Putin Defies The West, Leads BRICS Alliance Away From NWO Reservation

NoBC4U Note: A few longer reads today. Though I'm not sure I agree with a few things in this article, there's nothing wrong with my ideas being challenged. Over time, I might come to agree with them. Or not. Time will tell.

Why is the Anglo-American Axis so afraid of Putin and determined to bring him down?

No world leader has been so demonized by the West over the past decade as President Vladimir Putin of Russia has.

No other president or prime minister has been subjected to so many outrageous personal attacks and unrelenting false accusations.

Clearly, Vladimir Putin represents a genuine threat to the World Shadow Government (WSG) in a way that profoundly unnerves those who reside at the peak of the global power pyramid.

Why are they so afraid of him?

Before that question can be answered, the hidden history of the preplanned collapse of the USSR must first be understood and properly considered. Only by understanding the true historical context in which Vladimir Putin operated at that time will his actions and pronouncements of today take on great meaning. This unknown history is also quite important if one is to comprehend the reactions of his countless detractors throughout the leadership of the Anglo-American Axis (AAA). As follows:

ULTRA-SECRET DEAL MADE PRIOR TO THE ENGINEERED COLLAPSE OF THE USSR FOLLOWING THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL

One of the best kept secrets which predicated the inevitable collapse of Soviet communism and the subsequent breakup of the USSR is that it actually occurred in a manner not too unlike a carefully controlled demolition. Only in this case they were bankers and politicians, investment brokers and power-brokers who actually pressed the buttons. All of the plans toward that end were fastidiously laid by these stakeholders, all of whom had the greatest interest in exploiting the vast wealth of the Russian motherland.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the USSR were not the spontaneous series of major events that the Mainstream Media (MSM) would have us believe. Neither was it the result of President Ronald Reagan’s request: “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall”; although his Hollywood background made for some great (and convincing) political theatre. “Perestroika” and “glasnost” were simply buzzwords bandied about to present the appearance of a fundamentally changed USSR. Yes, Russia did become liberalized especially in contrast to Soviet Communism, but only so it could be neo-liberalized by the banksters.

Complete story at - Putin Defies The West, Leads BRICS Alliance Away From NWO Reservation

Western Media Coverage of the Ukraine Crisis Is as Distorted as Soviet Propaganda | The Nation

Growing up in the Soviet Union, I used to approach words like “Voice of America” (Golos Ameriki), BBC, Deutche Welle (Nemetskaia volna) with a certain reverence: they meant hidden, clandestine and therefore precious truth. Truth and news were not found in Pravda or Izvestia, regardless of the explicit claims of these newspapers’ titles; truth and news dwelled in the little short-wave radio, which would tell its eager audience what was really happening in the world.

Official Soviet press was notorious for its manipulation of facts, and even more so for its tendency to ignore particular issues altogether. Dissident activity, Israel, unrest in socialist countries—these stories were off-limit, unless the most vicious vitriol was thrown at them. This policy bordered on the ridiculous.

I learned since then that these radio stations were government-sponsored, that they rarely reported “the whole truth,” but still, the facts that they reported were sufficient to break through the all-encompassing fantasies created by the Soviet media.

With the recent crisis in Ukraine, and much to my dismay, I've begun to experience an eerie sense of déjà vu. It is as if I'm observing the good old days of the Cold War but through some distorted mirror. Too many major news organizations believe, rather naively, that simple echoing of their government lines will somehow work in the West, even though it failed in the Soviet Union. It is rather ironic that Secretary John Kerry has decided to make RT the subject of his criticism, by calling it the “propaganda bullhorn” echoing the accusations that good old Soviet apparatchiks would hurl at Voice of America.

The official line for the Ukrainian story has been already scripted: Ukrainian desire to embrace Western and democratic ways is blocked by spy-master Putin who utilizes his guile and aggression in order to restore the Soviet Empire. And therefore, any unexpected impediment in Ukraine’s march toward Europe is to be blamed on Tsar Putin. The concrete changes and challenges that time brings to this story are ignored, dismissed or misread. Be it the refusal to take Russian interests into consideration, or the causes behind Russia’s annexation of Crimea, or the Russophobic hysteria that keeps ostracizing large segments of the Russian-speaking Ukrainian population. Not to mention the current Ukrainian government’s heavy handed and violent tactics, including the military excursions into the east of the country that have pushed the country to the brink of civil war. All these unexpected events are set aside, while the wheels of the press keep on turning in the same rut and dutifully condemn Putin’s aggression, or articulate different ways of punishing Russia, or juxtapose thuggish Russian separatists with the benevolent and restrained Kiev regime.

Complete story at - Western Media Coverage of the Ukraine Crisis Is as Distorted as Soviet Propaganda | The Nation

The War for Ukraine’s History | New Eastern Outlook

Walter Duranty, the Pulitzer-winning New York Times correspondent, is long dead. However, Duranty has not been forgotten, because there is an ongoing battle over his 20th century work — in a 21st century ideological war.

Duranty was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his reporting in the Soviet Union, and the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist right wing has not forgotten this. They continue to make efforts to have his prize posthumously revoked.

The John Birch Society, white supremacist David Duke, and prominent figures in the Republican Party have all rallied around the call for Duranty’s prize to be revoked. They call Duranty a “communist propagandist” and “Stalin apologist.”

Yet, when one looks over Duranty’s writings, they just don’t sound like communist propaganda. Duranty calls Stalin an “imperial dictator” and a “czar,” comparing him to Ivan the Terrible. He describes Soviet society as “supreme autocracy of the imperial idea.”

Duranty’s writings reek of anti-communism and contempt for Marxism-Leninism. One of Duranty’s articles for which he won a Pulitzer proclaims: “Russia has transformed Marxism—which was only a theory anyway—to suit its racial needs and characteristics, which are strange and peculiar, and fundamentally more Asiatic than European.”

The Pulitzer Committee has refused to revoke Duranty’s 1932 award, because no evidence has yet been provided that Duranty lied about anything. In his reporting, amid his racist and anti-Soviet editorializing, he accurately described what he observed in Moscow and other parts of the Soviet Union.

Complete story at - The War for Ukraine’s History | New Eastern Outlook

​A recovery the West has never forgiven Russia — RT Op-Edge

Though the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 may have been regarded as a positive event by Western historians and ideologues, a victory for and validation of liberal democracy, its impact on the lives of Russian people was devastating.

In her superb book – The Shock Doctrine (2007) – Canadian writer and journalist, Naomi Klein, sets out in forensic detail the way in which the Russia that emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s was used as a laboratory by American free market think-tanks, gurus, and economists. They descended on the country while it was still reeling from the shock of the implosion with the objective of setting up a pure market economy shorn of any and all state intervention, wherein the market would decide who worked and who did not, who could heat themselves and who could not, who ate and who starved – ultimately who lived and who died.

The record shows that many did starve, did go cold, and did indeed die.

The beating heart of the shock doctrine methodology and ideology applied to Russia in 1991-92 was from the economics department of Chicago University, commonly referred to as the Chicago School. The major influence within the Chicago School was the late Milton Friedman, the man credited with devising the architecture of neoliberal economics based on monetarism. This is an economic model which places a focus on controlling the money supply as a way to anchor inflation, which he and his co-thinkers viewed, and still view, as the enemy of economic growth.

The human factor was relegated in order of importance by comparison, which meant ending any pretension of an economic system serving the interests of society. Now, under Milton Friedman’s theory, society existed to serve the economic system. The challenge, given the severe impact such an extreme economic model would have on the lives of millions, was how to implement it successfully with minimal resistance from the people it was harming. The solution was encapsulated in his statement: “Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change.”

Complete story at - ​A recovery the West has never forgiven Russia — RT Op-Edge

Why Russia Probably will not Bomb Kiev’s Forces in Eastern Ukraine | The Smirking Chimp

During the early 1950s American warplanes dropped some 635,000 tons of bombs on Korea. In April 1961, the U.S. bombed targets in Cuba. During the 1960s and early 1970s the U.S. devastated Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with approximately 6,000,000 tons of bombs.

In December 1983, America bombed Beirut in response to terrorist attacks there that killed 299 American and French soldiers. To demonstrate America’s strength and resolve in the wake of the Beirut bombings, President Reagan ordered U.S. forces to invaded weak little Grenada. The U.S. dropped yet more bombs, including one that killed at least a dozen people in a hospital. In 1986 Reagan ordered the dropping of yet more bombs — this time on Libya. Some struck civilian areas.

His successor, President George H. W. Bush ordered the dropping of more bombs during the invasion of Panama in December 1989. One of his publicly stated justifications for bombing Panama was America’s need to protect the lives of Americans living there. When the United Nation’s Security Council drafted a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Panama, it was vetoed by France, Great Britain and the U.S. – which cited its obligation to protect some 35,000 Americans in the Canal Zone.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the United States bombed Iraq in early 1991. It dropped 177 million pounds of bombs on that country.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, both the United States and NATO found themselves free to invade and bomb countries that would never have been bombed or invaded, had the Soviet Union continued to exist.

Complete story at - Why Russia Probably will not Bomb Kiev’s Forces in Eastern Ukraine | The Smirking Chimp

Noam Chomsky: America's Real Foreign Policy – A Corporate Protection Racket | naked capitalism

By Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Among his recent books are Hegemony or Survival, Failed States, Power Systems, Occupy, and Hopes and Prospects. His latest book, Masters of Mankind, will be published soon by Haymarket Books, which is also reissuing twelve of his classic books in new editions over the coming year. His website is www.chomsky.info. Originally published at TomDispatch

The question of how foreign policy is determined is a crucial one in world affairs. In these comments, I can only provide a few hints as to how I think the subject can be productively explored, keeping to the United States for several reasons. First, the U.S. is unmatched in its global significance and impact. Second, it is an unusually open society, possibly uniquely so, which means we know more about it. Finally, it is plainly the most important case for Americans, who are able to influence policy choices in the U.S. — and indeed for others, insofar as their actions can influence such choices. The general principles, however, extend to the other major powers, and well beyond.

There is a “received standard version,” common to academic scholarship, government pronouncements, and public discourse. It holds that the prime commitment of governments is to ensure security, and that the primary concern of the U.S. and its allies since 1945 was the Russian threat.

There are a number of ways to evaluate the doctrine. One obvious question to ask is: What happened when the Russian threat disappeared in 1989? Answer: everything continued much as before.

The U.S. immediately invaded Panama, killing probably thousands of people and installing a client regime. This was routine practice in U.S.-dominated domains — but in this case not quite as routine. For first time, a major foreign policy act was not justified by an alleged Russian threat.

Instead, a series of fraudulent pretexts for the invasion were concocted that collapse instantly on examination. The media chimed in enthusiastically, lauding the magnificent achievement of defeating Panama, unconcerned that the pretexts were ludicrous, that the act itself was a radical violation of international law, and that it was bitterly condemned elsewhere, most harshly in Latin America. Also ignored was the U.S. veto of a unanimous Security Council resolution condemning crimes by U.S. troops during the invasion, with Britain alone abstaining.

All routine. And all forgotten (which is also routine).

Complete story at - Noam Chomsky: America's Real Foreign Policy – A Corporate Protection Racket | naked capitalism

The Vineyard of the Saker: How the Ukrainian crisis will eventually bring down the AngloZionist Empire

There are many theories out there about what exactly caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some say that it is Ronald Reagan with his Star Wars program. Others say that this is the war in Afghanistan or the Polish union Solidarnosc. Other popular theories include the failure of the Soviet economy, the drop in oil prices, the inability to produce consumer goods, the yearning of many Soviets for western-style freedoms and incomes, national/ethnic problems, a hypertrophic military-industrial complex, a massive and corrupt bureaucracy, the corruption of the CPSU and its nomenklatura, the personal treason of Mikhail Gorbachev and many other theories. While all of these factors did contribute to weaken the Soviet system, I do not believe that they brought it down, not even combined together. What really brought down the Soviet Union was something entirely different: an unbearable cognitive dissonance or, to put it more simply, an all-prevailing sense of total hypocrisy.

But before I make my case about the role of hypocrisy, let me first clarify why I don't believe that any other of the theories I listed above make sense: simply because the USSR survived much, much, harder times. Frankly, the entire period from 1917 through 1946 was much worse than anything which happened during Brezhnev's "stagnation" or after. And yet, not only did the Soviet Union survive, it almost single-handedly defeated the biggest military machine Europe ever created - Hitler's Wehrmacht - it also deterred the Anglosphere from its plans to attack it at the end of the war. Then it more or less won the "space race" (with the very notable exception of the race to the moon which the USSR lost on 24th of October 1960), built what was arguably the most powerful conventional military force on the planet while enjoying an internal economic boom. By any measurement, the USSR was a formidable power during a very long period.

But then something went very, very wrong.

Personally, I am inclined to blame Nikita Khrushchev who, in my opinion, was by far the worst leader the Soviet Union ever had.

Complete story at - The Vineyard of the Saker: How the Ukrainian crisis will eventually bring down the AngloZionist Empire

Will Russia become a superpower? Part 1/2

Back in the final days of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated an agreement. The Soviets would withdraw from Eastern Europe and dismantle the Warsaw Pact, and in return the Americans would stop the NATO expansion and the encirclement of the Soviet Union. Both sides were to ease the tensions and build up relations. However, what happened next was that the Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe triggered a series of nationalist revolts throughout the USSR. The unintended consequence here was the break-up of the Soviet Union. In the aftermath of this collapse, NATO quickly moved into the former Warsaw Pact member states and even expanded into the former Soviet states in the Baltics. From the perspective of the new NATO members, joining the alliance made sense, given their past experiences with the Soviet Union. But from Russian perspective this was an utter betrayal.

Fast forward to 2005, the Russian president Vladimir Putin announced that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster. But Putin wasnt referring to the collapse of communism. He was referring to the fact that almost three centuries of Russian expansionist policy was reversed in a matter of days. Russia was basically retracted to its 17th century borders.

The Russians could have accepted the situation as it was. However, in 2003, the Rose revolution unfolded in Georgia. A year later the Orange revolution hit Ukraine. And the Baltic countries joined NATO. Imagine what the Russian leadership was thinking. About two decades ago they were betrayed and lost their global empire. Now NATO was moving into the remaining former Soviet states. The only thing that the Baltics, Ukraine and the Caucasus add to NATO is to increase a multi-vector offensive strategy on the Russian Federation. From Russian perspective this was the old NATO strategy of encirclement, and if things kept going at this speed, the very existence of the Russian Federation would be in question in a matter of years. This is what Putin was referring to. It was a wake up call for the Kremlin to reassert itself or perish in history.

Complete story at - Will Russia become a superpower? Part 1/2

M of A - Ukraine: The East Strikes Back

The people in the eastern industrial heart of the Ukraine had so far a mostly unsatisfactory life. After the catastrophic end of the Soviet Union the industries they were working in were either shut down or sold off for peanuts to some shady oligarchs. The economy fell, then stagnated and unlike in nearby Russia never recovered. They democratically elected a somewhat pro-Russian president Yanukovich but he was removed by an anti-democratic coup. Twice.

Now some alliance of fascists and oligarchs are ruling in Kiev. One of them, the pseudo blond gas-princess,  threatened to kill the Russian speaking people in eastern Ukraine. The coup government installed some Jewish Israeli-Ukrainian thieves as governors to rule over them. The announced austerity program will ruin what is left of the the eastern Ukrainian industry. So what are these people to do?

Of course they will not agree to calmly sit down and to let happen even more bad things to them. Instead they will follow the example the putschists and their U.S./EU supporters in Kiev laid out for them. They are occupying government buildings, proclaim self-established people's republics and ask their big neighbor Russia for help.

Supporting the moves in the East is the continued threat of the fascists in Kiev where the paramilitary Right Sector stormed the constitutional court to remove judges not in its favor.

  

Complete story at - M of A - Ukraine: The East Strikes Back