The Russian Phoenix: Hope or Illusion?
(2016)
Russia and the USA: Criminal Gangs Competing for Turf?
Note: In 2022, dead links—which in 2015 provided a much fuller documentation for this article—have been either updated or removed.
Photo Caption: Alexander Zinoviev’s Self-Portrait: Thinking is Painful: “Striving
after the painful truth has become the fate of exceptionally rare
loners.”
Summary: Apart from the mainstream portrayal of Russia as
a ruthless expansionist dictatorship (a portrayal too ludicrous to
merit attention here), most awake commentators fall into one of two
camps. Members of the
first camp believe that the realization of a better world depends on
Russia’s success in its efforts to reform itself, maintain its
independence, and contain American ambitions.
Members of the second camp believe that the Russo-American
confrontation is of no significance to the long-term future of
humanity either because that conflict is being engineered by the
people who control both nations, or because both sides to the conflict
are “criminal networks that use brutality and violence to enforce
their control over given areas and to terrorize others.”
Neither camp, to my knowledge, provides a fact-based
bird’s-eye view of this topic. The present article attempts to close
this gap, thereby enabling readers to form their own opinion.
The article concludes with my own tentative attempt to
resolve the dispute between these two camps, arguing that both are
partially in the right—and partially in the wrong.
Two
opposing
views of the Russo/American Conflict
I’ve
been studying Russian history and culture most of my life,
but never as avidly as now. My
main reason for this more intense preoccupation is similar to that of
Andre
Vltchek’s:
“When I visit
a
barbershop in Beirut or Amman, and am asked ‘where are you from?’ (It
used to
be a painfully confusing and complex question to answer, just a few
years ago),
I now simply reply: “Russia,” and people come and hug me and say,
‘Thank you.’
“It is not
because
Russia is perfect. It is not perfect – as no country on Earth could or
should
be. But it is because it is standing once more against the Empire, and
the
Empire has brought so many horrors, so much humiliation, to so many
people; to
billions of people around the world… and to them, to so many of them,
anyone
who is standing against the Empire, is a hero. This I heard recently,
first
hand, from people in Eritrea, China, Russia, Palestine, Ecuador, Cuba,
Venezuela, and South Africa, to name just a few places.”
Such
sentiments
are shared, at least in part, by many other commentators, including F.
William
Engdahl, the “Saker,”
and
Pepe
Escobar.
In
sharp contrast to such favorable views of Russia, there are those who
compare the Russo-American struggle to the fake Democratic-Republican
contest of American politics.
James
Corbett:
“We have been
conditioned our entire lives to expect that anything that opposes a
demonstrably evil entity must itself be good. . . . But when it comes
to the machinations of global geopolitics, this is completely the
wrong lens through which to understand what is happening. Much more to
the point would be the metaphor of rival gangs competing for
territory. It is not the case that the Bloods are the ‘good guys’ and
the Crips the ‘bad guys’ or vice versa; they are both criminal
networks that use brutality and violence to enforce their control over
given areas and to terrorize others.
“Similarly,
if we
understand that rivalries between various international organizations
(to the
extent that they exist at all) are really only battles between
gangsters for
control over the global turf, we can more clearly understand that it
is not a
question of choosing sides in the struggle, but opposing the very
ideologies of
centralized, hierarchical control that make these institutions
possible.
“If what we
are
combating is, as I posit, essentially two (or more) gangs competing
for turf,
then it is self-evident that we gain nothing from supporting one gang
over
another other than the vague hope that the other gang will treat us
more
kindly.
“The real
solution to
centralized, hierarchical international institutions created by and
for the
interests of the oligarchical elite are decentralized,
non-hierarchical
relations created by and for the grassroots.” (See also Sibel
Edmonds).
Brandon
Smith goes even farther, claiming that both criminal networks
are controlled by a higher-level criminal network of bankers.
These bankers are engineering a potentially deadly conflict
between their two (or three, if one includes China) networks, in order
to enslave humanity. Thus, Smith is plausibly perplexed by people who
are
“so awake and
aware of the false left/right paradigm while remaining astonishingly
naïve and short sighted when it comes to the false East/West paradigm.
There are no “sides” in any
modern conflict, only
proxies fighting on a global chessboard controlled by the same
elitist
interests. . . . War is meant to forcefully change
the “inertia” of civilization, and thus, forcefully change the
direction of civilization in a manner that benefits the engineers of
the conflict. . . .”
Elsewhere, Smith says:
“Russia and
the U.S.
are nothing but false champions dueling in a fake gladiator match paid
for by
the IMF. The most
frightening aspect
of the false paradigm between East and West is the potential it
creates for the
co-option of liberty proponents here in America. . . . .There is no nation out there in the ether of central
banking that is going to help us. The sooner we come to terms with the
reality
that we are on our own, the stronger we will be when the fight begins.”
Such
conflicting
views (e.g., Vitchek vs. Corbett) raise two sets of questions.
First,
is the USA controlled by a criminal gang?
The answer, as we shortly illustrate and as anyone thinking
for herself can immediately see, is a resounding YES.
Second,
should we, the people who believe in environmental stewardship, social
justice, peace, spirituality, common decencies, and freedom, throw our
support behind Russia, or should we treat the current Russo-American
conflict as nothing more than either a larger-scale turf war between
criminal outfits or perhaps a phony fight between bankers’
marionettes? Should we
look to Russia and ourselves to solve the world’s problems, or only to
ourselves?
The
bulk of this article attempts to address this second, complex, set of
questions. The answer,
lamentably but unavoidably, is multifaceted, long, and ambivalent. If reading such an
exposition requires more time or patience than you have, you might
wish to only read the last two sections (“the balance sheet” and “the
Russian Phoenix: Hope or Illusion?”).
Alternatively,
you
might wish to listen to a conversation on the same topic:
The
USA is Controlled by a
Criminal Gang
The
question is, if they [American government] would do this . . . if they
would feed radioactive oatmeal to helpless children and lie to them
and their parents about it for years . . . well gee, is
there anything they wouldn’t do?-- Melissa Dykes,
2016
“The
US government is the most complete criminal
organization in human history.”—Paul
Craig Roberts (senior official in the
Reagan Administration), 2016
“We
live on a planet well able to provide a decent life for every soul on
it, which is all ninety-nine of a hundred human beings ask. Why
in the world can’t we have it?” --Jack Finney
America
is
controlled by a criminal gang whose ultimate goal is, apparently, to
empower
and enrich itself while impoverishing and enslaving everyone else.
Here are a
few typical examples showing that American policies at home and abroad
are exploitative,
self-destructive, and utterly devoid of morality:
1.
The USA is secure from foreign conquests—and yet it spends over
$1,000,000,000,000 on the monstrosity
of conquest (the official number, which is roughly half that figure,
is a blatant
lie). That is, the
USA alone spends more on wars of aggression than all
the
nations of the world combined spend on attacking others or
defending themselves! The
USA likewise has one of the most
corrupt war procurements establishments in the world, and a
collection of overseas military garrisons “unprecedented
in history.” This
rarely stated
attempt to rule the world by force is clearly a crime against
humanity, for it causes millions of deaths, billions of partially
fulfilled lives, and environmental destruction.
The
other side of this massive gangsterism is opportunity costs.
Buckminster Fuller, for example, conclusively
showed
that humanity could “take care of everybody on Earth at a higher
standard of living than any have ever known” by merely shifting less
than half of the military budget to such things as food, education,
and shelter.
2.
Syria provides one heart-rending example of America’s psychopathic
strategy of “devouring
the world, one country at a time.” Since economic blackmail and
assassinations failed to shake Syria from its independent path,
America, relying
on a few of its viciously theocratic allies in the Middle East, trained,
supplied,
funded, and unleashed upon Syria a barbarian horde of
mercenaries. This was preceded by decades-long, well-funded,
indoctrination of these would-be mercenaries with Wahhabism—an
ideology that has little to do with genuine Islam and everything to do
with the Houses of Rothschild’s, Rockefeller’s, and Saud’s dictatorial
and imperial aspirations. Against all odds, the Syrians are valiantly
resisting, and so far they have not paid the awful price paid by such
victims of America’s imperialist designs as Indonesia, Mexico, Iraq,
or Libya.
Photo Caption: Since 2011, America’s colonial
war in Syria has been carried out in part in cooperation with
such human rights “guardians” as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and an
assortment of genocidal zombies.
That war led to the death of some 2% of the population, the
wounding of a few more percent, displacement of 50%, and irreversible
traumas to 99%.
As
in Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, and scores of other countries, this
genocide involves an outright rejection of democracy:
“Such are the
West’s
‘democratic’ allies. They refuse to allow what Assad and Putin have
been
insisting upon: a Syrian Presidential election that will be
internationally
monitored, and not concluded unless and until the international
monitors
announce that the results were not produced by fraud. The reason that
the West
refuses a democratic determination of the matter is that even the
polling that
has been done in Syria by Western polling firms consistently shows
that Assad
would win any democratic election in Syria overwhelmingly. And the
reason Assad
would win is obvious: the U.S fostered this war at least from the
moment that
Barack Obama became America’s President, and most Syrians blame the
U.S. and
ISIS, not Assad, for their misery. And so, they loathe America. They
know that
America leads this invasion, from behind the scenes.”
Photo Caption: What the Invisible Government did to Syria in 4
years.
Multiply
this atrocity a thousand times, with variations, and you get the
picture. Genocide,
deceit, hypocrisy, lawlessness, exploitation, fascism, and
heartlessness lie at the core of America’s overseas behavior.
From the colonization of America itself, to slavery, to Mexico,
Philippines, Nicaragua, Vietnam, twice-conquered Germany, twice-nuked
Japan, Indonesia, Southern Cone, Honduras, Palestine, Iraq, Saudi
Arabia, Ukraine—since 1694 one rule defines British and American
foreign policy:
“and this rule is that there are no rules.”
3.
The vicious brilliance of America’s rulers at times defies belief. Thanks to bribes and
kleptocracy (e.g., Zelenski, $850 million; Somoza, $5 billion;
Suharto, $38 billion), assassinations,
the new Gladio
conspiracy, extensive wiretapping and blackmail of who’s who in
Europe, economic warfare (e.g., the recent FIFA
“scandal,” the VW
“scandal,” following an earlier Toyota
“scandal”), and control of the banks, corporations, media, and
intelligence services of Western and central Europe, even that
once-independent half-continent is now a submissive colony of the USA. In the words of one
historian, “the
level of
abjection passes belief.”
4.
Sadly, owing in part to the 1990s disastrous collapse of the USSR,
America’s real rulers accelerated their war against their own people,
again playing by their favorite “anything goes” rule.
They have acquired vastly more power and riches, while
relegating the American Constitution into a meaningless piece of
paper, applied the lessons they have learned from the Gladio
Conspiracy to their contrived war
on
terror, assassinated or brutally tortured their real and
imaginary opponents, stole so much from so many to the point that
America’s 20 wealthiest people now own more
wealth than the bottom half of the American population combined,
neglected America’s infrastructure, elevated self-serving mendacity
to an art form, conducted a phony war on drugs, used these very drugs
and an utterly broken justice system
to turn the USA into an incarceration nation in which jailers enjoy a
de facto license
to
kill, destroyed American industry, and converted a once-rich
country to near bankruptcy."
Photo Caption: “The promise was that when the glass was full, it
would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead is
that, when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger—Nothing ever
comes out for the poor."—Pope
Francis
5.
As a final example, take Michigan.
Universal sunshine bribery
of federal officials led to the abolition of tariffs on the imports of
vehicles into the USA, thus enabling Michigan’s car manufacturers to
move their factories overseas. This
industrial migration in turn caused massive unemployment and
underemployment in Michigan. To
prevent violent uprisings, besides controlling the mainstream
churches, schools, and media, the Invisible Government deliberately
initiated and sustained a prescription and illegal
drugs dependence epidemic.
One
must live for a while in Motown—once the richest city in the Union—to
really assimilate
its decline. Through no
fault of their own, countless Detroiters have been reduced to welfare,
homelessness, hopelessness, or extreme poverty.
In winter, one may see people standing outdoors, staying warm
by huddling around a pile of burning tires. And, as in countries like
Greece, the bankers even let go of the pretense of democracy—Detroit
is administered by criminal austerity enforcers indirectly nominated
by the bankers.
The
mandate of these enforcers is simple: Hand everything of value to
their bosses and their cronies, and rob the people of the little
dignity and possessions they might have left.
It’s a crass class war, a textbook example of the economic
hit man
strategy.
Water,
a basic human right, provides one macabre example of the bankers’
shock doctrine. As part
of the austerity regime, thousands of people who cannot afford to pay
for their water —including Detroiters living within sight of the
mighty Detroit River—must do without
running water in their homes.
But
those 9,000 and counting Detroiters are lucky.
In Flint, a sister city to the north which suffered an almost
identical fate of job losses and induced helplessness, the class war
has led to the deliberate poisoning of the majority.
And no, we are not talking here about the treacherous
addition
of fluoride to the drinking water of middle-class and poor
Americans, where we only need mention in passing that fluoride is a
waste product that does not prevent tooth decay but does cause
"bone cancer in boys, bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, hip fractures
and lower IQ in children." In
Flint, the bankers resorted to an additional, older trick, of
biological warfare. That trick is lead, as in Arsenic
and Old Lead.
In
April 2014, the austerity enforcer switched Flint’s water supply from
the moderately-unsafe Detroit water system to the industrial cesspool
otherwise known as the “Flint River.”
Besides the unhealthy witch’s brew imbibed by the
disempowered, unsuspecting, televised, and fluoridized poor
inhabitants of Flint, this decision indirectly caused the “doubling or
even tripling” of lead levels in children.
Both the governor of the state and the EPA
(Environmental Plundering Agency)
were fully aware of the problem in advance, but felt that it was worth
harming and dumbing down tens of thousands to save $100 a day.
In
reality,
the actions of these agents of the Invisible Government have little to
do with saving $36,500 a year—and everything to do with this:
“In five
years, these kids are going to have problems with special education.
They’re going to have cognition problems. Seven to 10 years, they’re
going to have behavioral problems.”
These
youngsters might, in other words, make obedient welfare recipients,
inmates of “schools” and prisons, McDonald dishwashers, drug
addicts—but pathetic revolutionaries.
If
you have any doubts that the real goal is poisoning our children, not
saving a miserly $36,500 a year, consider this. That same criminal Michigan
“governor” behind the Detroit and Flint water warfare, gave “away
billions of dollars in tax credits to major corporations and blown a
huge hole in his budget” while simultaneously squeezing additional
$900 million from average Michiganders.
****
One
can go on forever wading through the sewer that still calls itself the
American government. Everywhere and always, there are lies,
propaganda, dumbing down, corruption, theft, exploitation, poisoning,
brutalization, and vicious class warfare.
Thankfully,
in this article we have other sturgeon to fry and will merely sum the
above random sampler with the following words: As far as the USA and
the West are concerned, James Corbett hit the nail on the head:
The American government is a criminal network.
But
Corbett sees no fundamental distinction between America and Russia. Hence the question:
Is the Russian Federation a criminal network too?
Background
Information:
The Russian Catastroika
“Will we continue looting and destroying Russia until nothing is
left?” Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 2000.
Before
evaluating
Russia, we need to look back at some of the horrors visited on the
Russian people by America’s rulers and their handpicked Russian
quislings.
In
the 1990s, America’s de facto occupation of Russia sank that
once-powerful country into chaos, poverty, criminality, corruption,
assassinations, organized crime activities, and social discord. Washington and its quislings
were running—and ruining—the country, controlling every aspect of
life, including mainstream information sources. For
instance, in 1993 Yeltsin attacked the Russian parliament with tanks
for daring to protect the interests of the Russian people, and in 1998
most Russian banks went bankrupt.
Here
is how one historian described the aftermath of the Soviet collapse in
just one satellite country:
“Today
Romania
is a dumping ground for foreign goods. In the last 20 years, national
industry has completely disappeared, and strategic sectors have been
sold to
foreign companies. Salaries have been cut back, unemployment is
rising, drugs
and prostitution are spreading. Today Romanians consider December 1989
not as a
victory of democracy over dictatorship but as a tragedy and a
mistake.”
Washington
also revved up its preparations for further disintegrating the Russian
Federation, engineering
rebellions inside that Federation itself.
Washington also broke a promise not to expand NATO to
previous members of the Warsaw Pact, and encroached on the very
borders of the Russian Federation.
Much
of this changed for the better when Putin assumed the presidency.
Does
Russia Provide
a Meaningful Alternative to America’s Invisible Government?
“[The
men
of the Invisible Government] would continue to grow in strength, until
they
had the whole silly world, the whole credulous world, the whole
ingenuous
world, in their hands. Anyone who would challenge them, attempt to
expose them,
show them unconcealed and naked, would be murdered, laughed at, called
mad,
ignored, or denounced as a fantasy-weaver.”—Taylor Caldwell, 1972 (Captains and the Kings)
To
approach
this topic, we must look at the record of the Russian government from
a variety of angles.
I.
The Russian Phoenix
Rises Again: 2000-2015
Photo Caption: Is the Russian phoenix rising once more from the
ashes?
On
his deathbed, Yeltsin must have realized the extent of his and
Gorbachev’s folly: “Take
care of Russia” he told
Putin.
Photo Caption: Did Boris Yeltsin deliberately save Russia from
the Invisible Government? Shown
here: “Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin at the ceremony marking
Putin’s inauguration as president in May 2000.”
(source)
Here are a few examples of the
remarkable economic and social transformation of Russia in the last 15
years:
The
percentage
of people living below the poverty line went from 29%, in 2000, when
Putin
became President and Washington’s power over Moscow’s diminished, to
11% by
2013.
By
October
2015, the Russian government was
“finalizing a bill which will give an opportunity to every Russian
citizen to
obtain one hectare of land, or a maximum of five hectares for a family
of five,
in the Russian Far East for free.”
Homicides
declined from 19 per 100,000 in 2004 to 9 in 2012 (but they are still
about twice the American rate
of 5.2 and 18 times the Swiss rate).
This reduction was made possible, in part, by upgrading the
quality of the police force, curbing the powers of US-manufactured
oligarchs, reducing poverty, corruption, and destitution, fighting
organized crime, and curbing the activities of CIA- and
Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists.
Russia
returned to the people some of their stolen wealth, e.g., ownership of
national resources such as oil and gas.
Thus, instead of letting Western corporations and their local
stooges become the principal beneficiaries of Russia’s vast natural
resources (as is the case in all Western “success” stories, e.g.,
Ukraine, Mexico, Iraq . . . ), some of the benefits, at least, accrue
now to the rightful owners—the Russian people themselves.
Life
expectancy
climbed from 65 to 70 (2000-2012)
The
shipbuilding,
aerospace, and auto industries partially recovered, made possible
in part by reorganization, state guidance, and protective tariffs.
Production
and
exports of fossil and hydroelectric energy resources improved.
A
key mechanism of weakening Russia in the 1990s involved the
destruction of its industry and agriculture.
The objective was simple: convert a literate, creative nation
to the level of Saudi Arabia or Ghana—countries that have been reduced
to exporters of raw materials or a few cash crops.
Such countries depend on the Invisible Government for their
very existence and can be, at the moment they defy Wall Street,
readily destroyed via rigging of markets and economic warfare. Although much yet remains
to be done, Russia has taken a few tentative steps on the road to
self-sufficiency. Here
is one example of this developing strategy, as explained by Russia’s
president:
“We are not
only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water
resources – Russia is able to become the largest world supplier
of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food
which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact
that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing.
. . . Ten years ago, we imported almost half of the food from abroad,
and were dependent on imports. Now Russia is among the exporters.
Last year, Russian exports of agricultural products amounted to almost
$20 billion – a quarter more than the revenue from the sale of arms,
or one-third the revenue coming from gas exports.”
Russia
successfully derailed CIA-instigated “rebellions” in Chechnya and
Moscow.
Russia
legally and peacefully repatriated Crimea, thereby forestalling
Washington’s plans of Nazifying and enslaving Crimeans (ethnic
Russians for the most part) and dismantling Russia’s all-important
naval base in Sevastopol.
Russia
revitalized and modernized its military, to the point, perhaps, of
regaining the ability to check Washington’s plans of trampling under
foot every country on earth. The
advances in the military field have been so rapid and striking as to
lead some knowledgeable observers
to the (almost certainly mistaken) view “that Russia has now become
the world’s leading military power.”
Advances
have been made in such symbolic areas as sports too, partially
restoring the remarkable achievements of the USSR: “The Sochi Winter
Olympics in 2014 were a triumph for Putin.”
In Sochi, Russia had also
received more medals than any other country.
Likewise, and despite Washington’s Machiavellian attempts to
torpedo
this, Russia is expected to host the world soccer cup in 2018.
Obviously
then, Putin and his team uplifted the Russian nation and the quality
of life for the majority of its citizens.
As a result, as of June 2015, Putin enjoyed a popularity
rating of 87%! (Obama:
46%) Also, by 2014, 64%
of Russians trusted
their government (a 27% improvement from 2007).
Such
numbers are especially striking when compared to Americans’ attitude
towards their own government. Thus,
according to one source,
only 35% of Americans trusted their government. A more reliable source
gives the following late 2015 figures:
only 18% of registered American voters were content with
their government, while 82% were frustrated or angry, of which 27%
viewed the American government as their enemy.
Similarly, 81% of Russians
also had a negative view of the United States.
II.
Restoring Multipolarity?
“Russia’s
entry
to the side of the Syrian government has great potential for finally
stopping the US from treating the world as a stepping-stone to
unchallenged
global hegemony.”—Kim
Peterson
and B. J. Sabri, 2016
Washington
doesn’t
care about peoples’ dreams or aspirations. What they care about is
ruling the world with an iron fist, which is precisely what they
intend to do
for the next century or so unless someone stops them. Putin’s actions,
however
admirable, have not yet changed that basic dynamic.—Mike Whitney
Photo Caption: Russian demonstrators carrying a fake missile with
the inscription: “An Obama Special.”
According
to the CIA Post:
“During the
Clinton administration, the United States pushed hard to expand NATO,
breaking a critical promise to Russia not to threaten its sphere of
influence. During the
George W. Bush administration, there were more missteps, especially
the U.S. walking away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, causing
irreparable harm to the countries’ fragile relationship.”
By
2007,
these extreme provocations, the earlier looting of Russia, its ongoing
encirclement, a series of regime change attempts involving
Central Institute of Assassination (CIA) agents provocateurs and snipers,
and American nuclear brinkmanship, finally forced the Russian bear to
begin to
see that it was being maneuvered into a cage:
“More
and more we witness the flouting of the basic principles of
international law. . . . The United States is overstepping its
national borders in every field: in economics, in politics, even in
the humanitarian sphere…. And this, of course, is very dangerous. . .
. Russia is a country
with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has
practically always had the privilege of carrying out an independent
foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today.”
Gilbert
Doctorow
cogently explains Russia’s subsequent actions:
“One may
suppose that
the purpose is not to touch off or accelerate an arms race but, on the
contrary, to bring the other side to its senses and persuade it of 1)
Russia’s
seriousness about defending militarily what it sees as vital national
interests
and 2) its ability to deliver massive destruction to an enemy even in
the face
of a possible first nuclear strike, and so to reinstate the Mutually
Assured
Destruction deterrence that America’s global missile defense was
supposed to
cancel out. . . . Russia has set down certain red lines, such as
against NATO
expansion into Ukraine or Georgia over which it will fight to the
death using
all its resources. We ignore these messages at our peril.”
Russia’s
actions in recent years appear consistent with the setting down of
such red lines, most conspicuously in Abkhazia and Ossetia, Crimea,
and Syria. By contrast,
earlier, while Russia was weaker, it watched in silence while the USA
attacked Russia’s allies Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya.
Russia’s
efforts to escape imperial tyranny are not confined to itself or
Syria. Every country
that wishes to escape servitude to America’s invisible rulers owes its
continued existence, in some part, to Russia.
Here for instance is Zimbabwe’s Ambassador
to Russia:
“Both Russia
and China
are . . . continuing to oppose the illegal sanctions the West has
imposed on us
— a blatant attempt to change an elected government by crippling our
economy in
the hope that the masses would rise up against it.”
So
much
for Russian actions which can be best seen as a determined policy to
restore its national independence and the more civilized multipolar
world that
existed before 1990. And yet, as with so many aspects of the Russian
paradox,
there is another side to this story too.
To
begin with, when it comes to Western coups d’état and other violations
of international laws, Russia’s actions are often characterized by
puzzling timidity. Take
the Ukraine for instance, a country inhabited for the most part by
Slavs, who either speak Russian or a Russian dialect, use the same
alphabet, have always been linked to Russia through family and
economic ties, and have traditionally been affiliated with the Russian
state. In the 1990s,
Russia granted the fictional country of Ukraine independence, but the
ties uniting the two countries remained.
The CIA then proceeding to break these ties, a project that
took decades to accomplish—while the Russians inexplicably stood aside
and looked! The CIA then
ordered the massacre of ethnic Russians in the East who democratically
chose to secede from Ukraine. Here
too, Russia provided the secessionists some help, but refused to
support independence or annexation—so the needless carnage and
oppression of Russians living in modern-day Ukraine continues to this
very day.
But
such examples are the tip of the timidity iceberg, for Russia
enigmatically eschews cheaper, more effective and less painful
measures than its Syrian campaign.
This avoidance again casts doubts on the Russian government’s
commitment to a multipolar world.
Prof.
Michael
Hudson and others underscore the fact that the USA has
consistent, massive, balance of payments deficits with such countries
as Russia, China, and Japan. Financialized
and deindustrialized America buys real goods from them and pays by
running its printing press. Consequently,
such countries accumulate the digital equivalents of billions or
trillions of dollars. They
then use a good part of this money to buy U.S. treasury bonds.
The net result of this convoluted, scarcely credible, process
is straightforward: By financing the U.S. military and economy, these
countries empower their own oppression.
One
can understand why countries like Japan or Germany would engage in
such self-destructive behavior, given the presence of American
garrisons in their lands and the presence of thousands of bribed fifth
columnists and bootlickers in their media, economy, armed forces, and
assassination squads. But
why would Russia and China, now fighting for their very survival,
support their own military encirclement?
Do they really believe that they can win
that ongoing war by small, painfully slow, steps? Do they really
believe, in other words, that turtles can outrun hares?
Why do they indirectly finance the construction of the
hundreds and hundreds of nuclear bombs that one day might totally and
irrevocably turn Moscow or Beijing into a fate worse than nothingness
(already in the 1950s, “there
were 179 «designated ground zeros» for atomic bombs in Moscow”
alone)? Why do they
finance America’s economic sanctions against them?
Why don’t they only accept payments for anything they sell in
gold, silver, or their own national currencies?
Why don’t they turn their enemies’ world upside down by
linking their currencies to silver or gold or by resolutely stopping
the rigging of the interest rates market?
Why
don’t the Russians, for that matter, invest a few billion dollars to
stop, once and for all, the rigging of the silver market by their
paper-shuffling enemies? They
can thus gain billions and cause incalculable harm to the dollar and
the Western banking system (at today’s rigged prices, all the silver
in the world
is only worth about $14 billion and can be manipulated up or down by
just one of Russia’s top oligarchs—let alone the Russian government)?
If
they
are serious about their national independence, why do they always
react to
Western actions, instead of proactively checkmating their enemies?
This
is worth repeating: Russia is financing its own encirclement and the
ongoing attacks on its economy and currency.
Apart from its actions to save Crimea and Syria and a few
other places, the Russian government is doing precious little to
undermine the new civilization that America has imposed, “where
the entire world is economically enslaved to the United States,” and
where the USA smashes to smithereens any country that refuses to hand
over its economic surplus.
It
should be underscored that the failure so far to undermine the dollar
cannot be traced to ignorance. One
of Putin’s economic advisors, for instance, outlined
a “set of counter-measures specifically targeting the core strength of
the US war machine, i.e., the Fed’s printing press.”
Russia is likewise taking some tentative steps in this
crucial de-dollarization campaign.
But again, as in all instances of Russia’s efforts to save
itself and to improve the lives of its citizens, steps taken
so
far are slow and incongruous.
III.
Information Liberation?
The
Invisible Government’s power at home and abroad partially depends on
its brilliant propaganda. Indeed,
almost all mainstream information coming out of the West—movies,
books, TV, radio, newspapers, government pronouncements, schools at
all levels, think tanks—has very little to do with truth or reality
and everything to do with advancing the agenda of the Invisible
Government that rules the USA and its colonies.
That
power defies belief. Che
Guevara stated: “Our every action is a battle cry . . . for the
alliance of the world’s people’s against the great enemy of humanity:
the United States of America.” This
is the ABC of international relations, the guiding light of decent and
informed people everywhere. And yet, I’ve lived and travelled in
scores of countries that have been laid to waste by the USA—and most
of the people I interacted with looked up to America as the City on
the Hill. They play and
dance to its music—whose lyrics they often don’t understand and whose
melodies are no better than their own.
They watch US/UK imbecile TV series, sport teams, and
commercials, and read their “bestsellers.” They
adore imperial agents intent on robbing and enslaving them and revile
their own champions.
All
this and more is a testimony to the brilliance of the Invisible
Government’s soft power (and to the vulnerability of most people to
crass propaganda).
Over
the last few years, Russia has taken some steps to counteract that
power—impressive enough for British censors to threaten
Russia Today with
“sanctions.”
Likewise,
in
2014, Russia wisely passed
a “law limiting foreign ownership of media companies.”
Wikipedia—a
useful but at the same time disgracefully pro-imperial information
source—provides one example of the CIA’s masterful monopolization of
most mass information outlets. Russia
knows this and plans
to create its own online encyclopedia.
But
again,
Russia’s infowars gambits do not go far enough:
1.
To
begin with, many Russian television outlets—sadly the most influential
information dissemination source—are owned
directly or
indirectly by the state. Thus, in Russia as in the Western world, TV
is often
government by another name.
2.
As well, even though Russia has been fighting for survival for at
least two centuries, and even though the USA now is waging hybrid
warfare against it, state-connected Russian media often treat
American pronouncements on a variety of topics as the gospel. They
timidly defend themselves from Western mendacities and smears, but
they often enigmatically refuse to employ their best weapon: revealing
outright American criminality at home and abroad.
For
instance, Russian mainstream media
do not often mention
Operation Gladio, nor do they bother to inform their readers
that the American government’s versions of the “war on terror” or the
assassinations of the Kennedy clan, Martin Luther King, Princess
Diana, Dr. Kelly, or Gary Webb, are pure, unadulterated, claptrap.
3. Additionally, there are
such fifth-column media as the Moscow
Times. Here is
Israel Shamir
describing such media—as well as the scandalous behavior of
state-supported media:
“Can you
imagine Fox
TV transmitting Russian propaganda? In Russia, a major chunk of
Russian media,
state-owned or authorized by the taxpayer, transmits pro-Western and
anti-Russian agenda, alleged the eminent film director Nikita
Michalkov, a
staunch supporter of Putin, in his video seen by
over two
million viewers in a few days. He called upon Putin to assert his line
and
banish the enemies within, but state TV refused to broadcast the
video.”
To
sum up: In the last 15
years there have been some improvements in presenting the Russian
government’s position to the world and limiting the power of CIA- and
oligarch-supported media. But
in reality, the Russian government betrays democratic ideals by
monopolizing TV (instead of handing most of it to genuine grassroots
organizations). At the
same time, some mainstream Russian media are still indirectly owned by
hostile foreigners and their agents.
And state-owned, independent, and private media are still
afraid to tell the people of Russia and the world ugly truths about
the West and Russia, still try to curry favor with Washington and the
bankers who control it, still champion at times CIA propaganda.
It is hard to reconcile such ambivalence with the view that
the Russian government serves the interests of the Russian people—or
of humanity.
IV.
Environment: Russia is
Just as Recklessly Suicidal as America
“Although
the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year
might be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty
in the
next thousand or ten thousand years.—Stephen
Hawking, 2016
The
most critical issue facing humanity is survival. Elsewhere
I cataloged the numerous tipping points and argued that—given humanity
reckless tendency to foul its own nest, its propensity to employ any
technology regardless of its destructiveness, and the speed at which
new technologies are invented—that the probability of human extinction
within the next 200 hundred years might exceed 90%.
If so, everything—even such precious things as freedom, real
democracy, justice, peace, space conquest, search for truth, or
spirituality—pale into insignificance when placed side by side with
environmental policies.
Photo Caption: Cry of the Earth (sculpture in the Carved Forest
of El Bolsón, Río Negro, Argentina)
When
it comes to the environment, the USA, as one might expect, gets a
straight grade of F—and so does Russia. Here is a sampler of Russian
environmental policies.
Genetically
Modified
Organisms (GMOs).
These comprise the only sustainable spot I could find.
Russia will no longer import dangerous
GMO products, stating
that “if the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them . . . We
don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to
produce organic food.”
Climate
Disruptions
“Now
we can
only wait till the day, wait and apportion our shame.
These
are
the dykes our fathers left, but we would not look to the same.
Time
and
again were we warned of the dykes, time and again we delayed:
Now,
it may
fall, we have slain our sons, as our fathers we have betrayed.”--Rudyard
Kipling
Earth’s
climate is extremely complex. So, even with the best
available models, temperature measurements, and other data, we can
only make probability statements. It is also true that science now is
often the maidservant of the Invisible Government—rather than the
truth—and so the scientific consensus about climate change might be
fraudulent. It is
certainly true that, after decades of suppressing
the truth, the bankers are about to substitute money-making schemes
for real actions, thereby cleverly derailing genuine environmental
struggles.
And
yet, my own decades-long holistic study
of environmental politics leads me to believe that the chances of
catastrophic climate disruptions before the year 2115
exceed 70%. But let
us humor climate “skeptics” and assume that the chance of a
catastrophe is “only” 7%. Should
we take that chance?
The
answer is: of course not: We
should never risk humanity’s future.
Moreover,
there is absolutely no reason to gamble with that future.
We can solve or curtail the prospects of climate
disruptions—and at the same time significantly improve our health,
wealth, and prospects of survival.
Here are just two examples:
We know how to make cars that would be just as good as
current cars, but that would be at least four times as
fuel-efficient—and we likewise know how to make alcohol.
The
only problem with such steps is that they would harm the bottom line
of both American and Russian oil and gas companies.
And so, on this
issue, at least, the madmen in charge of this planet are in accord. According to Jim Hansen,
the late 2015 Paris climate change agreement is “just worthless
words.” Another
expert points
to a “lack of political
will in Russia to address climate change.”
Isaac Cordal’s
sculpture,
popularly nicknamed “politicians discussing global warming.”
Nuclear
Power
By 1980, I decided to move from smog-filled Irvine to another California location, setting my sights first on the town of Eureka. But, once I noticed the presence of a nuclear power plant nearby, I moved to Oregon. I did so because the horrors of nuclear power were evident by then. In 1977, for example, Ralph Nader and John Abbot wrote (The Menace of Atomic Energy):
“What technology has had the potential for both inadvertent and willful
mass destruction . . . for wiping out cities and contaminating states
after an
accident, a natural calamity, or sabotage? What technology has been so
unnecessary,
so avoidable by simple thrift or by deployment of renewable energy
supplies?”
In the long run, nuclear power is probably not a net generator of electricity and it is not, on its own, economically viable (and even if it were, do we really need to split the atom to boil water?). It was created thanks to massive government subsidies to begin with. Moreover, it now exists thanks to government largesse (e.g., since no insurance company in its right mind would insure nuclear power reactors, the nuclear industry says it will build them only if the taxpayers underwrite “liability for future accidents.”)
Two of the three most devastating nuclear power accidents took place in the former Soviet Union, even though that Union had ample fossil fuels and renewable energy resources. Moreover, if anyone had any doubts about nuclear power, the horrors of Fukushima (the worst is yet to become apparent) should have settled the issue. And if Fukushima was not enough, we must now cross our fingers that collapsing Ukraine with its 19 nuclear power plants will not be visited soon by yet another Chernobyl.
Russia’s rulers should know all this, and yet they are hell bent on creating a lot more of these Frankenstein Monsters for domestic use (one new plant every year from now till 2028) and for exports (29 or more—but see this). This amounts to a disheartening 37% of the “civil nuclear facilities under construction globally.”
Photo Caption: Fukushima tomatoes, coming, one of these days, to
a garden in your neighborhood. It’s
freakish tomatoes now—and sick humans, lots more sick humans, now and
later. Nuclear power is beloved by both the Russian and American
governments not because of its electricity-generating capacity, which,
in the long run, is less than zero. They love its connection to nuclear bombs, profits, and aura
of sophistication. Nuclear
power is also a measure of the scientific ignorance of a country’s
leaders, their corruptibility, or their psychopathic tendencies (the
“after-me-the-deluge” mindset).
Oil
Spills
“Russian
oil
industry spills more than 30 million barrels on land each year — seven
times
the amount that escaped during the Deepwater Horizon disaster — often
under a
veil of secrecy and corruption. And every 18 months, more than four
million
barrels spews into the Arctic Ocean, where it becomes everyone’s
problem.”
V.
Real Democracy: No
Meaningful Difference between Russia and America
“A
certain class of people—sociopaths—are now fully in control of major American institutions.”—Doug
Casey, 2016
Most
people readily condemn dictatorial and totalitarian regimes but
approve of representative “democracies.”
True, such “democracies” might now and then serve the cause
of liberty or justice—as they did at times in the American republic
during Jefferson’s presidency. But
such “democracies” are bound to undergo decay—as happened in the USA
from the very start (e.g., genocide of Native Americans and the
suppression of the entirely justified Shay Rebellion)—a slow process
of decay that in the USA is now approaching fascism.
Likewise,
the Russia we see today, where the government has somewhat improved
the lot of the people and protected them from foreign occupiers, is a
transitory phase. Eventually,
the backstabbers—the people who are willing to commit any crime and
treachery to enrich and empower themselves—are bound to rise to the
top. What you always get
at the end (if
not now?) is the Ascendancy of
the Psychopaths. With Russian-style representative democracy,
it’s just a matter of time before the invasion of the democracy
snatchers.
I
have argued
elsewhere that only real
democracy
can minimize the chances of such a tragic outcome. That is, the people
are comparatively
safe only when they themselves “make all major political, legal, and
judicial
decisions.”
Russia
tragically ignored both this irrefutable logic and the historical
record; instead of choosing real democracy, it aped the Western
“democratic” model. Even
some of the best Russian minds succumbed to Western propaganda,
failing to see that Western “democracies” were in fact oligarchies
that would make Syracuse under Dionysius (inventor of the Sword of Damocles soiree) a
shining example of liberty and equality.
So
now and then, the current leadership of Russia does make a stab at
serving the people and protecting them from foreign occupiers. Sooner or later, Russia will turn into a criminal network
that use brutality and violence to enforce its “control over given
areas and to terrorize others.”
The Berlin Philharmonic is perhaps the best in the world
precisely
because it is the only major orchestra that practices real democracy. Shown here: horn
quartet.
VI. Social Justice: Curbing the Power of Oligarchs and Closing the Gap between Rich and Poor
“The
elephant in the room of Russian politics is that a handful of shysters
basically stole Russia’s most valuable companies in the 90s, minting a
small handful of mega-billionaires, while the rest of the country
ate dirt. The ace up Putin’s sleeve if ever he were in need of a
popularity boost, would be to strip said shysters of their ill-gotten
gains, and redistribute shares to the people. The temptation to
rectify the injustice is just too large for it not to happen, so it
really is only a matter of time.”
And yet, despite some
laudable
moves, the injustice is growing by leaps and bounds!
“One percent
of the
richest people in Russia now own 71 per cent of the country’s wealth.
. . .
high levels of inequality persisted and even increased throughout most
of the
2000s. . . . Social inequalities along gender, ethnic, age, and other
lines are
another characteristic of contemporary Russian society. . . . Women,
elderly
people, homeless people, migrants, etc. regularly face discrimination
in the
country.
“The high
cost of modern housing renders it inaccessible for the majority of the
population; in 2010, only 19.8 per cent of families could afford to
buy new housing with their own savings and/or loans. For the rest,
even rent often appears unaffordable; today around half of all young
adults (age 21–40) in Russia live with extended family.
“Economic
inequality, according to the views of the Russian population, leads to
inequality before the law. More than 70 per cent of Russians believe
that the current judicial system in Russia protects the interests of
rich and influential people more often than the interests of common
people.”
“This
year’s Global Wealth Report by Swiss bank Crédit Suisse records that
22 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the gulf between the
broad mass of the population and the super-rich in Russia is greater
than in any other major country in the world. Thirty-five percent of
the country’s total wealth is in the hands of 0.00008 percent of the
population, or 110 out of a total population of 143 million.
“This
concentration of social wealth created by the working class in the
hands of a few oligarchs, whose fortune is based on criminal
activities and the destruction of the Soviet economy, is a damning
indictment of the restoration of capitalism in Russia.
“The number
of billionaires
has grown at a staggering rate since 2000. According to the Forbes
list, there were no dollar billionaires in Russia in 2000. By 2003
there were
already 17, and by 2008 this figure had risen to 87. After the crisis
of 2008,
another 23 billionaires had joined the list. In its report, Credit
Suisse
stated that the ‘survival chances’ of billionaires in Russia are
higher than in
any other BRIC or G7 country, and the super-rich in Russia apparently
enjoy an
especially high level of protection from the state.
“The broad
mass of the
population lives in varying degrees of poverty.
“The
destruction of
the forms of social ownership created by the October Revolution has
led to
inequality levels and a social disaster of historic proportions.”
VII.
Merchants of Death
“Russian
companies make and sell enough weapons for Russia to remain the second
largest exporter [behind the USA] of arms in the world with the
portfolio of outstanding orders for Russian-made arms exceeding $40 billion.”
VIII.
Incarceration Nation
Incarceration
statistics tell us a great deal about a country’s comparative freedom,
poverty, criminality, justice system, corruption, internal policies,
popular discontent, profound misconceptions about the limits of the
criminal sanction, and moral decay.
On this score again, the USA is #2 (with 698 prisoners per
100,000 inhabitants,
just behind #1 tiny Seychelles), while Russia might (or might not) be
#12 (445 per 100,000). By
comparison, the respective numbers for Iceland and India are 45 and
33.
IX.
Banking: Same
ownership as the West
“The
issue
which has swept down the centuries, and which will have to be fought
sooner or
later, is the people versus the banks.”—John Acton
(1834-1902)
Before talking about Russia, we need to say a few words about central banking in America and the West.
As we have seen, we live now in an upside-down world of perpetual war, tyranny, injustice, materialism, selfishness, starvation, monstrous income inequalities, and ever-growing prospects of human extinction. But this, by itself, constitutes a paradox, because our planet can comfortably provide a decent life for every soul on it. The chaos and suffering must therefore be traced, at least in part, to our rulers.
The ruling clique controlling the U.S., U.K., and most other countries of the world is probably made up of billionaires, generals, and spooks. The best guess is that, at the apex of the pyramid of power and riches, there resides a handful of banking families dedicated to an inter-generational project of enslaving, and perhaps even exterminating, humanity. We have been warned repeatedly over the centuries that, sooner or later, humanity will have to wage an all-out war on these villainous bankers. A brief history of Central Banking shows that in their war against us, the bankers have not only relied on mind control, human failings, co-option, sunshine bribery, rigged elections, contrived terror, and false flag operations, but that they often murdered influential opponents and just about anyone else who could possibly impede their project of world domination.
Originally, the bankers acquired wealth through the fractional reserve scam. This in turn gave rise to numerous other scams, hoaxes, and machinations, needlessly dragging us to wars, fascism, poverty, helplessness, massive transfer of wealth from the people to the bankers, declining health, and a probable environmental catastrophe.
One
quote in particular, provided a dire warning to the American people
from the very start: William Pitt,
Chancellor of the Exchequer, said of the inauguration of the first
privately-owned central bank of the United States under Alexander
Hamilton:
”Let the
American
people go into their debt-funding schemes and banking systems, and
from that
hour their boasted independence will be a mere phantom.”
Such
warnings have been issued repeatedly since 1694 (the fateful year when
the Bank of England was chartered, a bank whose owners have gradually
expanded their influence to the entire world).
Here are few warnings (many more can be found here):
U.S. Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan said [1896]:
“We believe that the right to coin and issue money is a function of
government. . . . It is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with
safety be
delegated to private individuals than we could afford to delegate to
private
individuals the power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. . . . I
stand with
Jefferson . . . that the issue of money is a function of government,
and that
the banks ought to go out of the governing business . . . When we have
restored
the money of the Constitution, all other reforms will be possible, but
until
this is done there is no other reform that can be accomplished.”
Photo Caption: Delegates to the Democratic National Convention (Chicago 1896) carrying William Jennings Bryan shoulder high after he delivered his “Cross of Gold” speech (photo source)
Canadian Prime Minister
William Lyon Mackenzie King (1935):
“Until the control of the issue of currency and
credit is restored to government and recognized as its most
conspicuous and
sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and
of
democracy is idle and futile.”
And here is one of hundreds
contemporary
warnings (Charles
Hugh-Smith,
2015):
“If we don’t change the way money is created and
distributed, nothing really changes: wealth inequality will keep rising,
governance
will remain a bidding process of the wealthy, wages will continue
stagnating,
etc.”
All this raises a fundamental question: Who owns and controls Russia’s Central Bank?
The
answer
is plain. The same
parasitic
bankers that enslave Western “democracies,” the same bankers that are
behind
perpetual warfare on humanity, the same bankers that conduct false
terror
operations to achieve their goals, the same bankers that are
destroying our
planet’s life support systems, the same bankers that are stealing
everything
everywhere on earth, the same bankers that pose the gravest risk to
our few
remaining liberties—are controlling the issuance of money and the
finances of
the Russian Federation.
The
most
meticulous documentation of this paradoxical reality known to me comes
from Russian historian Nikolay Starikov’s Rouble
Nationalization (you can read a book review here):
“The
structure
of today’s world is a financial one par excellence. Today’s chains
consist not of iron and shackles, but of figures, currencies, and
debts. That’s
why the road to freedom for Russia, as strange as it may seem, lies in
the
financial sphere. Today we
are being
held back from the progress at our most painful point—our rouble.
. . . Our
rouble,
the Russian currency unit, is— to put it delicately—in a way, not
quite ours.
And this situation is the most serious obstacle to our country’s
development.
. . .
“Let us start with the
simplest question —
who issues roubles? This is easy — the Central Bank of Russia, also
known as the
Bank of Russia, has the monopoly on issuing the Russian national
currency.
“‘Article
6.
The Bank of Russia is authorized to file suits in courts in
accordance with
the legislation of the Russian Federation. The Bank of Russia is
entitled to
appeal to international courts, courts of foreign countries and courts
of
arbitration for protection of its rights. . . .
“The Russian
economy
does not have as much money as required for its proper operation but
equal to
the amount of dollars in the reserves of the Central Bank. The amount
of roubles
that can be issued depends of the amount of dollars Russia received
for its oil
and gas. That means that the whole Russian economy is artificially put
in
direct correlation with the export of natural resources. This is why
a drop in oil prices causes a collapse of everything and
everywhere.
. . .
“An idea of
a bank independent from the state was brought into the Soviet
Union as
a Trojan horse—through ‘advisors’, through those who had
practical
trainings at Columbia University, those who were recruited or simply
betrayed
their country. . . .
“Among other
things,
it contains such amusing details as article 7: ‘Drafts of federal law
and
regulatory documents of the federal bodies of executive power
concerning duties
of the Bank of Russia and its performance shall be submitted to the
Bank of
Russia for approval.’ If you want to dismiss bankers through making
amendments
to the legislation—kindly submit the draft of the bill to them in
advance.
Otherwise, they might as well sue you for your legal mayhem in
a court of
Delaware . . .
“The second
security
level is the Constitution, as the ‘reformers’ shoved some words on the
Central
Bank and its status even into the Constitution. Article 75 (points 1
and 2)
says that ‘the currency of the Russian Federation is the rouble’, and
‘issuing
of money shall only be done by the Central Bank of the Russian
Federation’,
that ‘it performs independently from any other governing bodies.’ If
you want
to be surprised—have a look at Soviet Constitutions. Read the
Constitution
of the USA. You will find no mention of a bank that issues money
independently anywhere, because such articles should not be
a part of the
main law of the country. What body issues the currency is
a technical
question, it is not fundamental for the country and its people. For
the people
it is not very significant, but it is a key issue for enslaving
the
country. That is why it was hastily dragged into the Constitution. And
now this
technical detail is there next to the fundamental rights of Russian
citizens.”
Most
truthful
observers hold the same view.
We have earlier discussed the views of Michael Hudson regarding
the
related paradox (that of Russia financing its own destruction), a
paradox which
can be best explained by the fact that Russian finances are under the
control
of international bankers. But
just to
dispel any doubts, let me cite a few other observers:
F.
William
Engdahl (2015):
“The key to
Russia’s economy,
to any economy for that matter, is the question of who controls the
issue and
circulation of credit or money, and whether they do it to serve,
directly or
indirectly, private special interests or for the common national good.
. . . The
Russian Central Bank . . . [has] de facto life and death power over
Russia’s
economy. With Article 75 the Russian Federation de facto gave away
sovereignty
over her most essential power–the power to issue money and create
credit.”
And
(2015):
“The prospect
that
there may be collaborators and fifth columnists at Russia’s Central
Bank should
surprise no one. The RCB is an independent organization that serves
the
interests of global capital and regional oligarchs the same as central
banks
everywhere.”
Valentin
Katasonov (2015):
“Yeltsin, for
example,
needed correctly educated and brought-up ‘advisors’. They were needed to present the law on the Central Bank of
Russia
at the right moment which hardly did less damage than a whole
army of
invaders in making Russia lose its sovereignty.”
Paul
Craig
Roberts (2015):
“Putin needs
to clear
out the traitors who run the Russian central bank and serve the
interests of
foreign capital at the expense of Russia’s interest.”
The “Saker” (2014):
“Putin
rejects the
western political model while apparently still fully endorsing its
economic
model.”
Mikhail Khazin (2016):
“All the real levers of running [Russia’s] economy and finance remain
in the hands of people placed there by the very same global financial
elite.”
***
Needless
to
say, this reality—that Russia’s all-important economy and central bank
are
controlled by the same people who control the Federal Reserve—is
consistent
with the view that the Russian government is just another criminal
gang looking
for turf. What’s more,
this reality is even
consistent with the view that both sides of the Russo-American
conflict are
simply following the orders of their common banking overlords.
Could
Russia’s
Ambivalence be Explained?
I call it the Madman Theory, Bob.
I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I
might do
anything to stop the war.
We’ll just slip the word to
them that, “for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about
Communism. We can’t
restrain him when he’s angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear
button—and Ho
Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.—Richard
Nixon, 1968
Why
does
Russia take enormous risks in Syria but fail to take the crucial steps
of
nationalizing its Central Bank and thereby weaken its chief adversary
more than
any military action possibly could?
Why
does it let
the Rockefellers run its economy?
Why didn’t
Russia set Syria free from the empire’s brainwashed, crazed, foreign
mercenaries by sending large enough ground forces to liberate the
whole of
Syria in a few weeks, instead of giving its enemies plenty of time to
undermine
Syria’s independence and territorial integrity? Why in heaven’s name did Russia betray
its natural
allies Iran and Libya at the United Nations Security Council? Why does
it ban
GMOs but still insist on boiling more and more water with a
radioactive witch’s
brew? Why doesn’t Russia
take the stolen
money and resources from all
the criminal,
Western-propped, oligarchs and return them to the people?
Why does Russia simultaneously act for and
against the interests of its people and of humanity as a whole?
It
is
doubtful that anyone—including the Russian leadership itself—knows the
answer. Here, instead,
are a few
guesses.
1.
One
intriguing explanation has been recently put forward by the “Saker.” According to him, real
power in Russia is
held by two principal camps. The
first
is comprised of the “Atlantic Integrationists,” the oligarchs who
connive to
make Russia join the West as a junior partner.
These Integrationists “are
still
in full control of the Russian financial and banking sector, of
all the
key economic ministries and government positions, they control the
Russian
Central Bank and they are, by far, the single biggest threat to
the rule of
Putin and . . . to the Russian people and Russia as a whole.”
The second camp
is
comprised of “Eurasian Sovereignists” whose goal is “to fully
sovereignize Russia and make her a key element in a multi-polar but
unified
Eurasian continent.”
This
camp
enjoys the support of 90% of the Russian people and the military,
police,
and intelligence services.
The balance between these two inimical factions has only
recently reached a 50/50 point of (unstable) equilibrium.
Putin, we are assured, “is a very
good man in charge of a very
bad system.” His acts cautiously and
timidly because his
hands are tied and because he must always watch his back and
prevent his
overthrow.
So it’s just a matter of time until
Putin and his faction
“crack down on the Central Bank and the economy ministries.”
I don’t find this explanation
persuasive. Since
Putin enjoys the
support of the Russian people, police, army, and intelligence
services, the
solution to this 50/50 configuration is simple. Dismiss the fifth columnists, return most of their wealth to
where
it belongs (the Russian people), and offer them a deal they can’t
refuse: Prison
terms for murders and thefts, or comfortable retirement in Russia
with a few
millions of their ill-gotten gains intact.
2. A second, more convincing explanation
for Russian puzzling timidity is again offered by the Saker:
“I
am
sure that Putin fully realizes that, at least potentially, his policy
of resistance,
sovereignization and liberation can lead to an intercontinental
nuclear war and
that Russia is currently still weaker than the AngloZionist
Empire. Just
as in the times of Stolypin, Russia desperately needs a few more years
of peace
to develop herself and fully stand up.”
3. The situation could be worse.
Throughout the first chapter of the Cold War
(1945-90), Russia was always lagging behind.
Even the Cuban Missile Crisis, according to one source, was a sadly asymmetrical standoff.
Does the Invisible Government of the UK/US
still possess a decisive military trump card which forces Russia to
tread with
extreme caution?
4. A slight variation of this speculates
that Putin knows he is dealing with Dr. Strangeloves and General
LeMays. These madmen
have been terrorizing the world
for a quarter of a century with impunity and are not yet
psychologically reconciled
to a position of primus inter pares (first among equals).
Perhaps, Russian policy makers might feel,
the madmen controlling Washington need time to adjust to new
realities. Russia’s
foreign minister put it this way:
“The
West’s total domination . . . is in the midst of a
long transition period to a more durable system in which there will
not be one
or even two dominant poles–there will be several. The transition
period is long
and painful. Old habits die slowly. We all understand this.”
5. The Russians might suspect that the
American empire might be close to self-destruction.
Russia
must avoid at all costs an all-out nuclear war and merely give the
empire enough
rope to hang itself.
6. There is no reason to believe that
run-of-the-mill
politicians are smarter, better educated, or endowed with a more
holistic
vision of the world than most plumbers, basketball players,
scientists, or other
specialists. In this
world of ours, it
is only a rare individual who can achieve both power and wisdom. So it is conceivable that
Russian leaders operate
in the dark when it comes to understanding and reacting to such
complex
challenges as psychopathy, climate change, nuclear power,
overpopulation, dollar
hegemony, or banking.
7.
London
and Washington have a long, indisputable, tradition of assassinating
their opponents. In
fact,
assassinations constitute one of the score or so pillars
of their power. For
example, Nikolai Starikov
a contemporary
Russian historian, presents strong evidence
that the English government murdered Stalin and, before that, almost
all the descendants
of Louis XIV of France. The
evidence
that this practice continues to the present day is conclusive,
with a higher level of probability than the assertion that
tobacco kills. By now,
the Invisible Government has
perfected its assassination technology to the point of killing with
impunity,
without anyone being able to definitely prove their involvement. Could the timidity of
Russia’s leaders be
traced to their justified fear for their very own lives?
8.
The
City of London and Wall Street have been bribing their way to victory
for
centuries. Could they
likewise be bribing,
or promising the moon, to a powerful segment of the Russian
leadership?
9.
For
centuries, Russian leaders appear to have been under the spell of
Western
snake charmers. Before
Tolstoy’s time,
the Russian upper class preferred French to its own beautiful language
and some
Russian intellectuals hoped that Napoleon would conquer Russia.
Later, some Russian intellectuals, seeing the
horrors of Stalinism, strove
for American victory in the Cold War (until their dream came true and
they
realized that they naively undermined their own people and culture). The same psychology, the
same unjustified
but deep-seated inferiority complex, could explain Russian failure to
react
decisively to the existential threats it faces now.
10.
We
know that the key institutions in Russia—its central bank and finance
ministries—are controlled by the same bankers who control Washington. Isn’t it reasonable to
assume that the
Russian government is under the control of these bankers too?
11.
The
last explanation that comes to mind can be best introduced with the
perceptive short story “Lather
and
Nothing Else,” of Colombian writer Hernando Téllez.
The
setting
is a barbershop in a Colombian town.
The narrator is the barber, a member of the revolutionary
movement struggling
against a banker-propped savage oligarchy.
A captain of the Colombian version of the Death Squads enters
the
barbershop to have a shave. This
captain,
the revolutionary barber knows, is a fiendish cutthroat trying to
scare the townspeople into submission.
Recently, the captain forced the entire town to witness the
brutal
execution and mutilation of four of the barber’s fellow
revolutionaries. The
four were stripped naked, hung, and then
certain parts of their bodies were used for target practice.
The captain also tells the narrator of his
plan to kill and torture more prisoners later that day.
The
narrator,
holding a sharp razor in his hands and attending to the defenseless
murderer, faces a wrenching dilemma.
On
the one hand, he knows he should kill the villain, if only to delay
the
impending doom of his imprisoned comrades.
On the other hand, he knows that such an action would either
cost him
his life or radically alter it.
He
recoils from the image of cutting throats, of snuffing out the life of
a
monster in the shape of a human being.
He also feels that “he is a revolutionary, not a murderer.” What he wants in life is
“lather and nothing
else.”
Throughout
the
shaving session, the narrator believes that the captain knows nothing
of
his, the barber’s, revolutionary sympathies or internal struggle. At the end, upon leaving
unscathed, the
Death Squad captain says: “They
told me
that you’d kill me. I
came to find out. But
killing isn’t easy.”
It
could
be that the current Russian leadership finds itself in a similar
situation to that barber. For
the
enemies of Russia, scruples are incomprehensible at best, contemptible
at
worst. To win against
such villains,
the leaders of Russia must employ their opponents’ tactics. But
for good people, this is easier said than
done. Could it be that
the Russian
leadership is just too decent or timid to engage in assassinations,
regime
changes, destabilizations, and genocides?
These
are
all the possible explanations I can cull from the literature or come
up
with at the moment. No
doubt such
explanations or others, separately or jointly, account for the paradox
of
Russian indecisiveness.
Regardless
of
the correct explanation, no one could accuse the Russian leadership of
competently
and wholeheartedly fighting for a better, safer, freer, and fairer
world.
The
Balance
Sheet
Instead of a clearcut resolution, our backbreaking game of chess
ended
in a stalemate. Before
trying to make
sense of this outcome, let’s summarize it.
We began with the question: Should those of us who are aware and
who care support Moscow’s struggle against Washington or should we
view it as a
struggle between two competing criminal gangs?
We next showed that the USA is indeed controlled by a criminal
network, and provided a brief review of the 1990s plunder of Russia by
America’s rulers.
We then moved on to explore the provocative statement that the
Russian
government is just another version of organized—and legal—crime. This survey yielded the
following results:
·
For
ordinary
Russians, Putin’s rise to power was a mini-miracle.
Suddenly, a government appeared in Moscow
that stopped the plunder and disintegration of the Gorbachev and
Yeltsin years,
and restored normalcy. Poverty, lawlessness, and corruption declined,
life
expectancy, industrial production, and agriculture vastly improved,
the further
disintegration of the Russian Federation was brought to an end, CIA
efforts to
destabilize Russia were counteracted, Crimea was restored, the vicious
attempt
of overthrowing the democratically elected secular government of Syria
is being
thwarted by military means, defense capabilities were vastly improved,
and the
power of the criminal oligarchs have been diminished. Russians could again feel proud of their country and
heritage,
and they could, at long last, trust their government.
·
On
the
military and political front, Russia is standing up to American
imperialism
and is apparently striving to resurrect the multipolar world of the
Cold War
years. If it succeeds,
this can only be
welcomed by the world’s war-weary people, especially by countries
trying to
escape the depredations of the bankers and strike an independent path. Paradoxically though, on
many other
occasions involving its allies and vital interests, Moscow turned a
blind eye
while the Invisible Government turned country after country into a
wasteland. Likewise, on
the economic
front, Russia is actually enabling the strangulation of its economy
and currency
as well as financing its own military encirclement and eventual
conquest.
·
The
same
perplexing indecisiveness is observed in the critical information
wars. While Russia has
taken some steps
in presenting its version of events to the world, and while it limits
the
Invisible Government’s control of its media, Russia TV is for the most
part
owned by the state, the Russian media suppresses inconvenient truths
and
genuine dissent, and they often parrot American lies instead of
exposing them.
·
Russia
and
America are equally indifferent to humanity’s environmental
predicament. The only
bright spots in
Russia’s environmental record is its incipient opposition to
genetically
modified crops and to Rockefeller
medicine and its intention to pursue organic agriculture. Apart
from that,
Russia mimics or even outdoes America in its attack on the biosphere
and the
health of its people. For
instance, it
learned nothing from its own nuclear catastrophes in Kyshtym
and Chernobyl and is developing nuclear power for exports and domestic
consumption. Or, to take
another example,
Russia does nothing to mitigate the specter of climate disruptions.
·
Instead
of
establishing
real
democracy, Russia aped the Western model of representative
“democracy.” Even at the
best of times, such “democracies”
do not represent the interests of ordinary people. Sooner or later, they are doomed to be taken over by
psychopaths.
·
“A handful of shysters
basically
stole Russia’s most valuable companies in the 90s, minting a small
handful of
mega-billionaires, while the rest of the country ate”—and is still
eating—dirt.
Very little has so far
been done “to
strip said shysters of their ill-gotten gains, and redistribute shares
to
the people.”
As a result, unlike the
much-maligned
Soviet Union, Russia is plagued by vast income inequalities, poverty
for the
majority, inequality before the law, and unaffordable housing.
·
Russia
is
the second largest exporter of killing machines in the world (behind
the USA),
and, allegedly, #12 incarceration nation (the USA is #2).
·
Incredibly,
Russia’s
central bank and economy are under foreign control.
Unless the Russian Constitution is
overhauled, and unless Russia regains control of its economy and
currency,
Russia is sure to follow the disastrous, life-destroying,
path of
countries ruled by and for bankers.
The
Russian Phoenix:
Hope or Illusion?
The madmen are planning the end
of the world. What they call continued progress in atomic warfare
means
universal extermination, and what they call national security is
organized
suicide.—Lewis
Mumford, 1946
We
have
now assembled, in one place, facts and arguments about the bewildering
ambivalence of the current Russian government—enough, hopefully, for
readers to
make up their own minds about that ambivalence.
For
my
part, this assemblage suggests the following tentative resolution.
To
begin
with, I feel that this issue can be best addressed by asking two
questions, not just one.
The
first
question is: Should we—humanitarians or revolutionaries—sympathize
with
Russia in its current half-hearted struggle with the Invisible
Government?
My
answer
to this question depends on the validity of Brandon Smith’s hunch that
Russia
and the U.S. are dueling in a fake gladiator match. If his hunch turns out to be correct, then that match is no
concern of ours.
But
if
the Russian government is nothing more than a criminal network
competing with
other networks for turf, or if, as appears more likely, it is a
government that
is partially committed to strengthening Russia and improving the lives
of
ordinary people, then I think our sympathies should be with Russia. Unlike the American or
English governments
of the last 35 years, the Kremlin made Russia stronger and happier.
Moreover,
if Russia succeeds in restoring a multipolar world, the vast majority
of people
everywhere will benefit. To
see this,
you only need to compare living conditions of ordinary people in
Crimea to the
rest of Ukraine, in Syria (where hope is still alive and where
depleted uranium
is not yet contaminating the land) to Iraq, in the USA and the West
before and after
Soviet collapse. And, Russian success would open a much-needed space
for humanitarian
and revolutionary struggles everywhere.
The
second
question is: Should we
dedicate
our meager resources exclusively to our own revolutionary
program,
or should we also divert some resources to Russia’s dubious struggle
for
building an alternative to the Invisible Government?
In
the
long run, it makes little difference to the world’s people and to the
future of humanity if the bankers exercise their vicious rule through
the City
of London, Wall Street, Beijing, Moscow, Timbuktu—or an habitable
planet of Alpha
Centauri. Moreover,
absent sweeping
reforms, it is unrealistic to expect Russia to come even close to
realizing the
dream of a more free, just, peaceful, and survivable world.
If we share that dream, then all our
resources should be dedicated to its single-minded pursuit.
To
sum
up my own appraisal. Progressives
and
revolutionaries of every nation on earth ought to sympathize with the
Russian government’s struggle against the bankers. But they cannot realistically expect that government to do
their
work for them. When it
comes to the crucial
struggle for survival, freedom, peace, and justice, they are on their
own.
Back
to
Revolutionary's Toolkit