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,"
Leftists Demand Japan “Embrace Multiculturalism” Because a Mixed Race Player Won the US Open
Daily Beast writer wants ‘xenophobic’ country with low immigration & low crime to open its borders
Leftists have begun demanding
that Japan, a country with low levels of immigration and a low crime
rate, begin accepting “multiculturalism” after a half-Japanese tennis
player with a Haitian-American father won the US Open.
Naomi Osaka became the first Japanese
tennis player to win a Grand Slam singles tournament when she defeated
Serena Williams in the final in New York City last weekend.
The fact that her win was greeted
enthusiastically by some in Japan and that Osaka is mixed race provided
leftists with an immediate excuse to insist that Japan open its borders
to mass immigration.
In an article entitled Japan Needs ‘Foreigner Blood’ Like Naomi Osaka’s,
the Daily Beast’s Jake Adelstein acknowledges that limited immigration,
ethnically homogenous Japan has a low crime rate and that shootings
remain in the single digits every year, but claims this is due to strong
policing and gun control laws.
Asserting that “xenophobia runs deep”
in Japan, Adelstein urges the country to “create the multiracial society
it needs to survive and thrive as a nation” due to its declining birth
rates, adding that the fact Osaka can barely speak Japanese shouldn’t be
an issue.
“With a dwindling population but a
slightly increasing number of international marriages, Japan has to
decide how to combat racism, embrace multiculturalism and tolerance if
it wants to survive,” he concludes, drawing attention to a UN migration
plan that suggests in order to keep the size of the working-age
population constant, Japan “would need 33.5 million immigrants from 1995
through 2050.”
Noticeably absent from Adelstein’s
argument is the fact that the vast majority of immigrants do not go on
to become star athletes. In reality, in most European countries that
have opened their borders to mass immigration, migrants go on welfare
and are significantly overrepresented in crime statistics.
Two example stand out. In Sweden,
which has suffered a rise in sexual assaults, grenade attacks and other
forms of violent crime since accepting a new wave of “refugees” in 2015,
58% of welfare payments go to migrants despite them making up 16% of the population.
Meanwhile, in Germany, which has seen
recent protests against mass immigration, violent crime has risen over
the last two years and 90% of it is due to migrants, according to the
German government’s own statistics.
The Japanese population itself is also
largely hostile to mass immigration, a view validated by the fact that
despite accepting extremely few Muslim refugees, two of them were arrested in the suspected gang rape of a woman in Tokyo in 2016.
A recent poll
of big and midsized firms found that only 38% favor allowing in
unskilled migrants despite Japan’s population decrease and the
opportunity to import cheap labor.
The number of foreigners living in
Japan has doubled in the past decade to 1.3 million, but that remains
below 2% of the work force.
As is documented in the video below,
not a million miles away in South Korea, well over 500,000 people
recently signed a petition saying they reject all Muslim immigration
into their country. Protesters took to the streets carrying signs that
said, “don’t be like Europe.”
Infowars has been banned by Facebook. Please help by sharing this article on your own Facebook page.
I
had today a stopover at a small provincial town in Northern Finland.
They were having their annual fair. After having enjoyed a fantastic
street stall portion of crispy fried vendace, I strolled around. I then
spotted the official Finnish protestant state church (yep, no separation
of state and church here) had their stall there, too. That prompted me
to ask a question, I long had in mind.
I approached the
representatives of the church and asked why the Finnish state church had
engaged in a propaganda campaign to support the jihadist terrorists of
Aleppo. From 12th to 24th of October 2016 the Finnish churches were
every day ringing their church bells “in support of the victims of
Aleppo bombings” by the Russian and Syrian forces. I asked those people
whether they knew that it was all the other way around and that the
Russians and Syrian government forces were liberating the people of
Aleppo from the brutal rule of the US sponsored terrorists. – They did
not know it.
“The church is engaged in various campaigns from
time to time,” I was told. – That I know, I said, and added that the
most recent campaign was that of being the official sponsor of the
Helsinki Pride sodomite pervert parade. ‘The church wants to live with
the times,” the young church official replied, and continued “that’s why
the church went in there as a business partner of the pride march.” –
BUSINESS PARTNER, I exclaimed. How can the church possibly be a business
partner of anything. What kind of business is this church engaged in?!?
“The church changes with the times,” my interlocutor said as three fat
women colleagues looked on. I was mighty surprised to hear that. I said,
how can the church which supposedly bases its faith in God’s immutable
words change. Are you then saying that the bible isn’t for real? And do
you mean the church was lying 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, when it
professed another opinion on sodomy? Or are you lying today? Which way
do you want to have it, I inquired?
I continued that line of
discussion and then eventually left with the note that I was happy that
so many people are leaving that fake politicized church. Membership used
to be some 90% of the population when I was young, and now it is down
to 60% and sinking.
I am not against sex in any consensual form
between willing adults performed in privacy, but I am against this NWO
globalist campaign of public perversion aimed at breaking down the
fabric of society by means of this devilish campaign.
This
perversion and its sister gender hoax is right up there with the climate
hoax as key means of the globalists to destroy family and national
values in order to break down society and make people more malleable for
one world government rule. Naturally, the population replacement
program by means of mass migration serves the same cause.
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.
A Sundance documentary ostensibly about the 1961 plane crash which killed then UN Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, contains explosive claims of a conspiracy to spread HIV among South Africa’s black population.
Directed by controversial Danish journalist, filmmaker, and provocateur Mads Brügger, ‘Cold Case Hammarskjold,’ debuted Saturday at the Sundance Film Festival.
It details an investigation into the largely unsolved death of Swedish diplomat and former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold, whose DC-6 plane crashed near Ndola, Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia). Initial investigations identified the cause as pilot error or mere mechanical fault, though doubts have persisted in the 50+ years since the crash.
Throughout the course of the new documentary, Brügger and his team investigate a white militia, the South African Institute for Maritime Research (SAIMR). According to documents the filmmakers uncovered, the group operated with support from the CIA and British Intelligence and orchestrated the 1961 plane crash which killed Hammarskjold. The documentarians eventually encounter and interview a man named Alexander Jones who is allegedly a former member of the group.
Jones, who is not related to Alex Jones of InfoWars, claims the mercenary group used phony vaccinations to spread HIV with a view to wiping out the black population of South Africa, in addition to carrying out the Hammarskjold assassination.
“We were at war,” Jones says, as cited by The New York Times. “Black people in South Africa were the enemy.”
However, medical experts have already dismissed Jones’ claims as medically dubious and unscientific in the extreme.
“The probability that they were able to do this is close to zero,” said Dr. Salim S Abdool Karim, the director of Caprisa, an AIDS research center in South Africa, citing the immense resources that would be required to conduct such a far-fetched attempt at genocide.
Notwithstanding the technological limitations of the 1990s, including facilities to rival that of the Centers for disease control and prevention in the US in addition to millions of dollars in funding, HIV is extraordinarily difficult to isolate, transport and grow in a laboratory environment, let alone distribute en masse in a clandestine operation, Dr Abdool explains.
However, Jones claims he visited a research facility in the 1990s that was used for “for sinister experimentation” and that he was certain its intent was "to eradicate black people.”
Many have criticized the filmmakers for helping to sow distrust of the medical establishment in a country that already has one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world while reviving dangerous conspiracy theories that have persisted since the Cold War.
The filmmaker, who has previously been described as a 'fabulist' and 'provocateur', according to the Hollywood Reporter, admits he has been unable to corroborate Jones' ever-evolving story; As the documentary makers continued to question Jones, his accounts became more and more dubious as he professed firsthand knowledge of people that had seemingly been brought to his attention by the documentarians themselves.
Russia remains a nation of heavy drinkers, but alcohol consumption
has fallen 43 percent from 2003 to 2016, a key factor in the country’s
rapid rise in life expectancy, the World Health Organization said on
Tuesday.
Russians consume the equivalent of 11-12 liters worth of
pure ethanol a year, among the world’s highest consumption levels, but
the reduction since 2003 has substantially reduced mortality, the WHO
said in a report.
Male life expectancy sank to a low of 57 years
in the 1990s, but began to climb significantly in 2003 as drinking
levels peaked, the report said.
It
now stands at almost 68 years for men and 78 years for women. Mortality
resulting from all causes dropped by 39 percent from 2003 to 2018 in
men and by 36 percent for women, according to the study, which looked at
trends over almost 30 years.
The study said there was a clear
correlation between national alcohol consumption and mortality rates and
life expectancy, and that the reduction in drinking resulted from
government policies adopted from 2000.
“...our publication
provides a clear causal link between the implementation of effective
alcohol policies and a reversal of mortality trends,” the study wrote.
President
Vladimir Putin who has been in power since the turn of the century is
battling a demographic slump. Last year the population contracted by
86,000 people, the first annual contraction recorded in a decade, the
state statistics service said.
Putin has long cultivated
an image of sobriety in contrast to his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, whom
many Russians associate with drunken and embarrassing gaffes.
The
study pointed to alcohol policy reforms aimed at reducing the share of
smuggled or home-made alcohol on the market, increasing alcohol excise
taxes and raising the minimum price for vodka and other spirits.
Jon Hellevig: "Instead of bailing out banks and oligarchs, Kazakhstan will write off
loans of the poor. This has been announced by new Kazakh president
Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. There’s an unexpected corner of the world from
where sound and fair financial policies emanate!
Doing this
President Tokayev is actually reviving an ancient traditions of
cancelling debts when a new ruler took over going back to Hammurabi, the
Sumerians and other Near Eastern rulers. Michael Hudson has written a
book called “And Forgive their Debts” depicting this story from Babylonia and to other Bronze Age Near Eastern realms.
Hudson tells that this concept of starting from a clean slate was also
at the center of the Old and New Testaments, in the form of the Jubilee
Year. Jesus actually said: “Forgive them their debts,” but it was
converted by the Church to mean something vague in the form of: “Forgive
them their sins.” Actually meaning, just pay up, and we’ll deal with
the debts at the final judgement once you kick the bucket.
Forgiving of debts was also in ancient Greece and Rome an important
policy goal in the fight against the oligarchs. Should become again."
Nariman Gizitdinov and Tony Halpin • Bloomberg
Kazakhstan President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said the debt relief would cost less than $1bn [Pavel Golovkin/Pool/Reuters]
Kazakh
President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said he'll write off bad loans held by a
sixth of the central Asian country's population, while signaling a
sharp change in policy to end costly state bailouts of private banks.
The loan-forgiveness program is Tokayev's first major policy
announcement since he was elected president on June 9 in a choreographed
transfer of power that began when longtime leader Nursultan Nazarbayev
stepped down as head of state in March. His victory was met with rare
and widespread protests.
Bank bailouts are also a sensitive issue in Kazakhstan, which has
been mired in a decade-long crisis in which the government has pumped at
least $18 billion into lenders to keep the sector from collapsing under
the weight of bad debts. The central bank is conducting a review of
asset quality, prompting speculation that a new round of bailouts may be
in the works.
"My attitude is that there should be no governmental bailouts" for
lenders, Tokayev, 66, said in an interview Tuesday in the capital,
Nur-Sultan. "My assessment of this issue as a president is that the
government should not get involved any more, any longer, with its loans
as far as private banks are concerned."
Debt relief
While the debt-relief initiative may help lenders, the total
cost is likely to come in at "a bit less than $1 billion," according to
Tokayev. More than 3 million Kazakhs in the energy-rich country of 18
million will get help to escape debts averaging 300,000 tenge ($790), he
said. It is aimed at "people who find themselves in very difficult
living circumstances," he said.
About 4,000 people were detained by police during a rare outburst of
protests against what activists said was a lack of real choice in the
recent vote, which Tokayev won easily with 71% support. Leader-for-life
Nazarbayev, 78, handed the presidency to Tokayev in March, who called
the early election "to remove any uncertainty." International
observers criticized the conduct of the vote.
The new president's debt forgiveness program is similar to a
controversial policy unveiled by Georgia's ruling party,
which announced the write-off of loans for 600,000 people days before a
hotly-contested presidential election won by its candidate in November.
"We are not following the example of Georgia, this is a different case"
focused on the poorest citizens, Tokayev said.
Nazarbayev berated ministers as "cowards" in January for failing to
clean up the banking system, shortly before he dismissed the government
and replaced the central bank governor. Yet the biggest bank rescues
have involved people close to the former president's inner circle.
While Tokayev denied that political connections played a role in past
bailouts, "the lesson has been accepted by us," he said. "We will take
lessons from the past, from what has happened in the banking system, and
I think that in a couple of years you'll have absolutely new
questions."
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.
'I don't happen to think that Tommy Robinson is far-right' - UKIP leader Gerard Batten says he would support bringing the former EDL leader into his party.
"The report found that 84% of ‘grooming gang’ offenders were (South)
Asian, while they only make up 7% of total UK population and that the
majority of these offenders are of Pakistani origin with Muslim
heritage. The report later goes on to discuss and analyse these cultural
and religious contexts in order to explain why this demographic
features so prominently in this specific crime. The report concludes
with a number of recommendations that we hope will begin the process of
working towards resolutions." -- Source: Press Release – NEW QUILLIAM REPORT ON ‘GROOMING GANGS’
Russia Was Right: The US Spits Upon Peace in Korea
A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie
Late last year, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov questioned whether America’s goal for the Korean peninsula is peace or whether it is simply to consummately provoke? He further lambasted US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley for delivering “a really blood-soaked tirade” against North Korea at the UN Security Council.
Today, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the US bluff has been called by Pyongyang and consequently the only reaction the US can muster is one of continued hostility, insults and childish brinksmanship.
North and South Korean officials have reopened their direct phone line in preparation for further talks. It is not beyond the realm of possible that Kim Jong-un may hold a phone conversation with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, sometime in the near future.
While the two Korean states have developed along entirely different political paths, many foreign observers forget that as a single Korean people, there is no animosity between individuals on opposite sides of the border.
North Korean songs about unification are neither violent nor boastful, they are generally melancholic pieces about the absence of one’s fellow man and the hope for a more fraternal future.
Likewise, South Korea’s population is overwhelmingly in favour of peace and reconciliation. Demonstrations against the US militarisation of the Korean peninsula are becoming ever more common in the South as ordinary people make impassioned stands in the name of peace and comradeship.
The latest developments include a possible olive branch from Pyongyang to the South in what seems to be the early stages of a renewed Sunshine policy, in the form of a DPRK offer to participate in the forthcoming Winter Olympics in South Korea.
One of the major differences between the possible Sunshine Policy of 2018 and the one which began in 1998, is that this time, the first overture was initiated by North Korea’s leader, whilst 20 years ago, South Korea’s Kim Dae-jung made the first move towards political openness with Pyongyang.
This is significant because it proves that for all the talk of how “mysterious” North Korea is, in reality the North Korean government has done everything it said it would.
North Korea’s position can be summarised in the following way:
Once North Korea has developed a fully functional nuclear deterrent capable of striking the US mainland, in order to counter US nuclear weapons which can strike anywhere in the world—subsequently, Pyongyang will engage in peace talks with any party that approaches it with respect and does not demand an end to its nuclear deterrent.
North Korea has also stated that it will only begin to entertain Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposals for a tripartite economic initiative encompassing Russia and the two Korean states, once Pyongyang is satisfied that Seoul does not seek to undermine the DPRK’s security. Such statements were initially offered by the North Korean delegation to the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, in September of 2017.
It would appear that North Korea’s overtures of South Korea in January of 2018 are an indication that sufficient trust has been secured and Pyongyang will now take the early steps which are necessary in order to begin participation in Putin’s tripartite economic initiative—an initiative which South Korea’s President has also received positively.
For a region described as “unstable” and in spite of constant threats from the US to “destroy” North Korea, things are progressing in a surprisingly orderly fashion. It could be said that “everything is going according to plan” and certainly from the perspective of North Korea, Pyongyang’s officials are doing everything they said they would do while South Korea under Moon Jae-in has proved itself to be genuinely interested in cooperation and peace rather than confrontation and provocation.
Russia and China meanwhile have encouraged cross-border cooperation and dialogue as both nations have developed positive relations with South Korea. In China’s case, it could be argued that at this point in time, relations between Beijing and Seoul are smoother than those between Beijing and Pyongyang. That notwithstanding, both Russia and China are certain to welcome the re-commencement of dialogue between the two Koreas.
Indeed, any nation interested in genuine peace would welcome the latest moves, but one large nation stands alone in protesting the latest positive developments on the Korean peninsula. Predictably, this nation is the United States.
In taking a pessimistic and indeed threatening attitude to North Korea, as expressed in outrageous Tweets from Donald Trump and statements from Nikki Haley made after Kim Jong-un committed himself to dialogue and reconciliation with South Korea, the US has revealed a truth that many, including Russia’s Foreign Minister, have long acknowledged: peace is not the American goal for the Korean peninsula.
Instead, the US wants a perpetually frozen conflict which occasionally bushes up against disaster in order to maintain a powerful military presence in South Korea. The reason for this is because the US is intent on disrupting economic connectivity between the two Koreas who in turn would link up with both Russia and China as part of the One Belt—One Road initiative.
This is the main goal of the US in the region. It is one that seeks to perpetuate conflict in order to retard China’s economic progress with its neighbours and all with the benefit of increasing the sale of overpriced weapons to countries like Japan.
The two Koreas, China and Russia must not be deterred by the United Sates. Ultimately, it is up to the leaders in Seoul, Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow to forge a successful and pragmatic peace plan which ultimately could only be destroyed if the US became mad enough to start a new war in the region—something it seems even Trump’s regime is not willing to risk.
In spite of talk of “de-nuclearisation”, at this point in time, such a goal is unrealistic. The most important aim ought to be the creation of an economically integrated environment where the
importance of such weapons becomes minimised based on an atmosphere of trust.
North Korea is now ready to trust South Korea, in spite of its distrust of the US. US officials only have themselves to blame for alienating North Korea as much as they have.
There Are No
“Overreactions” When Fighting Terror and Sedition
A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie
When it comes to securing one’s nation, protecting the
people and fighting terrorism organised
by some of the most aggressive states in history—no “reaction” is too tough.
There is in fact, no such thing as an overreaction in such situations.
According to the latest reports from Sputnik, a reliable
source which is in no way anti-Iranian, “protests” yesterday became even more
charged, with some “protesters” shown attacking a facility belonging to Iran’s
elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. No one with a reasonable mind could
believe that attacking the IRGC is an anyway related to any peaceful demonstration
over domestic price increases. This was an act of terrorism, if not an act of
war.
If one thinks such words are “strong”, this if of course
intentional. A nation can only quash sedition if it does so in such a way that
it creates a lasting deterrent against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so
that such fiends never attempt such foolish treachery ever again.
One of the reasons that Chinese cities are among the safest
in the world is because China takes all crimes deeply seriously. This is
reflected in the sentences that Chinese courts enforce upon such ruthless criminals.
Last year, a group of bandits from the United States who were jailed in China
for theft, learnt rapidly, just how seriously China takes the criminal activities
of lowlifes.
The only reason they were released was due to the personal
intervention of the US President who begged President Xi Jinping for clemency
in order to save face. Even Trump later regretted his actions and publically
expressed this on Twitter.
Iran’s soft approach to sedition, as conveyed in President
Rouhani’s speech yesterday, could be interpreted both as a sign of confidence
in the unity and strength of the state, but it could equally be interpreted as
a supremely naïve statement which overlooks the basic principles of how to stop
sedition, not just in the immediate term but in the long term.
In reality, if one’s security forces cracks down hard on a
single seditious “protest”--enough for the nation not to be distracted by the
event, but enough for would be traitors and foreign enemies to get the
message—then such a state will increase the likelihood that such seditious acts
or acts of war will never be attempted again in the long term future. This is
the priceless value of a deterrent effect.
If one fights against thuggery, seditious mob tactics and
against the presence of foreign agents seeking to ignite an insurgency on one’s
soil, with the full force of military strength, the enemies will not attempt
such methods again. Such an “overreaction” means that one will actually save
national exhaustion, resources and ultimately lives in the medium and long
term.
When Brother Muammar Gaddafi learned that his nation was
under attack from the terrorist proxies of foreign regimes, he spoke of the
need to purify the nation, “street to street…house to house…”.
Sadly, for Gaddafi, he had foolishly disarmed years before
which subjected Libya to the onslaught of NATO weaponry that countries like the
DPRK are protected from due to their nuclear deterrent.
Iran does not have the material problem of Libya, but it
does have a problem of not speaking out forcefully against sedition before it
has the chance to inspire the enemies of Iran to sink their teeth in. It is a
problem that can and should be fixed.
Already, the US and “Israel” are salivating at the prospect
of reinstalling the corrupt heir to the discredited Iranian throne—the Zionist
fool Reza Pahlavi, who is cheering on the traitors from his mansion in Beverly
Hills, USA.
Iran must put an end not just to the movements of the
scoundrels in the street but to future generations of scoundrels, the ambitious
of foreign agents and traitors and most importantly the wicked desires of the
Zionist and American regimes.
This is no time to be polite or passive, ultimately many
innocent Iranians could become harmed if this blasé attitude continues for much
longer.
The only way to do this is to crack down on sedition as
China did in 1989.
As I previously wrote,
“During China in the 1980s, an increased number of so-called
intellectuals went to academic institutions in the United States where they
became seduced by and intentionally programmed by US government operatives keen
to see a seditious revolt in the People’s Republic of China--one with the
ultimate goal of bringing the regime in Chinese Taipei (aka Taiwan) back to
power in Beijing.
Because a readymade regime in Chinese Taipei existed which
salivated for power over all of China, the CIA and other aggressive actors did
not need to go to the effort of forging a new regime or political model—they
simply needed to create agitation among a class of elites in Beijing in order
to try and bring down the People’s Republic of China.
Hu Yaobang became the General Secretary of the Communist
Party of China (CPC) in 1982 and by the middle of the decade, he became
increasingly seduced by the liberal fantasies peddled by western “educated”
academics.
His open flirtations with liberal social ideology proved too
much to Deng and other social traditionalists and he was removed from power in
favour of Zhao Ziyang in 1987.
When Hu died in 1989, subversive western orchestrated
“protests” among “students” and their academic masters began to foment with
Tiananmen Square being a focal point. Rather than put a quick end to the
numerically small displays, Zhao Ziyang instead offered sympathy to many of the
“protesters”.
Zhao was in many ways one part traitor and one part naive. A
man of great experience and with a deeply important political position such as
Zhao should have been aware, as others including Deng were, that the “protests”
were neither genuine nor spontaneous. He should have realised that the
“protests” were an attempt to overthrow the very institutions of the state,
paving the way for a pro-western regime. To deny this, as he did, was a sign of
both carelessness and a dereliction of duty.
Part of Zhao however did likely feel for the fact that young
useful idiots of a western plot essentially volunteered themselves to be on the
front line of a proxy war. However, his interventions proved totally
insufficient and even had the effect of encouraging the conspirators.
The western orchestrators of the “protests” coordinated them
to coincide with the official state visit of Mikhail Gorbachev. A visit which
heralded the reconciliation between the two great Communist superpowers,
instead became an attempt by the west to embarrass both China and the USSR in
the same place and at the same time.
Zhao was finally removed from power in 1989 as China sent
out the People’s Liberation Army to cleanse the streets of the western agents
and restore order.
The vast majority of the Chinese population was unaffected
by the events of 1989, but the ruling elite realised that they needed to take
precautions to avoid such western meddling in the future.
China rapidly recovered because of the ultimately decisive action
the government took in putting an end to the “protests” and as a result, China
is the unshakable powerhouse that it is today.
Although Iran is smaller than China, the west and “Israel”
remain frightened of the prospect of direct military confrontation. They are
equally afraid to take on Iran in Syria or Iraq by engaging with the limited
number of Iranian anti-terrorist military advisors in the Arab nations.
Because of this, the US and “Israel” have devised a plan to
“counter Iran” the sparse details of which have been published in Zionist
media.
Like clockwork, “protests” in Tehran and several other
Iranian cities broke out simultaneous to the publication of reports on an
anti-Iranian agreement made between the US regime and the Zionist entity.
Allegedly, the protesters are agitating for economic reform and price controls,
but anyone who is not totally naive can see the direct correlation between the
reports from Zionist media and the western orchestrated protests in Iran.
This is not the first time the west has attempted to use
“protesters” to attempt and destroy the Islamic Revolution. So-called Iranian
liberals were mobilised by western and “Israeli” actors in 2011.
In reality these “liberals” are a combination of reactionary
monarchists, counter-revolutionary hooligans and useful idiots taking orders
from Iranians going back and forth between California and Iran, acting under
the same kinds of orders as the Chinese “academics” of the 1980s who conspired
against the People’s Republic of China.
It is an open secret that “Israel” pours millions into
Iranian groups based primarily in the US whose goal is to destroy the Islamic
Revolution and restore the pro-western monarchy whose obscenely gluttonous
leaders remain in exile, primarily in the US.
As I write this piece, it has been confirmed that an
al-Qaeda linked group of terrorists from Iranian Balochistan have blown up a
major oil pipeline in western Iran. This is what happens when traitors are not
dealt with—the terrorists rush in.
Iran cannot take any further chances. As China learned, a
short but hard crackdown on sedition is necessary in order to avoid the total
destruction of the state, its people and society.
Many Iranians will not want to hear this. Many wish to
pretend that the protests will simply fizzle out due to their small size and
seemingly innocent origins. This attitude however is ultimately one derived
from fiction, one which puts the lives of every Iranian man, woman and child in
danger.
Western backed so-called “colour revolutions” generally
begin with an irritating whimper and end with a blood-soaked bang.
Like China, Iran has it within its power to easily crush the
seditious radicals. If Iran is to avoid the fate of Libya and others, it must
act swiftly and decisively. The Zionist regime is using the events in Tehran
and elsewhere as a test to see how far they can push Iran. The government must
not allow the enemy to gain an inch.
It is time for a 1989 Chinese style law and order operation
in Iran”.
Since I wrote this, two days ago, the pressing need for such
a crackdown is all the more important. Iranian leaders must channel the
patriotic rhetoric of Gaddafi and the laser like precision of Chinese officials
in 1989, who were fully aware that the happiness of future generations of the people
depended on a rapid extinguishing of sedition’s dirty flame.
Now is not the time to wait, nor is it the time to care what
the west thinks. Iran must double down on cultivating its new friendships and
let the west rot like a rotten fruit on a wilting branch.
It is time to end all sedition and send a clear message to
the aggressors in Tel Aviv and Washington that “None shall pass”!
![Kazakhstan President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said the debt relief would cost less than $1bn [Pavel Golovkin/Pool/Reuters]](https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2019/6/26/b0d6e4b223b74241bd14d599a84cf662_18.jpg "Kazakhstan ends bank bailouts, writes off people's debts instead")
Liberteon