would once again install, on its own territory, similar weapons pointed at targets in Europe (but which would be unable to reach the USA).
Ignoring all that, the EU representative at the UNO accused Russia of sabotaging the INF Treaty, and announced the opposition vote by all the countries of the Union because “the resolution presented by Russia avoids the question under discussion”.
Essentially, therefore, the European Union has given the green light to the possible installation of new US missiles in Europe, including Italy.
On a question of this importance, the Conte government, like its predecessors, has abandoned the exercise of national sovereignty and aligned itself with the EU, which, has in turn adopted the position of NATO, under US command. And across the entire political arc, not one voice has been raised to request that it should be the Parliament which decides how to vote at the UNO. And similarly, no voice has been raised in Parliament to request that Italy observe the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires that the USA must withdraw its B61 nuclear bombs from our national territory, and must also abstain from installing here, as from the first half of 2020, the new and even more dangerous B61-12’s.
So this is a new violation of the fundamental constitutional principle that “sovereignty belongs to the people”. And since the politico-media apparatus swaddles Italians in the ignorance of these questions of such vital importance, it is also a violation of our right to information, not only in the sense of the freedom to inform, but also the right to be informed.
We must do this now, or else tomorrow there will be no time to decide – a mid-range ballistic missile can reach and destroy its target with its nuclear warhead in between 6 and 11 minutes.
Washington’s attempts to derail the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project to supply Russian natural gas to the European Union will definitely backfire, according to a geopolitical expert Dr. Pierre-Emmanuel Thomann.
“The more the US puts pressure on Europeans, the more there is a risk that Europeans try to detach themselves from the US and try to make a better deal with Russia,” Thomann, who heads Eurocontinent geopolitical research, told RT.
“We cannot abandon the import of Russian gas, this will be economic suicide. So the Americans also have a limit of their pressure capacity,” the analyst stressed.
The comment comes as the US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell sent out warnings to German companies reminding them about significant sanctions they may face for participating in the building of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline with Russia.
Later, the US Embassy clarified that the letters were not a threat, but rather a statement of US policy. However, the clarification hasn’t stopped a number of German politicians from venting their anger.
“The matter of European energy policy must be decided in Europe, not in the US,” said German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas.
“The US ambassador seems to give the impression he is a viceroy of the Washington emperor,” top Left Party MP Fabio De Masi said, urging the White House to reprimand Grenell.
The US ambassador using direct threats towards German companies is a new unacceptable strengthening of tone in the transatlantic relationship, which the Federal Government should protest against,” said the German foreign policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU Party Juergen Hardt.
Nord Stream 2, a joint venture of Russia’s Gazprom and five European energy majors, is currently one third complete. The €9.5 billion pipeline is projected to double capacity of Russia’s gas exports to Germany via the Baltic Sea, and is supposed to come into operation by the end of the current year.
Professor Says that the Rise in Populism is Attributed to Whites Being Replaced in Europe and America. He Argues that We Need to Break Down White Identity so that Whites Accept this Change Willingly
Professor Eric Kaufmann of Birkbeck University in London has a new book out called ‘White Shift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities.” In his book he argues that white majority countries will soon be minority majority, but that we need to essentially break down white identity itself so that white people accept this fact willingly.
Kaufmann, who is the Professor of Politics at Birkbeck attributes the recent worldwide rise in populism to this massive change, and says that the polarization of the current political climate could be a result of white people fighting for the maintenance of their majority in America and Europe. Kaufmann states that this will only be a ‘temporary’ pushback to the inevitable future of Europe and America.
Kaufmann also surprisingly argues that………. WATCH THE REST OF THIS REPORT IN THE VIDEO BELOW
French President scrambles after realizing he’s losing grip on power
The Yellow Vest movement has largely rejected French President Emmanuel Macron’s concession speech, claiming it was an insincere “charade.”
“He is trying to do a pirouette to land back on his feet but we can see that he isn’t sincere, that it’s all smoke and mirrors,” Jean-Marc, a car mechanic told the AFP Monday.
According to local media, other French citizens described the speech as “window dressing,” “a bluff,” a “drop in the ocean,” “nonsense,” and a “charade.”
“Maybe if Macron had made this speech three weeks ago, it would have calmed the movement, but now it’s too late,” saidone Yellow Vest protester. “For us, this speech is nonsense.”
The protesters said Macron’s concessions didn’t amount to much change.
“He is being held hostage so he drops some crumbs,” said a 35-year-old official.
Many protesters indicated they would continue their “Gilet Jaunes” movement.
“We’re really wound up, we’re going back to battle,” said a 55 year-old bike mechanic.
“The door is now open, we must seize the opportunity,” said Jacline Mouraud, an early leader of the protests.
Macron walked back several measures on Monday, including canceling the gas tax, raising the minimum wage, and stripping taxes for pensioners.
“Maybe in the beginning I gave you the impression that I didn’t care, but that’s not true. Maybe I hurt some of you. That was not my intention. I want to find a way to get out of this together,” he said.
“This is why I’m ordering an end-of-year bonus for all employees without any tax. How we treat you is a very important part of our nation. In 2019, you’re going to see this.”
The United Nations Global Migration Compact is a flawed document, and whoever signs it presents a serious risk to their own citizens, Prime Minister Viktor Orban said in Prague on Friday.
At a joint press conference following a meeting with his Czech counterpart, Andrej Babis, Orban said the document set down principles that would not reduce illegal migration but stimulate it.
Every substantive legal case in the future will make use of the document as a point of reference, he warned. He said mass migration was a serious issue and decision-makers should not ignore the opinion of the people.
Yet in Europe today, he added, people are not allowed to express their opinions, or leaders fail to take them into account.
“We in central Europe, however, want to remain democrats,” he said. “Migration is testing the democratic nature of political systems,” the prime minister added.
Concerning Hungarian-Czech ties, Orban said that bilateral relations “entered a new dimension” in recent years, and spoke highly of “unprecedented figures” in economic ties as well as good cooperation in defence and in other areas.
He said that the turnover of bilateral trade and investments had increased and added that the two countries mutually supported investments.
Hungarian pharmaceuticals were “doing well” in the Czech Republic, while Czech companies were active in Hungarian agriculture and telecommunications, the prime minister added.
France’s finance minister has called on Europe to become an “empire” so that it can better compete with the United States and China.
Asserting that “it takes courage to stand in the way of the government” of Donald Trump, Bruno Le Maire told Handelsblatt newspaper that, “Europe should no longer be afraid of using its power and [become] an empire of peace.”
“I’m talking about a peaceful empire which is a constitutional state,” he added.
Le Maire’s statement follows French President Macron’s call for a “real European army” to counter Russian threats and reduce dependence on the U.S.
During yesterday’s Armistice centenary in Paris, Macron also urged world leaders to reject nationalism, claiming it represented a “betrayal of patriotism”.
Given the internal situation in France, it might be advisable for Le Maire and Macron to focus on their own country’s problems.
In an interview published last month, the country’s former Interior Minister warned that mass immigration could bring societal breakdown within five years.
“Communities in France are engaging in conflict with one another more and more and it’s becoming very violent,” said Gérard Collomb, agreeing with the interviewer that some form of societal breakdown like partition or secession was a major concern.
“How much time do we have before it’s too late?” the interviewer asked Collomb, to which he replied, “I don’t want to create fear, but I think there’s very little time left….It’s difficult to estimate, but I would say that within five years the situation could become irreversible. Yes, we have five, six years to avoid the worst.”
President Macron’s failure to deal with Islamic extremism and tensions caused by dislocated communities of migrants has contributed to his approval rating continuing to plummet.
A poll published at the end of last month found that Macron’s approval had dropped a further 4 percentage points to just 26 per cent.
European countries have vowed to maintain “effective financial channels” and to keep trading with Tehran after the US announced that the EU is not among those spared from its sweeping sanctions against Iran.
European countries suddenly discovered that they were not on the list of the ‘lucky ones’ that their ally, the US, decided to exempt from the new wave of all-encompassing sanctions it plans to unleash on Iran. The sanctions, targeting Iran’s shipping, finance and energy sectors, which come into force on November 5, are also designed to punish those countries that dared to do business with the Islamic Republic in defiance of the US pressure.
Only eight nations were graciously granted exemptions by the US, according to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. However, Pompeo made it clear that the EU as a single entity is not on the list, sparking an angry reaction from the US’ western allies. Washington also specifically mentioned thatit plans to target the special mechanism the EU has been creating to circumvent the restrictions, prompting its allies to fight back.
In response, the EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, together with the foreign and finance ministers of Germany, France and the UK, vowed to maintain “effective financial channels with Iran” and in particular to continue buying the Islamic Republic’s oil and gas.
They also said that despite Washington’s pressure the EU is still committed to establishing a “Special Purpose Vehicle” for Iran-EU trade. The European nations will seek to protect its companies engaged in “legitimate business with Iran,” the statement said, adding that the EU will cooperate with Russia and China in particular to achieve these goals.
Since its withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, the US has been pursuing a policy of “maximum pressure” on Tehran, vowing to bring its oil exports to ‘zero’, much to the dismay of the European countries, which praise the agreement as “a key element of the global nuclear non-proliferation architecture” and have re-affirmed their commitment to the deal.
Washington, meanwhile, seems to be ready to stop at nothing to force Tehran to bow to its wishes, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin even threatening sanctions against the international service SWIFT, if it refuses to block Iran’s transactions.
Mr. Lucas, Don’t Take Your Readers for Fools! by Prof. Vladimir Golstein
So Edward Lucas, the columnist at The Times, the long time contributor to the notoriously Russophobic Economist and the author of 2008 The New Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the Threat to the West, where he fully exhibits his own paranoia about the dangers of Putin’s Russia, has came up with a new theological and cultural diagnosis.
Paranoia is the religion of Putin’s Russia. Not communism, not
capitalism, not Orthodoxy, not atheism. Just plain old paranoia.
Why, and how? Argument number #1 is that RT has put him on the list
of ten top Russophobes. Lucas’ complaint: the list is haphazard and
flimsy. Fine, any list is haphazard and flimsy – it just points to some
people or organizations that like to come up with ridiculous charges and
accusations, not dissimilar from his own “academic” investigations. So
what? Having never produced anything academic himself, Mr. Lucas can’t
expect any academic study from RT, can he?
Argument #2. Mr. Lucas had found an academic study to his liking — Ilya Yablokov’s Fortress Russia
— that discovered that Russian conspiracy theorists, who were on the
margins in the 1990s have come to the forefront in the current
situation. Yablokov has studied Russian TV and found its style paranoid.
Yablokov’s conclusion: the US is a paranoid Empire to be sure, but
mainstream TV does not usually cater to it, as opposed to the mainstream
Russian TV. Maybe, even though CNN and Fox would surely provide serious
competition.
Without any desire to defend the rather combative style of Russian TV
talk shows where guests clash, fight, and play the roles assigned to
them by the hosts, I am certain that these shows do address real foreign
policy concerns. Any detached observer looking at the map and seeing
NATO bases all around Russia is bound to ask questions. Any detached
observer listening to Western news and hearing the endless bacchanalia
of Russia this, Russia that, is bound to get nervous. Any detached
observer, having witnessed endless the West’s bombing campaigns, wars,
invasions, regime changes, mass migrations and destruction, is bound to
get a bit edgy about western intentions. And it would not be paranoia.
It would be plain common sense.
And what about Russian history? Hasn’t the country been invaded again
and again throughout its history? The latest invasion, that of Nazi
Germany, is still remembered by all Russians, since one can hardly find a
family that did not lose someone in that awful war. Last time Germans
and Ukrainians got together, my relatives were brutally murdered in
Kiev, mowed downed – along with thousands others in Babi Yar. So even
living in the United States, I do get nervous when Ukrainians, helped by
their European admirers, burn people in Odessa. Genetic memory is a
stubborn thing, you know. So can you really blame Russians for getting a
bit anxious about the events in Ukraine, Mr. Lucas, or as the happy
denizen of the murderous British Empire, that one that killed, burned,
shot, and starved others, you can’t imagine what fears of prosecution
are actually all about?
Wait a minute, says Mr. Lucas. “German Unification, EU and NATO
enlargement, Ukrainian independence”: These recent events on the borders
of Russia — are haphazard. There never was a master plan. Well, if it
looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it has to be a duck. In fact,
there are rarely master plans for anything, unless we are talking about
Hillary’s campaign to justify her spectacular loss of 2016 presidential
campaign. What we’re witnessing, however, is the plain old confluence of
interests and appetites that results in wars, sanctions and invasions.
Just read some basic history, Mr. Lucas, before you present yourself as
the heroic conspiracy theories slayer.
Argument # 3. Russians do a lot of mischief to themselves:
corruption, bribes, oligarchs. That’s for sure. But so what? Russian
corruption is bad, and one hopes that Russians will get rid of it. But
it does not mean there are no countries that want to invade and loot the
place, and squeeze away local oligarchs. Even paranoid people have
enemies, as the maxim goes. There’s plenty to steal in Russia. Do you
think, Mr. Lucas, that western oligarchs want to leave it all to
Russians? Don’t underestimate your own sponsors. They don’t like it.
Furthermore, oligarchs and corruption are rampart in Great Britain
and US, and still these countries are running on paranoia and arming
themselves to the teeth. And what about Poland, the Baltic States,
Ukraine – the countries that do indeed thrive on paranoia? But their
paranoia fits western narratives, so it’s “our kind of paranoia.” As
opposed to Russian paranoia, which is obviously a wrong kind of
paranoia. What about the paranoia of the trigger-happy Israel, which
manifests itself in endless violence and military excursions against its
neighbours? So Israel has Judaism for religion, Poles have Catholicism,
but Russians have Paranoia. A strange doctrine, and new.
And then, Lucas totally reverses himself, and says – that the west
should not stoke Russia’s siege mentality by a military build up on its
borders and endless provocations. Finally! Lucas dares to rise to the
occasion and criticize the West … but we rapidly learn why. This
righteous indignation is provoked by Trump’s and Bolton’s proposal to
withdraw from the INF treaty. But even this criticism is turned on its
head. This new arms race is bad, because it will help Russia to “crack
down, lash out and make it look more important than it is.”
In other words, NATO countries should not place their war-heads in
Roumania or Poland, they should not claim that they could actually win a
nuclear war (something that only American theoreticians, including
former Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, do) – they should not do any of
those things because these actions will make Russians think that they
are more important than they are. That would be a really dangerous case
of paranoia. Much more dangerous than the destruction of life on earth
as we know it.
But Lucas does not stop there; playing the role of Candide must be
way too enjoyable. He claims that compiling the list of “Russophobes” is
a “childish bad habit” – never mind the Magnitsky list, nor plenty of
other lists compiled by the State Department, the Mueller investigation,
social media police and numerous other western outlets, whose endless
lists still can’t satisfy the lust for more and more sanctions against
more and more individuals. Those lists are the sign of profound
maturity, no doubt.
And in a true demagogic fashion, Lucas concludes: we’ve been paying
too much attention to “nasty but grand Russians.” We should celebrate
Russia’s “colossal contribution to world culture.” Oh, so Russia is
important after all. How refreshing. Let’s wipe Russia off the map with
nukes, and then enjoy Russian ballet at Covent Garden or Russian novels
in their BBC adaptations.
West Attacks Russia with Piketty’s Overblown Claims About ‘Oligarch’ Wealth
Blowing
Thomas Piketty’s academic fraud, Awara’s new study debunks the myths
about overreaching oligarch grip on the Russian economy and supposed
extreme economic inequality in a global comparison
There
is no love lost between the Russian people and the oligarchs. You just
can’t erase from history the theft of the century when the 1990s
oligarchs looted the country through sham privatizations staged by the
liberal government. The press has done its best to imprint the memory of
those years of robber capitalism on the Western public. It’s a
scandalous memory all too easy to exploit and rehash for the purpose of
vilifying Putin and “his cronies.” At the same time, everybody seems to
have forgotten how the present ruling plutocrats of America made their
capital a century earlier.
The
United States has already slapped sanctions on influential Russian
businessmen, which they refer to as oligarchs. They are supposedly
punished for their proximity to the Russian president who is
incriminated with imaginary charges of meddling in US elections, a nerve
agent attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter in England, and
other fabricated allegations. And echoing antisemitic racial slurs of
Hitler’s Germany, now with the Russians as the villains, the UK
parliament has launched a crusade against “dirty Russian money” of the
Russian “super-rich kleptocrats.”
But,
the real reasons to go after Russian “oligarchs” and the “super-rich”
have nothing to do with a newfound sense of social justice or their
supposed ties with the Russian president. (By the flawed logic of the
accusers anybody who is rich in Russia must be connected with the
president). This time around this image of malign Russian oligarchs is
used by the West in a full-frontal attack on Russian capital and
Russia’s industry as the United States is hysterically trying to find
ways to contain the country. By attacking Russian business tycoons, in
addition to the state corporations, the US strives to block out Russian
industry from the West and the wider world.
New study demonstrates that talk about Russia’s economic inequality has been greatly exaggerated
Yet, the idea that the rich own a vastly disproportionate share of the Russian national wealth has been disproved in a recent study by the Moscow based https://www.awaragroup.com.
The study takes aim at Thomas Piketty’s high-profile report about
Russia’s economic inequality. The Awara report does not aim at
deflecting from the problem of economic inequality in Russia as the
authors merely want to put the problem in its right global proportion.
Economic inequality is not any more “extreme” in Russia — as Piketty
falsely claims — than in the major Western countries in general. In
fact, the Awara study shows that it could be less.
The
Awara report exposes the bias and reveals the multitude of
methodological errors, distortions and misrepresentation of data, which
have informed the Piketty report. After identifying the deficiencies,
Awara adjusted the main findings to reflect the actual data. The
corrected data shows that instead of owning more than 70% of the
national wealth, the share of the top 10 percent of the population was
39% of private wealth and 32% of total national wealth.
Below
charts demonstrates the differences in the Piketty study and the
corrected data of Awara. Top chart from the Piketty report, bottom,
Awara’s corrected findings.
Correspondingly,
instead of earning 45–50% of national income as claimed by Piketty, the
top 10% of Russians earned less than 30% of the income. The Piketty
research team had said that their study expressly replaces the findings
of earlier income inequality studies like that of the EBRD, which had
allocated 30% of income to the Top 10% richest. After revealing the
multitude of flaws in the Piketty study, Awara found it natural to
return to those earlier findings. his also puts the wealth figures in
perspective as it is obvious that the share of wealth must closely
correlate with the share of income.
Western propaganda can’t decide if Russia is owned by oligarchs or by the state
A
big contribution towards mitigating economic inequality is delivered by
Russia’s substantial public property. But in his study Thomas Piketty
has written off the value of Russia’s public wealth as if it did not
play any role as an equality inducing factor. It is actually very
strange when one set of Western propagandists claim that Russia’s state
sector has totally taken over the economy comprising 70% of the total,
and another (like Piketty) maintains that the super-rich owns 70% of
Russia’s wealth. It seems to us that the propagandists better make up
their mind.
The
Awara study reports that experts conclude that the state sector makes
up a much higher share of the Russian economy than it is the case in all
Western countries. The estimates vary from 35% — 70%. The European Bank
of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has estimated that the share
of the public sector (state sector) of the total economy was 35% in
2009. Experts agree that the state sector share has grown since. The
Russian competition authority, the Anti-Monopoly Committee, estimated in
its annual report for 2015 that the state sector had grown to comprise
70% of the Russian economy.
Small business enterprise value exceeds that of the Russian billionaires
A
remarkable finding in the Awara report is that the total value of small
and medium businesses (including shadow business) at 35% of total
business assets stands way higher than all of “oligarch” wealth, and
even at the same level as the combined wealth of the top 10 percent
(39%). (Hereby, it should be noted that there is overlap between the
categories of small and medium business wealth and top 10 percent
wealth).
The
35% share assigned to small and medium businesses (SMEs) is backed up
by reference to a study done by the global consultancy EY together with
the European Investment Bank, which assessed that SMEs cover 20–25% of
Russia’s GDP, in addition to estimates of the size of the shadow
economy. The Russia statistics authority (Rosstat) has the shadow
economy at 10–14% whereas liberal economists assess it at 32%.
When everything else failed, Piketty conjured up Russian “offshore wealth”
When
all the other methodological biases, misrepresentations and distortions
failed to produce the screaming inequality — which the scholars
undoubtedly had set out to prove — they resorted to adding, some
supposed “offshore wealth” to the possessions of the top 10% of
Russians. We have all heard about assets Russian “oligarchs” have
abroad, like the Chelsea football club, villas and yachts, therefore
this one would seem like a safe bet. When the figures don’t prove that
the superrich in Russia are so much richer than the Western plutocracy,
throw in their offshore wealth. What Piketty therefore did was to add
offshore wealth to the tune of the equivalent of 75% of the GDP to the
richest top 10%. And Voila! The Piketty figures show extreme inequality
for Russia in comparison with other countries.
Not
only is there no evidence on the amounts and distribution of such
“offshore wealth,” but it also represents a major transgression of
Piketty’s own method as such assets abroad have not been taken into
consideration in the studies concerning any of the other countries that
his research team has examined. After all, the Piketty studies are
supposed to represent global comparisons of economic inequality — the
comparison is the very point they make. Yet Piketty blatantly breaches
his own method just to make Russia look bad. See, no such “offshore
wealth” has been summed up to the wealth of the rich in any of the other
countries studied.
Piketty’s colonial ideal model
Obviously,
the offshore wealth (i.e. assets outside home country) of the
capitalist classes of the major Western countries is vastly more (as a
share of) than that of the Russian rich. Just think about the holdings
of the Western transnational corporations around the world. But Piketty
et co. don’t even want to consider the Western transnational capital,
going so far as to totally exclude foreign owners as factors of
inequality in a given country. In their colonial model foreign owners
are a benign class, above criticism. With this kind of logic, Piketty
runs into total absurdities. Praising the relative inequality of Eastern
European countries, he puts the success down to their colonial economic
model, as the Pikettys express it: “the fact the holders of top capital
incomes tend to be foreigners rather than domestic residents
contributes to lower top income shares in countries like the Czech
Republic or Poland or Hungary (as compared to countries like Russia or
Germany). I.e. foreign owned countries tend to have less domestic
inequality (other things equal).”
So,
in Piketty’s perverted logic it is good that foreign capitalists own
everything, because that makes the natives more equal between
themselves. But in case of Russia it is the other way around, because
some nasty rich Russians own property in third countries, it makes
Russia’s wealth distribution more inequal.
Why would you call the Russian rich “oligarchs” but those of the West “billionaires”?
Why
does the media call the Russian rich “oligarchs” while their peers in
the West are just “billionaires”? The reason is obvious, oligarch sounds
nastier and therefore it must be reserved for the Russians. That’s what
Piketty does, too, calling his report “From Soviets to Oligarchs,”
thereby clearly flaunting his biases. This is precisely what drove him,
to tarnish the Russian state by alleging it’s a country ruled by a vile
oligarchy and Putin’s cronies.
The
Awara study demonstrates that the true income and wealth figures on
Russia — especially when considering Russia’s substantial state
sector — does in no way qualify Russia as an oligarchy any more than any
of the other major economic powers in the world. But even if that would
not have been the case and Russia’s wealth distribution would be as
Piketty mendaciously claims, then still there would be no reason to pick
on Russia by calling it an oligarchy. An oligarchy is foremost a
political concept signifying that real power in a given country rests
with a small number of super-wealthy people termed oligarchs. But, the
fact that a country would have a skewed division of wealth with a
disproportionate share of billionaires would yet not mean that the
country is an oligarchy in the true political meaning of the concept.
And certainly, the Russia of today does not qualify as one. It has been
widely acknowledged that since his ascendance to Russia’s presidency
(2000) Vladimir Putin has effectively stripped the super-wealthy
individuals from the political power they actually wielded in the 1990s.
Throwing around that disparaging epithet, Piketty has completely
omitted any analysis of the political aspect of supposed Russian
oligarchy. This clearly demonstrates his ideologically bias to revile
the Russian nation and to flag his politically motivated preconceived
conclusions
Piketty relies on Forbes billionaire gossip
Apart
from the trickery with “offshore wealth,” Piketty builds his case on
“data” drawn from the Forbes’s billionaire gossip. Of course, the Forbes
billionaire data is an interesting and entertaining source and
certainly can serve to guide the reader in the direction of who are the
billionaires of one or another country. However, it seems that the
Forbes exercises considerable editorial discretion in its reporting
exposing and exaggerating the wealth of some billionaires while choosing
not to disclose that of certain other billionaires. In any case, it is
not a scientific study. The methods of compiling the data are not
explained and sufficient details of the composition of the alleged
wealth is not disclosed. The validity of that data would then at best be
dubious, even in a transparent study.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
The
Awara report is not only a criticism of the dubious studies of the
Piketty team, but also more in general an attempt to reveal how scholars
manipulate public opinion under the cover of statistical methods to
advance their ideological or pecuniary objectives. In this regard, the
Piketty studies excellently illustrate the old adage “Lies, damned lies,
and statistics.” A perfect case of how authority combined with the
persuasive power of numbers is employed to bolster false arguments.
Awara
explains the glaring differences in its findings with gross
methodological errors and skewed or even fabricated data in the Piketty
study. When the transparent data sources failed to back up Piketty’s
prejudices about Russia, he resorted to blatant distortions.
In
general, the Piketty reports never demonstrate to what extent the
scholars have relied on one or another set of source data, rather their
method is like a recipe for a potpourri, throw in generous amounts of
Forbes billionaire data, a bit of survey data, some homemade tax
tabulations, and stir everything with a Pareto spatula. The scholars
merely tell that they have relied on those sources to make the blend,
but the share of emphasis on one or another set of source data is not
given and the choices are not discussed. There are also no
scientifically falsifiable computations, which would show how the
various data sources would supposedly have been mathematically combined
to yield the results that these scholars claim to be their science. This
is in itself renders the Piketty reports invalid as academic science
and relegates them merely to the level of personal opinions.
Their
starting point is said to be earlier household income survey data,
which then is “corrected,” as they claim, with income tax data on
high-income individuals, supposedly drawn from the referenced fiscal
data. But the fiscal data does not represent any “raw tabulations by
income bracket” as the scholars wrongly maintain. Furthermore, that data
source does not contain any data on “high-income-taxpayers income tax
data,” as was further gratuitously claimed. The national accounts and
wealth inequality data is then somehow applied to all that in order
to — supposedly — “impute tax-exempt capital income.”
Obviously,
there cannot possibly be any mathematical model that could achieve the
feat of combining the multitude of those disparate and overstretching
data sources. In reality, the Piketty scholars have by an artful
manipulation of the sources picked and chosen what aspects of all that
welter of data to refer to in order to verbally motivate their
conclusions. All the references to statistical models serve only as
smoke and mirrors designed to lend academic credibility to the resulting
computations.
The Piketty study is a potpourri of sources without any falsifiable scientific method to combine them.
Propaganda for war
There
is no doubt that the scandalous history of Russian “oligarch” wealth
and contemporary urban legends about the malicious grip of oligarchs on
Russia have initially informed the Piketty scholars in their quest to
prove “extreme inequality” in Russia. More than that, I am inclined to
see the Piketty report as one more installment in the Russia bashing
propaganda in line with notorious propaganda hoaxes like Assad’s
supposed chemical attacks, the Salisbury incidents, Russian Olympic
doping scandal, invasion of the Ukraine etc. At the end of the day, the
question is about propaganda for war, which we must expose.
The Piketty research team is financed by the European Union, needless to say.
Liberteon