by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
THE FIRST ACCUSATION, which is the source of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, was in 2012 under U.S. President Barack Obama, and it alleged that Sergei Magnitsky had been a whistleblower in Russia who was a lawyer who uncovered corruption in Russia’s Government and was imprisoned for that and beaten to death there for that. Magnitsky was, in fact, no whistleblower, and no lawyer, but the accountant of American billionaire Bill Browder, who had been charged by the Russian Government (and who then fled Russia) as having tax-defrauded the Russian Government of $230 million. And, Magnitsky’s death in prison was due to inadequate medical care of his pancreatitis by the medical personnel there, not (as Browder alleged) to any “beating.”
THE SECOND ACCUSATION, in 2014, is that “Russia stole Crimea.” This charge is the source of additional (and more severe) sanctions against Russis, and also of NATO’s massing of troops and weapons on and near Russia’s border, which are massed there allegedly to ‘protect’ European nations against ‘Russian aggression’ (such as ‘seizing Crimea’). It’s all founded on basic lies regarding Crimea and Ukraine. A fuller presentation of that case is here. But what constitutes the most remarkable evidence of all in this entire matter are two crucial phone-conversations. The first is the 27 January 2014 phone-conversation whereby the chief agent, Victoria Nuland, whom Obama had assigned to organize the coup to overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected President Victor Yanukovych, gave the order as to whom Yanukovych’s replacement would be. This call is grossly misrepresented if not entirely ignored by the U.S. regime’s ‘journalists’ and ‘historians’. Nuland famously said there “Fuck the EU” (for the EU’s wanting a more moderate and less-nazi alternative to be selected). That much of the call was reported in the Western press (though with virtually no context as to what it meant and why she had said it), but the rest — the historically crucial part of it — wasn’t. This historically mega-important phone-call, which was posted to the internet a week later, on February 4th — three weeks before the man whom she named there received (just as she had instructed) the appointment to lead the post-coup Ukraine — isn’t even being denied by Washington. Instead, it’s either ignored by them, or else totally misrepresented, in the ‘historical’ accounts by the agents of the U.S. regime.
Especially remarkable about this phone-conversation, to select Ukraine’s new leader, is that it wasn’t between Ukrainians, but was instead between two Americans, selecting the person who would soon be appointed by the U.S. regime to rule Ukrainians; it actually obliterated Ukrainian national sovereignty. Nuland told Pyatt not to appoint the moderate Vitally Klitschko, the EU’s favorite, to become Ukraine’s new leader, but instead to appoint the rabidly anti-Russian Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Here, then, is the most crucial part of this historically crucial phone-conversation, the instruction she gave there that set “the New Cold War” — the movement toward World War III — overtly into motion (after its covert start on the night of 24 February 1990):
Nuland: … Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience the governing experience; he’s the… what he needs is Klitsch [the leading moderate] and Tiahnybok [an admirer of Hitler] on the outside; he [Yats] needs to be talking to them four times a week you know. I just think Klitch going in, he’s going to be, at that level, working for Yatsenyuk; it’s just not going to work.
Pyatt: Yeah [you’re right], no [I was wrong to think that Klitschko should become the new ruler], I think that’s right. Ok. Good.
Then, she referred, in the call, to her agent (just like she was Obama’s agent), Jeff Feltman, who had been assigned to persuade the U.N.’s Ban ki-Moon and his envoy handling Ukraine — who was Holland’s former Ambassador to Ukraine, the anti-Russian and pro-American Robert Serry — to go along with the U.S., in this context:
I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning; he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry; did I write you that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: Ok. He’s now gotten both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. That would be great, I think, to help glue this thing, and to have the UN help glue it, and, you know, fuck the EU.
Feltman chose Serry to become officially appointed on 5 March 2014 by Ban ki-Moon to “mediate the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.” (Whether Russia’s President Vladimir Putin ever knew that the U.N.’s ‘mediator’ had been chosen by Obama’s people, is unknown; presumably, he knew of the Nuland-Pyatt phone-conversation; but certainly Russia’s U.N. Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, wasn’t comfortable about Serry’s representing the U.N. on this matter; and Crimeans also were outright hostile toward Serry.)
In other words: this was a set-up deal, set up in Washington, to create — and with the U.N.’s acceptance — a rabidly anti-Russian government, right on Russia’s doorstep, in adjoining Ukraine. Would the U.N. have accepted Russia’s replacing Mexico’s Government in a bloody coup and installing a rabidly anti-U.S. regime there? Did the U.S. in 1962 accept Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, which is 100 miles away from the U.S.? Of course not. Why should Russia do that, in 2014 — or ever?
Then, in a phone-call on February 26th, occurred the second important item of evidence. The foreign-affairs chief of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, was confidentially informed by her investigator, Urmas Paet, that the new Government in Ukraine was not actually the result of what the democratically elected Government had done, but was instead a coup by “the new coalition” government that had just succeeded at overthrowing the elected Government. This is from the transcript:
What was quite disturbing, the same oligarch [Poroshenko — and so when he then became Ukraine’s President three months later, he already knew this] told that well, all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, [this will shock Ashton, who thought that Yanukovych had masterminded the killings] that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides [so, Poroshenko himself knows that his regime is based on a false-flag U.S.-controlled coup d’etat against his predecessor, Yanukovych — and he even said as much]
Well, that’s yes, …
So that and then she [Dr. Olga Bolgomets] also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can, you know, say that it’s the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition that they don’t want to investigate, what exactly happened; so that now there is stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.
Notice here that Paet had tactfully avoided saying that Ashton’s assumption that it had been Yanukovych was false; instead, he totally ignored her having suggested that, and he here simply said that the evidence went totally in the opposite direction, the direction that Poroshenko himself knew to be true, that the guilty party was “the new coalition,” which Paet said nothing about, and Ashton asked him no questions about it or about what country had actually organized it. Ashton responded:
I think that we do want to investigate.
That sentiment on her part lasted, however, only about one second.
I mean I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh?
Ashton here seemed to have felt outright embarrassed, and she thus ended in a “Gosh” that was almost inaudible, as if a question, and then she immediately proceeded simply to ignore this crucial matter entirely. All of the evidence suggests that she was exceedingly reluctant to believe that in the overthrow, the bad guys had actually been on the anti-Yanukovych side. The overthrow of Yanukovych has since been called “the most blatant coup in history”.
On the day when the coup peaked, 20 February 2014, there was an event which turned the residents of Crimea even more against the overthrow-Yanukovych demonstrators than Crimeans already were (and Crimea had voted over 75% for Yanukovych, so they were strongly against this overthrow): it was “The Anti-Crimean Pogrom that Sparked Crimea’s Breakaway”.
Almost immediately after Yatsenyuk became the leader of Ukraine, he sacked the existing three Deputy Defense Ministers, on March 5th, and replaced them with three rabidly anti-Russian neo-Nazis, who were committed to his bombing-policy, to eliminate enough Yanukovych-voters so that the new Government, in future elections, would be able to be a continuation of Yatsenyuk’s instead of a restoration of the one that had preceded Yatsenyuk’s. The person who was made the Minister of Defense, Mikhail Koval, announced his intention to ethnically cleanse from southeastern Ukraine the “subhumans” who voted for Yanukovych, who will “be resettled in other regions,” meaning either Russia (if Russia accepts these Ukrainian refugees) or else concentration-camps inside Ukraine (and then perhaps death). “There will be a thorough filtration of people.” (That English translation has since been taken down; so, instead, try this and this.) Their property will be confiscated, and “Land parcels will be given out for free to the servicemen of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and other military formations, as well as to the employees of Interior Ministry and the Security Service of Ukraine that are defending territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country in eastern and southeastern regions of Ukraine.” That’s the euphemism for the ethnic cleansing, and mass-theft, which followed. And here is more of that, and more, and more, of this U.S.-imposed nazism. In other words, Obama’s rulers of Ukraine were rewarding ethnic-cleansing, and were offering their soldiers the opportunity to grab legally the property of their victims.
On 15 November 2017, two of the foreign mercenaries who had served as snipers in the Ukrainian coup confessed on Italian television and described how they had come to be hired for the job, by Mikheil Saakashvili (who is a U.S. Deep State asset).
The result of the U.S. regime’s takeover of Ukraine’s Government is this. And a generation of young Ukrainians are now being taught nazism, right on the border of Russia — Russia being the one country that in World War II had done the most to conquer the Nazis. The U.S. Government has flipped to pro-nazi. And time after time after time, the U.S. leads the three-or-fewer nations that vote at the U.N. against condemning nazism. That’s right: America, which under President FDR had fought against the Nazis and the other fascist regimes, now was and is itself the world’s leading racist-fascist, or ideologically nazi (but this time mainly against Russians, instead of mainly against Jews), regime, itself. (In fact, today’s America is allied with the ideologically racist-fascist, or nazi, anti-Palestinian, Israeli regime. And, it’s allied also with the nazi — but anti-Shiite — Saud regime, which was founded in 1744 on the basis of hating Shiites.)
Ukraine’s economy was destroyed by the U.S.-imposed Ukrainian regime. Until around 2013, Ukraine’s economy was fairly stable, but then the coup-operation, which had begun in Washington in 2011, for regime-change in both Ukraine and Syria, culminated successfully in Ukraine in February 2014. Ukraine’s national debt then nearly quadrupled, between 2013 and 2017, while Ukraine’s GDP simultaneously declined 39%:
Ukraine: National debt from 2012 to 2017 (in billion U.S. dollars)
Ukraine: GDP from 2012 to 2017
Because of what the U.S. regime did to Ukraine, Ukraine now has vastly higher debt, and also significantly reduced GDP from which to pay it. Nothing about this operation was at all democratic. The opposition to this operation was democratic. That’s not to say the crowd who had campaigned at the Maidan Square against Ukraine’s endemic corruption were anti-democratic, but that their leaders were — and so Ukraine is even more corrupt now than it was under Yanukovych. Four days before the Nuland-anointed Yatsenyuk left Ukraine’s Government, he tweeted on 10 April 2016, “I thank the colleagues who’ve acted honestly and selflessly. The last 2 Govs [his and Poroshenkos] were unique. They were the first manifestations of New Ukraine.” Look at the heap of contempt which his former followers heaped there upon that tweet. The pro-U.S.-regime site Euractive noted on that same day, that “his party’s approval rating has slumped to just two percent” and blamed it not on his ethnic-cleansing campaign and his sinking his country into hock to foreign investors in order to fund that war against the regions that had voted 90% for Yanukovych, but instead mainly “because of the painful transition away from a state-sustained economy” — not enough privatization, not enough graft for insider-investors to have been able to suck Ukrainians even drier than they’ve done.
All indications are that, right after the February 2014 coup, over 90% of Crimeans wanted to become Russians again, and that over 90% are happy today to be Russians again (which Crimea had been until 1954 when the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine). But the U.S. regime and its allies demand that Crimeans be taken over by the nazi racist anti-Russian and anti-Crimean regime the U.S. installed in Ukraine. The right of self-determination of peoples is honored (at least verbally) in The West for Spain’s Catalonians and for UK’s Scotts, but not at all for Crimeans, whom The West is instead determined to, essentially, destroy, by diktat (which is what the U.S.-imposed Ukrainian regime wants to do to Crimeans).
Instead of “Putin seized Crimea,” the reality is: Obama seized Ukraine. Crimeans rejected his seizure. “Putin seized Crimea” is lie #2.
THE THIRD ACCUSATION is that Russia’s Government, if not Putin himself, surreptitiously disclosed through “hacks” supplied to Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton’s and her campaign’s emails, and that Russia otherwise also campaigned, via Facebook ads, to make Donald Trump win against Hillary Clinton. Wikileaks said that the emails actually arrived via leaks not hacks, and that the leaks were from inside the Democratic Party, not from anyone outside the United States. Regarding the Facebook ads, the New York Times on 20 September 2018, bannered a 9,700-word article, “The Plot to Subvert an Election: Unraveling the Russia Story So Far”, and buried 92% of the way through it, as merely a clause in a sentence, the crucial fact that “no public evidence has emerged showing that his [Trump’s] campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money.” This startlingly anomalous declaration by their reporters was publicly noted to be anomalous, on the very same day as the article was published, when the “Moon of Alabama” blogger headlined “NYT Admits That Its ‘Mountain of Evidence’ For Russian Collusion Is Smaller Than A Molehill”. Then, on October 1st appeared, from the “Alternative Insight” blogger, “The New York Times Plots the 2016 Election”, opening:
The article starts with
“ON AN OCTOBER AFTERNOON BEFORE THE 2016 ELECTION, a huge banner was unfurled from the Manhattan Bridge in New York City: Vladimir V. Putin against a Russian-flag background…”
The paragraph ends with
“In November, shortly after Donald J. Trump eked out a victory that Moscow had worked to assist, an even bigger banner appeared.”
Note that before any facts are presented, the reader is confronted with a conclusion “Moscow had worked to assist” in Trump’s victory.
“Police never identified who had hung the banners, but there were clues. The earliest promoters of the images on Twitter were American-sounding accounts, including @LeroyLovesUSA, later exposed as Russian fakes operated from St. Petersburg to influence American voters.”
Although described “as Russian fakes operated from St. Petersburg to influence American voters,” the banners had nothing to do with the election, and the second banner was unfurled after the election. Why conclude they are Russian fakes? Could not these individuals be operating similar to many persons who have Facebook accounts, hiding their real names when commenting on controversial issues?
These lines are followed by leaps into fantasy.
“The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history.”
How do a few unknown persons, supposedly living in St. Petersburg, suddenly morph into “The Kremlin?” How could, “The banners be intended as visual victory laps?” How is this, “the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history?” A succeeding paragraph proves the article is a bundle of unproven statements. Before presenting any facts, and using conjecture, other conclusions are impressed into the readers’ minds.
“But to travel back to 2016 and trace the major plotlines of the Russian attack is to underscore what we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign.”
What are “the major plotlines,” of what “Russian attack,” that makes it certain that “The Russians carried out a landmark (ED: Why landmark?) intervention?”
Where has there been any evidence of “Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin?”
And, then, on November 2nd, appeared, from Gareth Porter, at Consortium News, a total mathematical disproof of the Times’s central allegation — of “The Times‘ claim last month that Russian Facebook posts reached nearly as many Americans as actually voted in the 2016 election.” He headlined “33 Trillion More Reasons Why The New York Times Gets it Wrong on Russia-gate” and displayed the mathematical impossibility of what the Facebook-ads hypothesis (which was accepted unquestioningly by the Times) asserts. He also exposed that the Facebook-ads hypothesis is based on misrepresenting what Facebook had actually asserted:
The newspaper said: “Even by the vertiginous standards of social media, the reach of their effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of 126 million Americans on Facebook alone.” The paper argued that 126 million was “not far short of the 137 million people who would vote in the 2016 presidential election.” …
The newspaper failed to tell their readers that Facebook account holders in the United States had been “served” 33 trillion Facebook posts during that same period — 413 million times more than the 80,000 posts from the Russian company.
What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 31, 2017 is a far cry from what the Times claims. “Our best estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served one of these [private Russian company, Internet Research Agency, ‘IRA’-generated] stories at some time during the two year period,” Stretch said.
Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established fact. He said an estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at least one story from the IRA –- not over the ten week election period, but over 194 weeks during the two years 2015 through 2017—including a full year after the election.
That means only an estimated 29 million FB users may have gotten at least one story in their feed in two years. The 126 million figure is based only on an assumption that they shared it with others, according to Stretch.
Facebook didn’t even claim most of those 80,000 IRA posts were election–related. It offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million people were.
In addition, Facebook’s Vice President for News Feed, Adam Moseri, acknowledged in 2016 that FB subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA stories that actually make it into a subscriber’s news feed on any given day are actually read.
And now, according to the further research, the odds that Americans saw any of these IRA ads—let alone were influenced by them—are even more astronomical. In his Oct. 2017 testimony, Stretch said that from 2015 to 2017, “Americans using Facebook were exposed to, or ‘served,’ a total of over 33 trillion stories in their News Feeds.”
To put the 33 trillion figure over two years in perspective, the 80,000 Russian-origin Facebook posts represented just .0000000024 of total Facebook content in that time.
Shane and Mazzetti did not report the 33 trillion number even though The New York Times’ own coverage of that 2017 Stretch testimony explicitly stated, “Facebook cautioned that the Russia-linked posts represented a minuscule amount of content compared with the billions of posts that flow through users’ News Feeds everyday.”
The Times‘ touting of the bogus 126 million out 137 million voters, while not reporting the 33 trillion figure, should vie in the annals of journalism as one of the most spectacularly misleading uses of statistics of all time.
The U.S. Government routinely interferes in elections all over the world, but builds mountains out of molehills of ‘evidence’ to charge that Russia’s Government is the global threat to democracy, and especially to America’s (fake) ‘democracy’. And that’s lie #3.
And, of course, the U.S. regime also had lied its way into invading Iraq in 2003, and lies today to allege that “Iran is the top state-sponsor of terrorism” and so much else; so that anyone who still trusts what the U.S. regime says, would have to be a fool. The New York Times (which participated so prominently in stenographically spreading the U.S. regime’s lies about Iraq in 2002 and 2003) is, no less now than it was then, an ongoing insult to the intelligence of its subscribers, but this time spreading lies especially against Russia. The newspaper’s subscribers didn’t cancel their subscriptions in revolt; that newspaper remains very successful, as if routinely lying to ‘justify’ invasion is okay.
The U.S. public believe the same ‘news’-media which had lied America into earlier invasions and mass-murders — wars and coups. it’s all of the U.S. major ‘news’-media, and most even of the ‘alternative’ ones (but certainly not the one you’re reading here). That’s why, when Trump’s U.N. Ambassador, Nikki Haley, on 5 April 2018, addressed students at Duke University, and said (at 46:50 in the video) “Russia’s never going to be our friend,” she wasn’t booed by anybody. And she continued, “You haven’t seen the end of what this administration will do to Russia.” In other words: she preached that hostility toward “Russia” is ‘good’. The students and the faculty seemed totally supportive of her nationalistic holier-than-thou lying pontifications. All of the questions, which were asked of her, presumed to be true all of the lies that she had stated against Russia, and against Bashar al-Assad and so much else. She easily fooled these people, because all of the major media already had fooled them, just like had been done about Iraq in 2002 and 2003. Fools never really learn, because they always already ‘know’ (the lies).
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Documenting every US lie would produce enough books to eradicate a medium sized forest.
As for Russia, they lied about the ABM treaty, they are lying about the INF treaty, they are lying about Russias involvement in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan you name it. Russia is bombing hospitals, Russia is assisting the Taliban, Russia is helping Assad gas his own people, Russia is giving arms to Libyan terrorists, Russia is giving oil to Syria and so on and so forth. All a pack of lies.
The by now routine sanctioning of Russia is a major sign of weakness, a sign that the dying beast is backed into a corner and near it’s end. They seek to preserve their hegemony by crippling Russia, leaving China all alone, which is failing, and will fail, no matter how many sanctions they impose. In the long run, Russia will be left standing, and not just that, they will be stronger than ever before. They have become the diplomatic powerhouse of the entire planet, they are, quite literally, talking to everybody. There are no childish hissi fits they throw around like “Assad must go! We will not speak to him, he must go!” Pathetic, really.
When the US falls, all those sanctions are suddenly turned on them, it will be them who are shut out of the deals, the conversations, the prosperity, due to their own stupidity.
The financial crash is looming. Almost every day now I read headlines of the market “correcting” itself, losing points.
Interesting, it looks like “good cop bad cop => We can write books about US lying, but Russia is lying about everything”, so I move to:
Could you explain please, who is “they” in your: “… As for Russia, they lied about the…”
Are you talking about Russia doing the lying or the West lying about Russia.
If you are saying Russia is lying, then provide proof.
Thanks for pointing out my error, I used the word Russia as in Russia-topic. So the sentence should be “as for the topic of Russia.” Meaning the US lies on the topic of Russia, not Russia lies on all these.
Well, then, I had misunderstood your comment.
Russia lied about the ABM treaty? That’s news to me. I saw no attempt of mitigation from the US to save it and it light of the so called “missile shield” protecting Europe from Iran etc, which isn’t fooling anyone, it made perfect sense they unilaterally withdrew. When Russia suggested they could collaborate on a European shield NATO was caught with it’s pants down. With the INF treaty it’s more complicated and yes Russia is lying about it, but so does US/NATO. Russia didn’t start this dance and repeated warnings from Putin fell on deaf ears. Warsaw pact is gone, Russia is as capitalist as anyone. The only reason is the Empire is throwing tantrums and secretly want to nuke even the smallest obstacles to its global power.
Yes Russia is lying about it’s involvement in Ukraine, everybody knows that, but I don’t blame them. The lying on the other side is way worse and the Western Empire started this shit. Trying to steal Russias only warm water port+ marine base and get Ukraine into NATO via a fascists coup?! WTF were they thinking! ANY nation would respond to this. And I laugh every time they say maidan was the will of the people by chasing off a democratically elected leader with 70-90% support in the East. While the case of Crimea, where we have 3 referendums all confirming each other, it’s not democratic?? Me thinks thou hast no principles..
Russia seems very open about Syria I must say. Gassing? Come on you know that’s bullshit. Giving oil? I sure hope so if they need it. Bombing hospitals? I have no doubt that has happened just like US have bombed some and Saudis bombed lots. But you Do Know many of those “hospitals” in Syria was Al-Nusra strongholds right?
And Libya? I’m sure Russians are promoting their interests there but working with terrorists? Whose definition are you using? NATO destroyed Libya using their Jihadist Al-Qaeda affiliated proxy warriors. That’s a well documented fact. There is no terrorist/freedom-fighter argument to be had in that case. These groups unleashed by NATO are the real problem in Libya now, not Russia. In fact the Western track record of stabilizing anything is horrible or perhaps that’s not the goal? Give somebody else a shot at it!
Russia assisting Taliban ,well I’ll buy that to some extent but there are plenty of dogs in that pile. Again this is another NATO shit show. I know, I know it’s the grand chessboard again and there is no morals in power politik. But come on, this isn’t the age of Alexander the great or Rome. Can we start being honest about this?? The Afghan people have suffered enough. US should declare victory and GTFO!
You wasted a lot of words on a misunderstanding, I made an error which resulted in unclear wording, which you base your entire comment on. I can’t edit my initial post to correct it, but I have acknowledged it in my second comment, replying to the first responder.
You “debunked” the lies the US tells about Russia, I merely listed them, I didn’t mean that Russia does any of these things or lies about any of these things.
The so called US Government wants to eradicate the Second Amendment, US Constitution. The world Earth may be safe should that happen. Nuclear war agaist the Confederate Patriots could be the miracle, after a fashion, to save the rest of our humanity.
Prayer Wheel turn and turn while energy cultivates the coming BIG Change.
I stumbled on an Add by Google, where some guy says to Americans “give up your guns, because your government has nukes” I go????? Is this insane government thinking that it’s going to survive if it decides to nuke its own people? Isn’t it the people as well?
Thanks for your observations. “Insane government thinking” describes the situation very well, but it is balanced out by an equally large amount of “insane group thinking”. Let me describe (briefly) for you a situation that occurred during our latest election ritual here in Arizona. One of the candidates (for Senate, I believe) described herself on the campaign posters as “the Trump candidate” and “Protect our Guns!”. Nope, I’m not making this up, and since AZ is a state that allows open carrying of guns the least of our worries is that “someone” is going to come take our precious guns. Even Granny has her gun. Don’t mess with her! We don’t own any presently, but if our feelings change, we can hop on over to the next gun show at the Parkside Church. Seriously. Good ol’ Arizona! Now, Speaking of the government nuking its own people, I understand that happened many hundreds of times during the era of above ground nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada test site and several other places from aprox. 1950 to 1963. The maps show the radioactive fallout clouds virtually blanketing the entire country. Yes, Insane describes this pretty well.
I remember a season of The Sopranos where the mob takes over a local business. They do to that business exactly what the numbers show for Ukraine. That is they ….
1) Borrow all they can possibly get. Buy on credit when possible. Take out loans.
2) Steal everything they can get. Those goods bought on credit are being carried out the back door and sold on the black market instead.
Thus, the numbers of the business (if properly kept), would show ever increasing debt. But decreasing sales revenue as less is sold and more is stolen. Exactly what Ukraine’s numbers show. Then, when the company had too much debt and lower sales and losing customers, the business declared bankruptcy.
The best mental model to understand the American government is organized crime. Think of the government as the mob, and usually it all makes sense.
And once you realize that the Italian mafia, the Sicilian mafia, the Russian mafia, etc. are all subsets of the Jewish Mafia, you start getting the picture. Yes indeed, we in the West – West of Jerusalem? – have been ruled, educated, medicated, entertained, feed by organized crime since Ancient Rome, who was run from behind the curztain – I would assume – by the Mafia.
No, that’s far too black-and-white, if not actually the exact opposite of the truth. Since ‘ancient’ (1609) Amsterdam (their first of many central banks) and (Jewish mafia aligned) Calvinism, rather.
The Church of Rome was at times heavily infiltrated, certainly the last century (the AngloAmerican occupation of Europe), but most of the time the ‘Catholic’ Church was actually the only one fighting them.
Yes! I think it was Harry Brown’s book three or four decades ago that very clearly explained the various methods the mafia and other organized crime families used and then carefully correlated those with the activities of the U.S Federal Government. If I remember correctly, the book’s title was “The Federal Mafia”.
Nikki Haley–expect her to be Trump’s running mate for 2020. It’s likely he will need a woman on the ticket to gather back some female votes in the key states’s suburbs. Right now, it’s 50-50.
If not the VP, he could put her in the Secretary of State position when fat Pompeo burns out. It’s a tough job flying around the globe continuously threatening all the vassals of the Empire to buy weapons and obey the list of sanctions against the Multi-polar nations.
She has a big future with the Globalists on the right wing of the Elitists.
If somehow Trump is forced out, Haley will be front-loaded into the White House sweepstakes.
She’s as crazy as Hillary, younger and appeals to all the Hegemonic choir and bankrollers.
The zionazis are definitely not retiring haley, she is too useful and her loyalty is beyond question.
Everybody knows Browder was responsible for Magnitskys death, he did a runner and Sergei took the fall, the torture stuff is just embellishment to try and take the guilt off his own shoulders, sure he may not have had maximum great care at the prison but Browder is the cause of the book keepers demise. Bill will get his day of reckoning like all the others, he can hide behind his money but it didnt help anyone else.
To understand what America is about, you have to recall the infamous comment about the “reality-based community” asserted by a senior Bush Regime official (reputed to be Karl Rove though he denies it) to the reporter Ron Suskind:
“People like you are still living in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Delusions of Empire
Truth is whatever America says it.
The United States believes that it can smear any nation and get away with it, possessing a God-like power to mold and manipulate “reality” according to whatever suits its Machiavellian agenda at the moment.
By now, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that America massively lied about non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq to justify its war of aggression against that nation.
Yet, this record of deception on fundamental issues of war and peace does not cause most Americans to question other allegations of dubious provenance that the American Empire pushes today–particularly against its geopolitical opponents like Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.
In a sick and perverse way, it’s really quite amazing the audacity and arrogance of the United States.
Welcome to the American Matrix.
“In a sick and perverse way, it’s really quite amazing the audacity and arrogance of the United States.”
-nailed it but it is beyond amazing, it would be massively criminal in any other law based system!
This is a concept which I continually struggle to grasp; it is beyond understanding for me. I try to pride myself as an average citizen that values truth and honesty but in most of major American foreign policy endeavors, there is no truth, no honesty. It is corruption of reality to fit the narrative and the narrative is full of lies. Just look at the WH statement regarding the saudi matter-it is full of lies from start to finish. Who could draft such deception.
Look at the charges relating to all of “Russian crimes.” of meddling, collusion. Who could continue ad nauseum with the audacious twisting of the facts and reality. To step back, and try to grasp what is being asserted is simply beyond understanding.
This is a mini rant but it has been bothering me for some time and this article and the comments triggered a nerve.
I tend to arrive at two simplistic facts:
1. Most Americans could care less about the essential elements of the govt lies, just wondering to themselves, if they care at all, can that be or is that true-jeez!
2. I have (and I do not believe I am alone) really underestimated the influence of the press, talk shows, talk radio, the “think” tanks, all of these outlets seem to mobilize around a narrative and keep pushing it until it is accepted as factual. Gradually, the mouthpieces are identified by a small percentage as bogus and the wapos, nyt, cnn. msnbc, AIPC, FDD, go merrily along with the same intent to continue building upon the narrative.
3. And of course, it is the money interests which to me is difficlt to grasp the enorminty of the power. (the adelsons, et al).
As could be expected, the Pindo-centric ”Russia buggered our elekschun” accusation is the uninspiring, boring part of an otherwise topnotch submission of Zuesse’s. Suffice it to say that the moronic majority population of the US would be equally ”moved” by a silly accusation to the effect that the Sun rising in the East (Russia) and setting in the West (the US) is an evil ’planetary dictatorship’ due to Russia/Moscow/the Kremlin/Putin. Or maybe that Russia/Moscow/the Kremlin/Putin is tampering malignantly with this very solid planetary order — hence their space exploration. As an anonymous commenter here at The Saker put it early this year: America is a mental institution masquerading as a nation. Their God-awful Presidential Elections don’t even impress the Euro-trash anymore which is quite an achievement.
”The result of the U.S. regime’s takeover of Ukraine’s Government is this. And a generation of young Ukrainians are now being taught nazism, right on the border of Russia — Russia being the one country that in World War II had done the most to conquer the Nazis. The U.S. Government has flipped to pro-nazi. And time after time after time, the U.S. leads the three-or-fewer nations that vote at the U.N. against condemning nazism”
All the Pindo governments along with the genocidal Euro-squatters preceding them amount to applied Nazism. Forever thriving on land-grabbing, enslavement, genocide, ecocide, greed, corruption, plunder, and war — why on Earth should the US denounce its offspring, be it Ukraine and Israel or Germany 80 years ago? And keep in mind too the tender, loving care for the Russians as a people (evil subhuman imbeciles) as per Hollywood’s movie makers.
Bottom line: The Pindos never ”flipped” with regard to Nazism. It’s their chief Weltanschau, bar Nazi Germany’s Jew-bashing.
Responding to the debunking of accusation No. 1. Actually, Browder had Magnitsky killed in prison (he knew too much and could have exposed a lot of things about Browder’s shady doings, and not just financial either) and blamed the Russian government. Is not this more in the character of these people, and the entire anglozionazi establishment? It is, and it is what actually happened.
A small but important correction.
” founded in 1744 on the basis of hating Shiites”
And also hating Sunnis. It is only in recent years that they accepted Sunnism and claimed leadership of the Sunnis. It was not always like that.
Enough already with this “Khruschev the soviet dictator” nonsense. Call Stalin a dictator if you must (altough this is stupid, but you cannot change). Khruschev was a pretty laid back guy compared to Stalin. From the Empire perspective, you should be grateful to K. for “letting the devil in” in his “political thaw.” K. was “your son of a bitch”, from the Empire perspective. From an anti-Empire perspective, you have no right to call him a dictator either. And his resubordination of Crimea to Ukraine administratively did not mean a thing, unless he was a covert traitor and was thinking ahead many decades. Which, being dumb, he could hardly be credited with. (But someone in his surrounding could have had the foresight).
Very true, Mish.
”Khruschev-bashing” used to be a most annoying set of Tourette tics being spouted by Western Maoists and the Trots. Anxious not to break ranks with the Zionazis and their strict anti-Soviet framing of world politics, Western Maoists especially made an ”art” of adding the mandatory attributes (more like thoughtless slurs) social imperialist/social imperialism/revisionism in each and every sentence also including ”USSR” and ”Soviet” (post-Stalin).
Unsurprisingly, these Western yokels boast the same credibility no matter what serious political topics they opine on. To wit: Cred = Big Fat Zero. Khruschev stood by the Cubans; he quelled the clerico-fascist putsch in Hungary, and helped secure the GDR in general and its capital in particular. Amusingly, these most welcome contributions by Khruschev instantly become, in the mind of these Leftist midgets, proof positive of ”Soviet social imperialism” while, at the same time, also proving the rottenness of the countries concerned for letting in aforesaid Soviet social imperialists. Needless to say, our esteemed Western Leftists don’t approve of Putin’s achievements either.
I don’t think so. Unless one already ‘knows’ (the lies) one can learn a lot from investigative historian Eric Zuesse (one of the very few real ones).
Actually, the miserable traitor Khrushchev represented the Trotskyite (Nazi/Neocon) fifth column (i.e. the Western Nazi Empire) which was directly responsible for the bloody Nazi coup (attempt) in Hungary (1956), and so on, and so forth, and the sabotage (revisionism), dismantling of Marxism-Leninism and the Soviet Union.
It actually seems the illegal transfer of Crimea in 1954 (by the anti-Communist traitors at the top) was done in direct anticipation of such bloody Nazi coups, also in the Ukraine.
But traitorous NWO agent Khrushchev didn’t succeed, and was forced to resign. Lenin and Stalin’s Soviet Union (i.e. Marxism-Leninism) was still far too strong for that. Then the sabotaged, corrupted, and no longer Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union stabilized somewhat, until the next traitorous NWO agent Gorbachev finally was able to bring the (by then totally corrupted) Soviet Union down.
K also opposed israel, while stalin recognised that freakshow. It was after K lead the USSR that they and israel became enemies.
It is not leftists who bash K, they generally view him positively, as a reformer. Leftists view stalin as right wing*, and the deposition of K by Brezhnev and co. as a return to the more right wing, stalinist sort of governance.
* Right wing communists? Is that possible? Well, in the late 1930s, Orwell described the stalinist government as right wing communists. Left wing philosophy isn’t just limited to collective economics, it includes collective politics, IE: grassroots politics something called democracy. Stalinist communism was not grassroots, not democratic, it was corporate. A ceo type of governance. Exactly like rightwingers crave. Bosses, who can not be effectively challenged, and the rest, taking orders, saying “yes sir”.
For reference, stalinist style right wingery was not invented by the USSR. It has existed for millennia. Many peoples South Central America had this sort of system. For example Maya, Inca, Aztecs. It was also reflected in ancient Egypt in some of their dynastic governments. A looser form of this type of governance can be seen in the Mongols under Genghis or the steppe peoples gathered by Atilla.
The idea of worker drones blindly following appointed leaders is anathema to left wing philosophy. This situation is a right wing wet dream and its creation their Holy Grail quest.
vot tak – These charlatans always represent themselves as the opposite of what they are. Unfortunately you couldn’t be more wrong here (about Lenin/Stalin’s Marxism-Leninism and Khrushchev’s Euro-‘Communism’). As a matter of fact, it’s exactly the other way around.
Orwell was either a fool (an Anglo who had hardly any idea what was going on, e.g. Stalin vs. Trotsky) and was used, or worse, he was simply a fraud. Why do you think the West encouraged reading this George Orwell, in the first place?
Ask the ones who do know all about it (but aren’t allowed to tell), for instance East German intellectuals such as Dr. Kurt Gossweiler. (or Russian intellectuals like Nikolai Starikov)
If you read German (Putin does, that’s a good sign), “Sascha’s Welt” is the best: https://sascha313.wordpress.com
Since the Korean War, US foreign policy is littered with lies to justify its aggressive political/ militaristic / imperialistic / economic ambitions of world hegemony. The lies are too many to list are readily available if the reader bothers to do some research and the American people are too lazy to do that and find it easier just to believe the lies.
As the US did and is doing to Russia, it is now on overload to generate humongous lies against China.
It is so important that the truth be told. The world is heading for nuclear war. The pattern of history is being fulfilled.
• Power, (manifested as interest) was present in very conflict in history – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is the one thing we will destroy ourselves for, as well as everyone else.
• History shows that every civilization/nation eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. This applies as much today as any other time in history.
• Leaders and decision-makers delude themselves, thinking they can avoid their fate – they can’t. If survival is threatened, there is no alternative to war, however destructive.
The author might have added the catastrophic population decline in Ukraine population (a problem all over Eastern Europe) which in 1991 stood at 52 million up until the present day where it stands at 42 million, give or take a few hundred thousand. (Countryeconomy.com). Oh yes then there is the little matter of the trade on current account which has not been positive since 2004. (Countryeconom.com) This can be added to the ever rising sovereign debt which cannot be paid and the Ukie government going cap in hand to the IMF for more credit. More debt to cover existing debt = Ponzi scheme.
But hey, you can buy Ukie Bonds at a 17% yield. But before you jump at that be advised the Moody’s Fitch and S&P have given them a non investment grade – Junk bonds in other words.
The browder connections apparently are very large. Exactly what his role against Russia was originally is not clear, but he was not just some corrupt business man, he has powerful associates worldwide.
Anonymous blows lid off huge psyop in Europe and it’s funded by UK & US
“In a document dump on November 5, the group exposed the UK-based ‘Integrity Initiative’, said to have been established by the ominously titled Institute for Statecraft in 2015.
The main objective is “to provide a coordinated Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare.” The Institute for Statecraft is affiliated with the NATO HQ Public Diplomacy Division and the Home Office-funded ‘Prevent’ program, so objectivity is, of course, at the forefront of their work.
The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin, with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to “change attitudes in Russia itself” as well as influencing Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked documents states.
At present, the vast network allegedly has clusters for Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, and Montenegro… but there’s more!
According to the Anonymous leak, major plans to expand the sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, the US, and Canada, as well as the MENA region, are allegedly underway.
The initiative claims it is not a government body, of course, but does work with unnamed British “government agencies.” The initiative has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the US State Department, the documents allege.
Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile “independent” journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds.
Edward Lucas, journalist for the Times.
Bob Seely, MP.”
Anonymous Claims Ex-Russian Spy Scholar Enlisted to UK Info Warfare Project
“The documents on the UK Integrity Initiative covert operation, published by the Anonymous hacker group, showed that Russian researcher Igor Sutyagin, who was accused of espionage and subsequently pardoned, is a member of the so-called UK Cluster of London’s hybrid warfare program.
One of the documents, released by Anonymous, specifies names and e-mail addresses of several dozen members of the covert program’s UK Cluster. Sutyagin’s name is included in the column called “UK General — Inner Core – Russia.” The document also includes the researcher’s e-mail address on the domain of the UK Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), where Sutyagin has been working since 2014.
Sutyagin’s name is written in the same column as the names of notorious financier William Browder and Vladimir Ashurkov, an associate of Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny.”
There is a lot more to browder’s role than we know. A lot more.
Britain’s “Integrity Initiative” purports to be defending British plutocracy… my bad.. democracy from Russkie Evil-Doers by penetrating and influencing the internal politics of Europe and indeed other regions around the world.
Who are these British psyops geniuses that concoct these Orwellian names?
This UK Integrity Initiative should be rebranded as the Imperialist Initiative–as in, advancing Anglo imperial infowar campaigns.
James Bond discovers social media!
Anonymous Reveals Covert UK Special Ops on Hybrid Warfare in EU
New Criminal Case Launched in Russia Against William Browder – Prosecutors
“”Last Friday, a decision was made regarding Browder to initiate a criminal case for creating a criminal organization and directing it, that is, for the crime provided for by Part 1 of Article 210 of Russia’s Criminal Code,” Atmonyev said at a briefing of the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office.
He said Russia would soon put Browder on an international wanted list under the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime.
“Based on the documents that were shown, an obvious conclusion can be made that, having received a false statement from Magnitsky… Browder was interested in Sergei Magnitsky’s death more than anyone else in order to avoid exposure,” Nikolai Atmonyev said.
“The credibility of the version about the poisoning of Sergey Magnitsky in the interests of Browder is also confirmed by the testimony of journalist Oleg Lurie, who was kept with Magnitsky in one detention centre and communicated with him shortly before his death,” Kurennoy said.
The Russian Investigative Committee has launched a case on the murder of accomplices of Browder — Valery Kurochkin, Oktay Gasanov and Sergei Korobeinikov — according to Mikhail Aleksandrov, an official with the office of the Russian prosecutor general.
Aleksandrov said that Magnitsky and other accomplices of Browder may have been poisoned by “diverse chemical substances with aluminium compounds.”
Aleksandrov added that it “could be assumed with a high degree of probability” that Kurochkin, Gasanov and Korobeinikov “had been killed as a way to get rid of accomplices who may have given testimony exposing Browder.”
‘Highly likely’ that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder’s orders – Moscow
“The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky’s death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively.
Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver, according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been opened.”
Scholar Suspects UK Financier Bill Browder’s Hand in Interpol Elections
“Sputnik: How surprised were you by the results of the Interpol elections?
Tom Luongo: Not really at all. Honestly, I saw this as very political, the whole thing. Peskov said it best, that it was a very political decision and the pressure that the United States and the United Kingdom put on Interpol to stop Prokopchuk from taking over was quite strong. Personally, I think this has to do with British-American financier Bill Browder, who has ties to Mikhail Khodorkovsky and others who were wanted, obviously, in Russia for tax evasion and all of that.
Sputnik: Russia stated that its candidate lost the election due to the pressure that was exerted by the US and the UK, do you think that really was the case?
Tom Luongo: Yes, I think it probably had a lot to with it. The United States really does feel that it has control over all of these post-World War II institutional bits and pieces, the IMF, SWIFT, Interpol and the rest of them, that’s just the way we pursue foreign policy at this point. Why did the State Department get involved in what should be a very non-political thing? Why are four US Senators, many of whom are signatories to the Magnitsky Act, so upset over the idea that a Russian will take over Interpol when there was a Chinese President in charge for years before that? It seems like a vast overreaction, and when you get a vast overreaction from Washington and from the Western media there’s usually more to the story than that.”
Excellent work Sir, with just one very significant beauty that you missed in your research.
Victoria Nuland was giving a speech on a stage standing in front of a Chevron oil sign, and she said, “We have spent over Five Billion Dollars for this regime change, and…”
She like a lot of arrogant folks was unaware that she was on someones camera.
It is on you tube.
The Sixty Minutes segment showing her on a helicopter ride surveying the country for the good of mankind was part of the sell job.
Joseph Campbell’s old book on myth creation applies.