Fighting for Russia against the New World Order.

Showing posts with label Vladimir Golstein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vladimir Golstein. Show all posts

Trump's "Racist" Tweets Expose Democrat Hypocrisy - Prof. Vladimir Golstein


I was wondering what is it that bothers me about the universal denunciations and indignation provoked by Trump's xenophobic tweets.

And then I realized that it is the same old German formula being replayed in front of our own eyes. "When they came for Communists, I didn't say anything because I wasn't communist."

For the last several years, the pro-Democratic press was engaged in the most unhinged anti Russian racist campaign imaginable. Russians were everywhere, and always in the worst possible context. Nasty Olympians, nasty trolls, nasty Putin, nasty this and that. Trump meets with Putin ... alone... oh... horror. 


That very Trump, replying to the charge that Russians are killers and saying that we are not perfect either, provoked the utter outrage. How dares he to compare. Oh, treason, oh, ignorance!

Anyone with a Russian name became the subject of suspicion. Naive Russian enthusiast of second Amendment, named Maria Butina, is arrested for spying for flirting with some right-winger.

I know for a fact, that American citizens with Russian names are profiled and interrogated at airports. I know for a fact, that when I called NPR and said as the professor and a specialist in the area, I want to comment on the show, their handler, having learned my first name had a gall to ask me, are you Russian, and then put me for 40 min hold till the end of the show.

Articles about backward Russian economy, culture, religion, about tyranny, corruption, gay-phobia, intolerance, became a daily staple. Any electric malfunction in US -- Russians. Any country or person described as evil -- sure enough there would be Russian connections. Were any other group or nation treated this way in mass media?

Yet, the most noble, the most sensitive, the most caring Democrats and liberals said nothing. In fact, they wanted more. And more. And more. More commissions, more investigations, more expose. And now they are outraged. Oh, horror.

Well, let me be as blunt as possible. If you let it slide, if you allow at least one group to be denigrated and mocked and dog-whistled, they will come for you. And don't say, that you've not been warned by history. And don't shove your "noble indignation" down my throat. It is a paper money not backed by anything, and I am not accepting this currency.

Share:

Does money smell... if you are an artist?

By Vladimir Golstein


So I am still thinking about this Chernobyl special, which somehow managed to touch a nerve. A lot of people, far from politics, were very moved by the way it was shot, with coloring reminiscent of Tarkovsky's Stalker. Grim Soviet reality that somehow looks cool and artsy when shot through specially tinted lenses. Tarkovsky, apparently, wanted this look, and had to ostracize a lot of people when he decided to re-shoot Stalker, because the original tape was defected by his standards.

In any case, the director, Craig Mazin, must be a talented dude. Yet, the film was obviously more that an artistic project. There must be some CIA/MI5 money involved. Like they do in all other stupid projects of theirs, especially when they feel that it is time to counterbalance Russians. So let's pour money into White Helmets, and all sorts of propaganda films. But why stop there. If the plight of the free world is at stake, let's give money to Armstrong, and Pollack, and Faulkner, and Elton John, and all other important western artists who should promote western values.


And the artists do take money and keep on doing their art! Should we condemn them? All these modernists who were on the CIA take? But if we don't condemn them --these greats of the XX century --why do we condemn the Soviet artists, who took money from their government: Shostakovich, and Eisenstein, and Sholokhov and so on?

"Brave" Solzhenitsyn had a nerve to condemn Eisenstein in his "One day," decrying the "pseudo" genius, who condones violence on the cue from the tyrant. Implying -- following Pushkin - that a genius -- can't serve evil. But didn't he see the irony? Didn't he imagine himself a genius, while being on the take from the west, serving the American imperialism and getting western money in the forms of prizes, and contracts and all other accouterments? So if you take western money, you are OK, if you take Soviet money, you are a sell-out? A new doctrine and strange!

How are we to judge? Should we use this criteria (where the money are coming from) or should we just convince out selves, that we are following art?

I think the source of money is important, yet, it does not really matter to me, where they are coming from: east or west, communists or capitalists, Arabs or Zionsists, and so on. What should matter is who is an underdog!

If Craig Mazin, or White Helmets take money from the bullying and controlling regime, which is ready to kill for the sake of its hegemony, they are serving the devil. If the money are coming from an underdog, fighting for its independence or existence, that's a different story. There is a moral responsibility, but it is unrelated to a story, while directly related to who is using the story. If the Jews in Polish Ghetto hired me to tell their story and paid me with gold that they've collected, it is one thing. If the Nazis hellbent on destroying them, are paying me with the gold, this gold sucks. And so is the story!

Source: https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.golstein/posts/10214266894962058
Share:

Domestic enemies want to suck Trump into his Vietnam: Iranian war


By Prof. Vladimir Golstein

Call me a cynic, but here is my cynical thought of a day.

So about forty years ago, the Democrats and their intellectual leader, Brzezinski, wanted to get rid of the hated regime. What do they do? They are utilizing the maniacs from Saudi Arabia, like Bin Laden, and their CIA enablers, to suck Brezhnev into the war in Afghanistan.

When Russians crossed the border, triumphant Brzezinski informed Carter that he'd created a perfect trap: Russian Vietnam, that would put an end to the Soviet Empire. 

Related: Trump Crosses Neocons, Says No War With Iran

Who hates Trump with the passion that equals Brzezinski's hatred of Russia? Democrats.

So they are egging or silently condoning the maniacs abroad (Saudis, Israelis) and the maniacs at home (Bolton, Pompeo) -- to suck Trump into his Vietnam: Iranian war. That would surely be the end of his presidency.

Related: “There Is Nothing Normal About John Bolton”: Tucker Carlson Tears Into Warmongering Neocons (Video)

It appears that Trump --probably encouraged by Tucker Carlson (too bad Brezhnev and his regime never had such smart conservatives on their side) has avoided this trap.

But the bottom line, the cynical and intelligent Democrats, would go to bed with a devil, just to get into WH. And damn the consequences.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.golstein/posts/10214200051571015

Share:

My Musings on Georgia's Anti-Russian antics by Prof. Vladimir Golstein


My Musings on Georgia's Anti-Russian antics by Prof. Vladimir Golstein

We know that politicians play their games and use their strategies, smokescreens, and spinning to get what they want. If Russophobia pays, why not use it? That's what they do in Poland, and Ukraine, and United Kingdom, and Baltic States. If it works for local consumption only, fine.

Russian government probably uses it too -- what's the best way to unite the nation than to show that it is under siege. So I am not surprised that Russian press milks the images of angry Georgians for their own purposes. 

But both sides, while pursuing their myopic political goals are playing with the national feelings of Russians, something that I find unacceptable.

With the sloppy way perestroika was accomplished, Russians felt utterly humiliated. Just few facts for those who have neither memory, nor understanding.

1991, and then again in 1998 --The collapse of the ruble, which twice wiped out all people's savings. People with say, comfortable 10 thousand rubles on their accounts (which was a price of a good car) ended up with $20 bill for that. Then New Chechen war and its losses.

1998. 80% of Russian farms went bankrupt. 70 thousand factories closed. Epidemic of unemployment. 72 mil Russians (half of the country) fell below the poverty line.

In 2006 Russian government estimated that that there were 715 thousand homeless kids, while UNISEF raised this number to 3 mil. Suicide rate doubled, violent crime rate increased fourfold, and consumption of alcohol doubled in comparison with the Soviet period.

1999. NATO bombs the hell out of Serbia, and all Russians can do is to watch it in helpless anger, Eltsin's excursion into Pristina notwithstanding.

Add to that a total change in ethnic make up of Russian cities, where all of the sudden all the markets belong to Azeris, plenty of other businesses are run by Chechens and Georgians, and so on. Yet, Russians just stoically put up with that, like a chained bear, continue to swallow the baiting, that comes both from these ethnic minorities inside the country, and outside it.

People who die at sixty with zero money to their name have to hear that they are occupants, that they are slaves, pigs, soviet deplorables, and all other crap that the westernized liberals along with assorted nationalists from Ukraine, Georgia or Estonia, keep on throwing at them.

Related: CIA instructs its puppet regime in Georgia to makes provocations against Russia

What should be truly surprising is that there are so few ethnic and other sorts riots. Any other powerful group, would be rioting non stop. Luckily, the economics has improved since then, and plenty of Russians can feel justifiable proud of what their country has accomplished. Yet, the sense of national insult, national humiliation has remained. At least among the people who've survived these awful years.

So if Georgians or any other fool wants to play with fire, let them. But I don't recommend it. Pushkin had warned the authorities of a Russian revolt: senseless and merciless, long time ago.
Share:

[Video] Iran: U.S. presence in Syria is act of aggression featuring Prof. Vladimir Golstein

Iran's representative to the United Nations slams the United States for its illegal military presence in Syria, describing it as an act of aggression.




Gholam-Ali Khoshrou who was speaking at the Security Council’s special session on Syria said Iran is on the ground in that country on an invitation by Damascus. He added that Tehran is playing a constructive role in bringing peace and prosperity to Syria and supports all efforts toward a political solution. During the meeting held on Russia’s request, US ambassador Nikky Haley accused Russia and Iran of failing to protect civilians in Idlib province. She also threatened the use of force if the Syrian army uses chemical weapons. In reaction, the Russian ambassador accused the extremist groups of planning to launch a false flag chemical attack in Idlib.

Source: https://youtu.be/G2yv-7bqct0
Share: