Wikileaks proves CIA has no evidence of Russian hacking

Wikileaks proves CIA has no credible evidence of Russian hacking

 

by Don Hank

 

Foreword: My friends occasionally warn me about appearing to be too friendly toward Russia, as if such were possible.

So why do I focus so much on Russia? Five reasons come to mind:

1-I have studied Russian language and literature for most of my adult life, on both the undergraduate and graduate levels. During my studies, I came to love and admire the Russians based on what I have learned about them. They are for the most part courageous, intelligent, sensitive, honest, persevering and long suffering, to mention but a few of their merits.

2-In recent years, I have watched the Western world deteriorate to a situation that by now seems beyond repair. There is hatred between left and right, between the races, between Mexicans and US citizens, between Muslims and Christians, and there is a press and political class that encourage this, and that foments hatred of the more mild-mannered Muslims while embracing the more intolerant and violent ones, as I showed here. The press and politicians constantly stir up wars that we inevitably lose or that destroy whole nations and regions, and the elites are at a loss to articulate why (although it ought to be obvious why they do this, as I explained here). There is no change in sight. In comparison to Russia, the latter seems like a paradise, even to the most objective observer.

3-To keep up with the language, I read almost all the speeches and interviews delivered by Putin in the original Russian. I also have read his biography in his native tongue. It is no exaggeration to say I feel as if I had known him all my life and I know how he will react in each situation. In diplomacy, he seems to be heeding the words of Christ.

4-The most formidable danger facing the world is nuclear war and the media and political class seem hell-bent on starting a war with Russia. From what I have read, partly in the Russian press, I am convinced that either of China or Russia could destroy the entire US in a matter of minutes with their hardware (which is why I posted this).

5-Of all the issues that the msm and politicians lie about and distort, all things touching Russia are by far the most distorted and misunderstood. I would be a bad person if I snoozed through this barrage of lies and false narratives, and, given all the research I have done and my educational background, I simply can’t do that.

After all, why would someone with years of research under his belt in precisely this life or death issue not want to counter the obvious lies about Russia? Should I care that some racist Westerners will think ill of me and call me a pinko or a commie – even though the West is adopting the model of the USSR while Russia has learned its lesson about tyranny the hard way and has backtracked to a conservative, sane and healthy way of life and public policies?

I had told you this before, based solely on an analysis of the inane accusations by the “intelligence” agencies, here and here.

The breaking news about the CIA is that Wikileaks has received a data trove proving they have been using Russian software and malware to create fake “evidence” that the Russians are hacking US officials.

Firstly, the sly press interpreted this, eg, here, as follows:

WikiLeaks’ Attack on U.S. Intelligence

“The release of the CIA’s hacking tools is a victory not for the American public but for Russia.”

In other words, in Slate’s view, making the public aware of the truth is not a victory for the people? So is it a victory for them to be uninformed? I guess so. Moreover, calling it exclusively a victory for Russia implies we have lost something. So clearing the path to a detente with Russia, a nuclear power, is a bad thing – no matter that it might be a step to avoiding a nuclear holocaust?

Wired goes even further, saying that even though the CIA had tools to fake Russian hacking, there is no indication that they used them.
Right. So if a man with a stocking over his head is carrying a bag of burglar tools and is standing outside a freshly-broken window of your home, don’t jump to conclusions and call the police or anything.

But ok, let’s suspend disbelief and say it does not prove the Russians did not hack US officials. But Wired and the rest of the CIA hit men journos omit to tell us what it does prove: That all the hard “evidence” of Russian hacking is now null and void, because the only “evidence” was Russian characters in docs supposedly left by the “hackers” but now we know that this is not proof it was the Russians and not the CIA itself, which previously had given non-credible evidence, such as the scope of the data dump and the “motive” – as if Bernie Sanders supporters had no motive whatsoever to leak this information to the public.  If the CIA has no evidence, how is this undocumented theory of a Russian hack a print-worthy story?

The CIA’s claim that they found Russian “fingerprints” all over the files that were left by the hackers, including characters from a Russian keyboard, was a stupid thing to say because the Russians are a lot smarter than to leave that kind of trail. And the Russians don’t lie to the press in ways that can easily be detected. (If you compare the Russian press with the Western press, you will see that the latter often prints things that are later disproven and presents viewpoints not supported by the facts, as evidenced by the Russian hacking narrative). If you follow the Russian press, eg, Sputnik, Russia Today, TASS, Ria Novosti, etc, you therefore do not see obvious exaggeration and lies. Ask yourself: Why would a country with almost no public debt need to lie about its economy, for example, to a country with a $20 trillion debt? Why would it need to lie about its foreign relations when it does not start color revolutions and create chaos throughout the world?  Why would it lie about its treatment of its citizens when no scandal has ever broken over spying on its own people, or when no riots occur in its cities or when its president has as high as 85% approval in the polls (which never happened in the US, ever!)? Etc. Observant students of Russia and Putin and their modus operandi know the Russians did not hack our officials. So when Putin said several months back that the Russian Federation does not interfere in elections of other countries, he was telling the truth. How did I know? Because, as I explained in my articles Putinology 101 and The Putin Principle, Russia has long stated as part of its public policy statement and publicity program that, unlike the West, they do not meddle in other countries’ internal affairs, for example, as the US did at the Maidan in Kiev, causing a  bloody illegal coup that led to an ongoing civil war and wrecked the country socially and economically. Meddling is exclusively Western MO. Russia must avoid all appearances of meddling, especially in US internal politics, because non-interference is what they have been trying to promote throughout the world, creating a stark contrast to the US and showing the public that their hands-off policy really works by establishing trust and respect in foreign relations. So far this policy has led to excellent relations with even the most difficult states, including NATO member Turkey, which, despite the Turkish shootdown of the Russian fighter over Syria, now has better relations with Russia than with any Western country (Holland just recently refused to let Erdogan’s plane land at a Dutch airport; Merkel refuses to let Erdogan campaign among Turkish residents of Germany). The iron-clad Russian non-interference principle is why Putin was very circumspect in his description of Trump, calling him yarki, which when applied to persons, only means roughly “colorful,” not “bright” as it was wrongly translated in the Western media (BTW, I am a technical translator by trade and Russian is one of my languages). Trump foolishly said Putin had called him a genius. Hardly! Trump’s over-the-top claims have contributed to this own downfall by creating the illusion that Putin supported his campaign, even though Putin repeatedly said he did not support either candidate and will work with either one that is elected.

Russia has in Vladimir Putin one of the most gifted diplomats and statesmen who ever lived.  The US is at best in the hands of bungling amateurs. And that is putting it diplomatically. After all, I would not want a Russophobic Neocon saying I am a Kremlin stooge.

 

Related:

http://laiglesforum.com/analysis-shows-us-intel-agencies-inventing/4034.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-latest-fake-story-from-us-intel/4038.htm

 

 

 

The Enlightenment: Philosophical origin of the Deep State

The Enlightenment: philosophical origin of the Deep State

by Don Hank

Some observers of current events are repeating the centuries-old notion that religion causes wars, and there is plenty of evidence in European history to support this notion. The rejection of religion as a philosophical trend flourished in the Age of Enlightenment and it was the excesses of the Catholics and also many of their opponents, the early Protestant sects, that fed into this. The novel Candide by Voltaire is a catalogue of such excesses. However, Voltaire’s ideas represent only the more radical branch of the Enlightenment, which bitterly opposes Christianity, while the writings of, say, Pascal and Locke, plead for a more enlightened Christianity rather than the abolition of the religion altogether. The current blatant Russophobia and pro-Saudi (ie, anti-Assad, anti-Shiite – eg, anti-Iran and pro-terrorist) policies of the US are an extension of this radical form of the Enlightenment, which promotes radical Islam for only one reason and that is, to oppose Christianity – ie, the same reason they promote LGBT. Otherwise you could not explain why they support two phenomena with such diametrically opposite and mutually antagonistic effects.

Thus, the age of the “enlightenment” is still ongoing and the radical form of it is overpowering the West with almost no one realizing this on either side of the aisle. Some people blame this evil on the Jews, but in fact, the Jews cannot be expected to support Christianity wholeheartedly. If US so-called Christians were smarter, neither the Jews nor any other minority could put a dent in our general American culture, just as they cannot harm Russia, where Christians have generally been kind to Jews but refuse to be manipulated – and this is easier for the Russians because the Russians defeated fascism and Soviet propaganda and literature focused on the harmony between Jews and Russians (which is not to say that Jews were always treated kindly by Russian groups). For example, the Soviet novel The Sword and Shield by Vadim Kozhevnikov, which Russian President Vladimir Putin claims influenced his decision to join the KGB, poignantly contrasts the Third Reich’s abuse of the Jews with the Soviets’ respectful treatment of them (while this novel is available on line free of charge in Russian, no unexpurgated English-language editions are available in the US, where every effort is made by the Deep State to keep the kinder aspects of Soviet Russia away from curious eyes).  An example of Putin’s kind but firm attitude toward Russian Jews was on display when he visited the Schneerson Library in Moscow. He mentioned to them that the library was nationalized during the first government of the Soviet Union, which he said was made up of at least 80% Jews It was a reminder that the Russians are tolerant of other religions, but also a subtle hint that nothing like this takeover of a Christian country by a radical minority hostile to Russian Orthodoxy would be allowed to happen again. This stands in stark contrast to the disproportionate power that AIPAC wields in the US government, where it has been challenged since the 70s by different administrations to declare itself a foreign agent but has always won court cases, despite the blatant illegality of this situation.

Meanwhile, the American government supports fascist Ukraine today, for example, and EU states put Jews in harm’s way by indiscriminate immigration policies toward refugees from terror-exporting states. Consequently, very few Jews still live in Europe today. Thus the West implements a hypocritical policy toward its Jews that makes no sense to many Americans.

Putin represents the milder and more reasonable version of both the Enlightenment and Christianity and he therefore represents the only world power that effectively offsets terrorism while also respecting its Muslim and Jewish populations. He has the only formula that can succeed.

The West is failing with its defense of the radical form of the Enlightenment ideas that led to the bloody French revolution, Bonaparte’s catastrophic romp thru Europe and Russia, and Stalin’s and Mao’s murderous excesses. The creation of ISIS by the US-Israeli-Saudi axis can trace its lineage back to these same old radical ideas. If the West ever grows a brain it will begin to study and implement Putin’s policies. I would urge universities to offer a course in Putinology, as suggested here.

About that hammer and sickle on the Russian Army flag

About that hammer and sickle on the Russian Army flag

 

by Don Hank

Someone recently asked me why the Russian military has reverted to the hammer and sickle on their flag. I explained that this symbol antedated the Russian Revolution and did not necessarily denote communism. In fact the revolution itself was supported by a people who never dreamed it would turn communist. The hammer and sickle was rather used as a symbol of independence from the West and a kind of warning against Western meddling.

I think the fact that the symbol is back in place is a sign of just how angry and frustrated Russians are at the Western introduction of terror in Russia.

Just imagine how you would feel if another country introduced terrorist killers into the US and they occupied a school, as they did in Breslan, and started killing child hostages. Can you imagine a greater affront? Actually, the Saudis did something like this, killing 2-3000 Americans and our government covered up for them.

Meanwhile, the Russian intelligence services, including their ex chief Putin, knew the US was behind these atrocities and kept silent for 2 decades, as reported here.

You should be struck not that the Russian army has reinstated the old symbol of independence that affronts Americans, but that they sat silent for 2 decades nursing their pain from the death of those children and other atrocities committed by the US-backed and trained terrorists.

I personally have not a single doubt that everything a person or a country does to harm another will eventually come back to harm the offender. I have seen it happen too often to doubt it. It happens right around the time people wake up and recognize the treachery behind the event.

The EU bosses used trickery to induce the Brits to join them, but now, decades later, Britain has left the EU and the bosses are rightfully worried sick that another major player will leave. If Italy were to leave, for example, the EU could be crippled fatally. That’s the kind of justice I am talking about. It is divine and cosmic and it is unstoppable.

The US government lied about trade agreements for years, and now, Europe and Japan have stopped believing. Thus TTIP is all but dead. This is how it works.

In the early 70s the US made a dirty deal with the bloody Satanic Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, whereby the US would fight all Saudi wars for them in exchange for the Saudis propping up the US dollar. The wars intentionally took the lives of innocents, including many Christians, and destabilized country after country in ways that ushered in groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. But despite the plot to save the dollar, last year already, almost all US allies joined the Chinese investment bank AIIB, despite desperate pleas from Obama not to join.

In compliance with unknown terms of the petrodollar agreement, Washington founded and funded, together with the Saudi Rat Pack, at least 3 major terror groups, all of which came back to bite us. Worst of all, our evil government is no longer trusted anywhere. And despite the desperate measure to prop up the dollar with murder, the plan is backfiring. The same Saudis who plotted with Washington are now grinding down the dollar with rock bottom oil prices. There is no honor among thieves they say.

Washington’s power is being drained little by little.

What went around came around.

And all the silly Neocons can talk about is a symbol on a flag. And yet, US embassies all around the world are flying the rainbow flag, no less an affront to good hard working traditional people everywhere and no Neocon utters a peep.

Hypocrites all of them!

 

 

 

Hoax busted: There is no US-Saudi relationship

Hoax busted: the American people have NO relations with the Saudis

 

by Don Hank

 

A Neocon article titled Analysis: Russian jets in Iran change Mideast game – Middle East criticizes the new “game changing” arrangement between Iran and Russia in which the latter uses Iran’s airport facilities as a home base for its anti-ISIS bombing missions. While the author calls his piece an analysis, it is in fact blatant propaganda, distorting the nature of the “game change” he describes.

 

QUOTE:

“…this type of change is definitely not in the interests of the US, America’s traditional Sunni-Arab allies in the region, nor Israel.”

 

In fact, the US-Saudi relationship touted by the author is not a relationship between the US people and the Saudis, although the sneaky author would like us to believe it is. We the People obviously have no interest whatsoever in a relationship that spawned the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS, destroyed previously stable partner countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria and seriously threatened Egypt until el-Sisi stepped in, all of which has served only to erode US prestige and credibility in the world. The American people have, in fact, an existential interest in ending this ill-conceived US Establishment-Saudi relationship as soon as ever possible, while the financial elites, notably the Federal Reserve Board, know that the Saudis are the key to propping up a dollar that has practically no other support in our debt-based economy and government. It is known that, under the secretive petrodollar agreement between the US elites and the Saudis, the US government has promised to protect the Saudi royals and their oil fields in exchange for their charging only US dollars for their oil and buying US sovereign bonds as financial reserves, all of which have been, since the early 70s, keeping the value of the US dollar artificially high. But what is not known is how much further that agreement goes in reality, thanks to terms brokered in secret, either since the original deal or at the time Richard Nixon and King Faisal signed it. What is known, however, is that all US wars outside the New World, without exception (ie, even the Kosovo war), have clearly benefited violent and intolerant Saudi Wahhabism, but in no way benefited the US people, and this is all a sinister indication that the agreement goes much deeper than is known. Indeed, looking back over the last 50 odd years of warfare, initiated by the US on the flimsiest of grounds, Washington and Wall Street appear to have sold out US interests and even the interests of civilization itself in exchange for a strong dollar worth far beyond any economy-based intrinsic value, enabling them to “print” unbacked dollars in QEs 1 through 3 and possibly beyond without having to pay for the value thereby stolen from other economies throughout the world.

By contrast with secretive US-Sunni (Wahhabi) cooperation, the Russia-Shiite relationship brought about the first sincere attempt to stop ISIS, thereby thwarting the once unchallenged Saudi-US relationship.

The US then reluctantly followed Russia’s example by attacking ISIS in Iraq, politically unable to do otherwise but knowing that in so doing it was flirting with the possible rupture of the dollar-supporting agreement described above, and hence with financial disaster for the elites.

Further, the rearrangement of the Middle East chessboard has not only led to Russia’s establishment of an airbase in Shiite Iran but, prior to this, had led to a flourishing relationship between Netanyahu and Putin, which has benefited both countries. There can be no question that Israel-US relations are now much cooler and unproductive than Russia-Israel relations. (But remember that the US and Russia have swapped roles both domestically and in terms of foreign policy).

Thus the crucial difference between US foreign policy and Russian foreign policy is that the US has so far cultivated good relations only with one side – the Sunnis and their radical Wahhabi terrorists (posing at times as “moderates”) and also with the warlike Likud Party in Israel (instead of reconciling both the hawks and the Israeli factions that want peace) – a policy that necessarily leads to the untenable situation of perpetual conflict, while Russia has taken the broader view, trying to cultivate relations with both Sunnis and Shia, and just as importantly, with Israel, in an attempt to bring permanent peace between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East and end the Palestine-Israel conflict. (BTW, there is another unseen aspect to all of this in that many Western Christians believe – in large part under encouragement from sly Neocons – that any US attempt to bring about peace in the Middle East is unbiblical and that somehow, God wants them to support, or at least passively consent to, senseless wars in order to fulfill prophecies that carry unspecified time frames and schedules. Yet this lack of specific time settings makes these prophecies hard to pin down and makes a rigid interpretation inappropriate at best. Further, there is no biblical commandment or even suggestion that Christians are supposed to consent to or participate in wars at any time in history — the way so many of them did during the Iraq invasion, believing at first — thanks to sly propaganda efforts willingly perpetrated by fooish clergy — that this disastrous war that saw the banishment of most Iraqi Christians, was godly. Thus Christianity has been used as a tool of Satanists thanks to the lack of common sense and spiritual discernment of these pawns with little grasp of the scriptures. I showed previously how these Christians are disobeying an important commandment of Jesus).

So yes, this new Russia-Iran arrangement is not in the interests of the US if we define the US as the Neocon perpetual war Establishment (including Obama and Hillary), and it is not in the interest of the Saudi Wahhabists whose ultimate goal is the total annihilation of Shia and Christians as well as civilization as we know it. But the Saudis, with their intolerance toward people with different opinions and religions, certainly do not deserve to be given by the US, through stealth or otherwise, the green light to continue founding and funding terror groups throughout the world, whether or not their rampaging props up the greenback, because such is obviously immoral unless you are a Neocon or central banker. Thus, Washington’s oft-times schizophrenic foreign policy is precisely due to the fact that, while the elites have constantly supported the barbaric Saudi regime and its thinly veiled terror campaign (for the reasons enunciated above), the ordinary people whom they despise sense that this policy is insane and threatens civilization.

The Establishment has been playing the mischievous wizard behind the curtain. But thanks in large part to Donald Trump, and to alternative media, this curtain is now in tatters and ordinary people can easily discern the wizard and his evil machinations. Whether or not Trump wins the presidency, it is only a matter of time before the wizard’s workshop will be permanently closed down.

Obama’s own Napoleonic Wars

Obama’s Napoleonic Wars

 

by Don Hank

In Europe, the elections are manipulated and Eurosceptical political parties are neutralized simply by being called “nationalist.” This is like the label “demagogue,” which is applied to non-Establishment candidates because they remind people of things that would make anyone but the lobotomized angry. Reminding people of the obvious abuse by the Eurobullies is slyly called “manipulation of emotions” or the like, when in fact it is the Establishment that causes the anger in the first place. But everyone is supposed to behave like mechanical dolls with no emotion and that is “democracy.” If you are angry at being treated like a slave, you are undemocratic and must be closely watched and supervised.

Throughout the West, and particularly in the EU, while nationalism is blamed for wars, it is far from the main culprit. It is SUPRANATIONALISM in the form of centralized governments (intended to lead up to a one-world government) that causes wars, especially when the central government (eg, the EU) works in tandem with – or rather as a puppet of – the Washington-NATO dictatorship.

Here’s how it works:

Napoleon Bonaparte was not a nationalist. In fact he was not even French. He was Corsican. It was his idea of uniting all nations, not under the French tricolor, but under the ideological banner of the Enlightenment, that caused the Napoleonic wars. Therefore, though few realize it, the so-called Enlightenment itself, not nationalism, was responsible for the Napoleonic wars. Nor do historians point out that there were different variations on the Enlightenment theme when that movement first appeared, and that only one of them, the most radical and anti-traditional one, prevailed. This radical ideology taught that tradition itself was behind all evil and must be abolished at all cost, including guillotining anyone who happened to disagree. Few realize that Lorenzo de Medici was actually an advocate of an Enlightenment that was both Christian and linked to the roots of Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle. This tradition-respecting idea from Italy was far removed from the radical French “Enlightenment” ideals that led to the massacre of church clerics and thousands of innocents who failed to pass the political correctness tests of the day. The French Revolution, based on the Enlightenment, saw the first trials of non-commonsense, non-sane, anti-traditional ideas in action and was a laboratory for the subsequent implementation of the non-sane ideas of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and other 20th Century mass murderers.

And nota bene: The US-EU system is still implementing non-sane ideas of its own invention – such as the notion that gender is interchangeable, and is still fighting an extension of the Napoleonic wars throughout the world to protect non-sanity — such as the teaching that Christianity is violent while Islam is peaceful, or that boundaries don’t exist and must be abolished (no one seems to notice that it would be pretty hard to abolish something that doesn’t exist). While not openly atheistic, the Western elites are clearly anti-Christian, waging wars that ultimately promote radical Islam and promoting, domestically, virulently anti-traditional ideas (leading, eg, to lawsuits and exorbitant fines imposed on bakers who refuse to bake gay wedding cakes with inscriptions on them that shake their religious beliefs to the core) and causes that sully traditional people’s sensitivities and instincts. Already, it is socially impossible to say in public “marriage is a union between a man and a woman” without incurring the wrath of almost everyone in our zombie-like society. Even those institutions cheekily calling themselves “churches” will condemn you for saying something so “un-Christlike.”

The ideas of the radical Enlightenment (as opposed to its more moderate branches, which have long been virtually banned) have led to the destruction of most of the Middle East, Afghanistan and Kosovo, as well as the near-total destruction of Syria, and threaten to plunge us into another war with Russia. How do you suppose that will work out?

Let’s ask Napoleon and Hitler how it worked out for them and their splendid invading armies.

Who’s the REAL demagogue? Trump or the Establishment?

Who’s the REAL demagogue? Trump or the Establishment?

by Don Hank

A British writer who does not like Donald Trump recently expressed publicly:

 

“Mr Trump’s rallies increasingly attract violence – by his opponents and his supporters.”

In a three-way conversation in which I was included, a mutual friend reminded him that it is not fair to blame a person who is attacked for being attacked. The mutual friend asserted that it is a well-known trick of the left to blame the attackee for being attacked.

 

The Trump detractor, undeterred, then called Trump a mountebank who made “demagogic outbursts.”

 

demagogism, demagoguism, demagogy

the art and practice of gaining power and popularity by arousing the emotions, 

passions, and prejudices of the people.

 

It must be noted that in Europe, especially the UK, when someone accuses someone else of being a demagogue, the purpose of the accusation is generally not to adhere to a standard definition of the word but rather to stealthily create an association in the mind of the audience between the person thus impugned and Adolf Hitler. The implication is an appeal to emotion intended to stop the discussion before it can get started – often because the accuser lacks the skill and/or the supporting facts to continue the discussion. That may not have been the case in the above-referenced discussion and I don’t intend to imply that. Note, however, that, particularly in Europe, the accusation of demagoguery is in itself a kind of subtle soft demagoguery because it is intended to evoke emotional images of the last war that caused so much suffering in Europe. Good patriots generally bow reflexively to the person who conjures up this image, no matter how irrelevant it may be. While it is true that Trump, like all the other candidates, appeals to emotion and can thus technically be accused of demagoguery, the content and purpose of Trump’s utterances is the diametric opposite of Hitler’s. In fact, I will go so far as to say that, ironically, the Hitler analogy is more applicable to the Establishments in Europe and the US, which oppose Trump.

In the case of Adolf Hitler, the ultimate goal was war, a racist war that would force Germanism on the rest of the world and even eliminate many non-Germans.

During the GOP debates, almost all of Trump’s opponents expressed the idea that Russia was the number one enemy, on the assumption that the American people would reflexively agree with this assessment, forgetting that Russia had never declared jihad on anyone. Some, like Ohio Governor John Kasich, even went so far as to say that if he were president, he would “punch Russia in the nose.” Ohio Governor Chris Christie said he would also do so if the Russians violated a US-imposed no-fly zone, and Carly Fiorina agreed with both demagogues. Hillary, for her part, has compared Putin with Hitler, and her choice of pro-war cabinet members has led a number of scholars to predict that a Hillary presidency would lead to a nuclear war.

Now why do I call this war rhetoric demagoguery? I do so because it is clear that these Neocon warmongers firmly believe that most Americans are still generally imbued with Cold War fervor. Of course, they are wrong, because if that were true, Donald Trump – who bravely said in his campaign, “I think I can get along with Putin” – would not be as popular as he is. In fact, it is safe to say that Americans are inexorably turning against the Neocons whose whole raison d’être is centered around the kind of senseless war that has caused untold suffering throughout the world for over a half-century. The same rejection of the Establishment is being seen in Europe.

Now the demagoguery of both parties’ elites is almost identical with Hitler’s but is potentially more dangerous because we now are looking at the possibility of a nuclear confrontation, and numerous warnings are being issued by officials in relevant positions such as former generals and foreign ministers, eg, here, here, here, here, and that is barely scratching the surface.

Everywhere in the West, the elites have used nothing less than demagoguery to keep the masses in check. Every time a politician, like Angela Merkel, accuses her opponents of being the “far right,” she is in fact attempting to conjure up images of the Third Reich, when in fact, the EU and Establishment regimes are nothing but an extension of that regime, as ably demonstrated by Rodney Atkinson, for example, in this video, and by our colleague Edward Spalton, eg, here.

Yet the demagogues who want war continue to call the peacemakers demagogues.

But the threadbare ruse can only last until the people see through it, and the time is just about up.

Those identified as supporting the Establishment could soon lose all credibility. The good news: it is not to late to adjust one’s message accordingly.

A word to the wise.

News item:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/13/french-policeman-stabbed-death-paris

Looks like these terrorists are trying to get Trump elected. (Yea, I know, they are just stupid!)

Don Hank

Will Putin hand Trump the presidency?

Will Putin hand the presidency to Trump?

by Don Hank

I was invited to participate in a conversation among a group of friends who are hoping that the Kremlin will turn over their cache of Hillary emails obtained via the Romanian hacker “Guccifer” just in time to smear her prior to the November election. Judge Napolitano has stated that the Kremlin is holding these emails and is not sure what to do with them. The group was hopeful that Putin would reveal the content of this cache just in time for Hillary to be indicted before elections. Here is my reply to the group:

Yes, this could be a big deal.

But remember that Putin has an iron-clad policy of never interfering in the internal affairs of what he calls “partner” countries.

Putin must stick to this policy to avoid hypocrisy because he has publicly opposed interference by the State Department in the color revolutions, the Arab Spring and the military interventions in Kosovo, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, nations that have been utterly ruined by Washington’s intervention. Thus by failing so abjectly in every attempt at control, Washington has handed Russia a huge propaganda advantage and he will not fritter it away by imitating Washington’s interference in other countries’ politics … including US politics. It is his principle (part of what I have called the Putin Principle) to avoid such chicanery, thereby presenting a stark contrast with Washington “leaders” and in so doing – ie, by his studied refusal to interfere – letting the world beat a path to Moscow – as Netanyahu has done just this week, for example.

He must come across to existing and potential trade and military partners as squeaky clean in this regard and not be seen interfering in anyone’s business, except, for example, to be seen as protecting the lives of minorities in Syria, or of Russian speakers in E. Ukraine, who have, you will recall, been bombed from the air and subjected to murders and abuse by fascist thugs of the Right Sector who revere men like Stepan Bandera, a Nazi who aided Hitler in killing Ukrainian Poles back in the day (these openly fascist partisans march in parades with photos of these old “heroes”). Unfortunately, these lumpenproletariat are all seen as part of the US-backed Kiev government. We own them and that fact makes Putin look like a white knight by contrast. Dim-witted State Department and Pentagon officials, as well as professional Russophobes (whom I exposed recently for the phonies they are), whine that RT (Russia Today) is “Russian propaganda” and some have even suggested banning it or imposing a heavy tariff on its revenues in the US. But the reality is that US foreign policy has been Russia’s best propaganda.

You will recall that when asked what he thought of Trump, Putin’s answer was totally apolitical. He only made a vague reference to Trump’s intelligence, which was misinterpreted by Trump to mean Putin thought he was a “genius.” Not quite, but it was a nice gesture on Volodya’s part (the nickname is not “Vlad” in Russian BTW). He pointedly commented at the time “we do not interfere in anyone’s internal affairs,” a comment that went over most Western heads because most of us refuse to believe that no other governments could possibly abstain from Washington-type skullduggery. “They’re all doing it.”

Just remember: Putin’s argument is that it was interference on the part of USAID, “sandwich girl” Victoria Nuland, Geroge Soros (who admitted on national TV that he was involved in the Maidan coup — the subject of my report here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140530) and the top “leaders” of EU countries (like President Rutte of Holland, Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, etc), who personally blundered into the Maidan deceitfully presenting the EU as a potential savior — just as the EU had done in Greece), that turned Ukraine into a showcase of grandiose failure with an economy about on the level of Haiti’s). Thus Russia, which has never bankrupted another country, is holding all the propaganda cards thanks to the endless trail of failed states left behind by the West. Putin intends to hold on to these cards. He said in his autobiography that even in his youth, he never gambled. He won’t start now.

Thus Putin must and will be very careful not to look like another meddler because he has billed Russia as the anti-meddler and he will tend this image like a gardener tending a prize rose bud. So don’t expect him to openly threaten Hillary with blowing her whistle. He can’t afford to even appear to do this, as much as he would certainly like to.

Sure, he has some sympathy with Trump, but after all, Trump has waffled on his stance toward Putin and on Syria. None of us — including Vladimir Putin, is too sure what he would do as president.

That is another reason Putin must hold his cards close to his vest — something he is very good at.

So as much as he might want to help, and as much as my email group may yearn for it, Donald J. Trump will have to find his own way to the White House.. But after all, he is a “genius,” isn’t he?

 

Russia refuses to sell tanks to Iran

Russia refuses to sell tanks to Iran

 

by Don Hank

Russia is constantly accused in the West of only pursuing its own selfish interests in the world, particularly in the Middle East. However, if that were true, then, particularly now that US-imposed sanctions are hurting them economically, one would expect them to sell arms to any country that asks for them. Russia is, however, refusing to sell its sophisticated T-90 tank to Iran.

If you understand what I call the Putin Principle, as described here, you will easily grasp what is motivating him.

According to TASS, President Vladimir Putin is trying to comply with international treaties, which at this time ban the sale of tanks to Iran. Iran and Russia are not on the best of terms right now because Iran thinks Russia is too cozy with the West. For example, Iran does not want Russia to deal with Israel, but of course, Russia does what is best for Russia (which is also what is best for the US people, but the Neocons, as defined here, are not We the People, quite the opposite). Putin is a friend of Israel. Some Israeli leaders have said he is the best friend Israel has. That may be true.

There is contention in the Kremlin right now because the hardliners in the Russian military want direct military confrontation with the West. Putin wants peace with all sides but is also looking out for the security and safety of the Russian speakers in Ukraine and the minorities, notably Orthodox Christians, in Syria. At this point in time, it is fair to say that Putin is the de facto mediator between all world factions. In accordance with the Putin Principle, he does not take sides (at least not in the obtuse manner of Washington), just insists on respect for international law and the sovereignty of nations  –  not some silly “Russian exceptionalism” or the like (though a case could be made for the existence of such).

If the West has the upper hand, there will be constant senseless wars everywhere. If Putin’s Russia imposes its will, there will be peace between the 2 main axes, ie,

Israel-US and allies (incl the Saudis and Turkey)-Europe, and

Russia-China and allies (such as Syria and Iran – though Iran is an unreliable ally).

If Putin is removed from power or retires at this point, the hardline faction in the Kremlin could take over and make life a living hell for the West. There could be a world war. Putin is the key to peace.

So what do our brilliant Neocons (like Hillary and most GOP “leaders”, for ex) do to promote peace and show their respect to the Russian leader?

Why antagonize Russia as much as possible, amassing NATO troops at the Russian border just as Hitler did prior to WW II and imposing sanctions intended to hurt Russia but which in fact hurt Europe more.

We need to understand clearly that there cannot be all-out war with Russia. That is a false concept entertained by all shallow Western foreign policy “experts.” There can only be all-out war with the China-Russia bloc, never with Russia alone. They will defend each other. Numerous joint exercises and military parades in conspicuous places are intended to demonstrate their solidarity and the “experts” snoozed through them all. In the 70s the elites thought that free trade with China would cause a split between the 2 nations (as outlined in my commentary “China, an unreliable tool of the New World Order”), which at the time the free trade deal was signed, were not on friendly terms.

Heavy-handed and childish US meddling has meanwhile united them, and has also made China extravagantly rich – unintended consequences of an irresponsible gamble.

For most of you, the following will be a rhetorical question:

Can the US defeat BOTH China and Russia?

For those who actually have contemplated this question seriously, here is something to chew on:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/130726

Don Hank

Next US president must understand the Putin Principle

The disarmingly simple Putin Principle in foreign policy

by Don Hank

One of the cardinal points raised by Sun-tzu in his “Art of War” is the proposition of knowing the enemy. I will take that a step further and say that sometimes knowing the enemy leads to the discovery that he is not the enemy after all. And one further step: to the discovery that one is one’s own enemy.

The US government is the classic example.

There seem to be an alarming number of people who actually believe that hoax email making its rounds claiming that Hillary’s emails have been hacked by Russia.

First off, the story originated with a well-known hoaxster with the pseudonym Sorcha Faal, who specializes in these Russian fairy tales.

Secondly, if Americans do not have the ability and resources to hack into Hillary’s server, how in heaven’s name would they be able to hack into the Kremlin server?

The Kremlin is not run like the Washington government. No official would dare to let down his guard enough for a Westerner to hack into Kremlin emails. The offender would not get a smack on the wrist, the way Hillary did. Russians are serious about their government. Sadly, Americans have degenerated to the extent that very few care any more or believe that any government could possibly be serious about protecting its people. Why would any government be more honest than ours?, they reason.

The whole idea behind this fake story is that the Kremlin wants to interfere in our elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that when Putin was asked his opinion of Donald Trump, he ventured to say that Trump was clever (Trump later expanded this compliment claiming Putin had called him a “genius”), but in his very next breath, Putin made it clear that Russia has a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. He was thereby establishing an unmistakable contrast between Russia and the Washington government.

I will attempt in a few lines here to explain a somewhat complex cultural and political situation in Russia as well as the mind of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the most important things you need to know about Putin is that he is serious about government business. Unlike our demented officials, he does not play irresponsible games. I am just now reading his biography, and recently came across an anecdote about his early days in the KGB school in Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg (BTW, Putin was not a spy, but rather an intel analyst). A few of his class mates — senior classmen — were discussing a certain hypothetical order that they might receive in the field.

When it came his turn to add his opinion, Putin said “that order is illegal.” Their attitude was “so what? It is an order.”

He said, “it is still illegal.”

That brief anecdote speaks volumes about who Vladimir Putin is and why he is respected in his own country (his popularity is still in the 80% range) and. increasingly, abroad.

Now, taking this further, Putin saw many years ago that the Washington government lies and cheats. It makes its own laws as it goes and enforces laws that are not on the books. All illegal in the international sphere. (Example: James Baker promised Gorbachev that the US would never encroach on Russian borders. Once an agreement was reached with Russia regarding relations with the US, the US broke that promise, and it is still doing so, with NATO building up heavy forces along Russia’s western border). Americans have been brainwashed into believing that lawless behavior in Washington is a good thing because America is “exceptional.” But this slipshod attitude toward the serious matter of international law – which, after all, governs the circumstances that lead to either war or peace – has led to the near-total destruction of Kosovo (in case you missed these, see: http://laiglesforum.com/so-youre-fond-of-nato-eh-mr-cruz-check-out-these-videos-of-nato-in-kosovo/3690.htm and http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm), Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Putin discovered long ago that the US was on the wrong track and set about to develop a strategic policy for his country that would restore legality to geopolitics and so impress the rest of the world that they would eventually trust Russia more than any other country. I like to call this policy the Putin Principle. The Kremlin calls it soft power.

It is the iron-clad implementation of this simple principle that led to Russia’s policies in Ukraine (particularly in the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea) and Syria.

The Western press and political class has brainwashed an astounding number of Westerners into believing that Russia is promoting lawlessness in these regions when in fact, even in its military operations, it is respecting sovereignty of nations and ethnic groups and their territories.

The West claims in unison that the accession of Crimea to Russia was an “annexation,” whereby Russia simply snatched territory in a selfish expansionist move. And yet no serious party in this same Western world protested the referendum in Scotland or claimed it was illegal. The US and Europe were all prepared to accept whatever the outcome might be, including Scotland’s separation from the UK, based on the principle that Scotland had a right to sovereignty, even though it was technically part of the UK. And once that vote became official, the Crimean people were free to accede to Russia.

Yet what was perfectly legal in Scotland was “aggression” in Crimea, even though over 90% of Crimeans (the vast majority of whom are Russian speakers and consider themselves Russian) voted in this referendum to break away from Ukraine – and for the same reasons that many Scots (just short of a majority) wanted to break away from the UK, namely, cultural identity.

Thus, by our own Western logic as applied to Scotland, what the Crimeans did was legal and not in any way reprehensible.

Russia simply accepted the will of the Crimean people and honored their sovereignty. But of course, Russia is illegal by definition in the West.

Likewise, in Syria – in contradistinction to the US, which waded into an internal conflict without any invitation from the Syrian people – Russia entered the conflict only when the duly elected president of Syria invited it to do so. In fact, it made a similar offer to the Iraqi government but stayed out of that conflict when the Iraqis declined the offer, choosing instead to allow the US to pretend to fight ISIS there and create one of their  trademark messes.

The “exceptional” US government went into Syria illegally while Russia entered as an invited guest. The US was exceptionally lawless. Yet it accuses Russia of “expansionism,” just as England – the most expansionist country that ever existed, touting an empire on which the sun never set – had once accused Russia of expansionism during the conflict with Turkey in the 19th Century.

Thus the West has always written its own laws as it goes, based on nothing but bare-faced propaganda.

Note that Putin not only wants to apply this more-righteous and in fact, more common-sense international policy of strict adherence to international law to Russia but at the same time, to use this higher virtue as an arm of soft power by contrasting it with the West’s ad hoc law of the Wild West. He and his government, often via the mouthpiece of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, use every opportunity (eg, UN speeches, speeches before the Valdai Club, press conferences, interviews, RT) to drive this concept home.

The American public will perhaps be the last to grasp this simple concept, not because they are stupid but because they have been brow-beaten into feeling that facing the truth about foreign affairs is somehow unpatriotic. But elsewhere, including in Europe, there are high ranking actors who seem to understand it. And they respect Russia for what must be called a superior approach to geopolitics. After all, ISIS would not be a threat if the Russian principle had been applied in the West.

Those magnificent men and their lying machines

Those magnificent men and their lying machines

by Don Hank

Stratfor, a web site that purports to be a tool for strategic forecasting, generally presents a viewpoint and focus that have been identified as Neoconservative and pro-Establishment. Back in 2014, I commented here on Stratfor when I noticed that some of my friends had mistaken it for a reliable information source instead of the propaganda tool that it actually is. Since the Pentagon and State Department are apparently the target clients, the reporting a part of the strategy itself, with a view to influencing rather than informing. This makes Stratfor part of the msm and the Establishment, which Americans increasingly, justifiably, mistrust.

Stratfor’s latest effort, titled “Those who are (and are not) sheltered from the Panama Papers,” looks on the surface to be an objective overview of the different world leaders who were reportedly “exposed” in the Panama Papers.

Almost as soon as the Panama Papers “scandal” broke, I immediately realized that this was timed by the global elites to embarrass Putin so that he would get the minimum amount of credit for routing ISIS in their important Syrian strongholds. He wasn’t supposed to be there but here he was making the Pentagon and State Department look like the phonies they were. Anyone with half a brain knew all along that the elites were only pretending to fight ISIS, which was, after all, birthed and nourished as a joint venture between Washington and Riyadh, as revealed here

and here, for example, as well as in scores of other venues. It’s never been a secret for anyone who knows how to use Google. In response, I wrote this analysis on April 4.

Other keen analysts also saw through the scheme, eg, as expressed in this commentary. By now anyone who can read can easily see that the Panama Papers report is a scam. In fact, none of the reports on this topic even state that the law firm of Mossack and Fonseca has ever done anything illegal. Offshore accounts have been around forever and no one has ever seriously tried before to make the case that they are illegal. Until now. Because the elites think they have caught a big fish in their dragnet and can bring down the regime of the man who dared to protect the Christians and minorities in Syria.

I saw through Stratfor’s little game immediately when I started scanning his article and I wrote the following to him by clicking on the link he helpfully provided for that purpose.
My response to his article:

 

Dear Stratfor,

You dedicate 5 paragraphs to Russia, more than any other region or country. Yet your story on Putin is the only one on a national leader in which neither the leader himself nor his family was involved in offshore dealings. I think this is part of the Western spin that Russians are complaining about [the article had mentioned this—Don]. Further, offshore companies are not illegal and do not necessarily imply corruption on the part of people who use them. However, how could you blame a Russian leader for hiding funds from US scrutiny? Several Russian nationals’ bank accounts were seized by the US government in response to the Crimeans’ free choice to accede to Russia, and not one of these Russian depositors was found guilty of any wrongdoing. The illegal act was perpetrated not by the Russian nationals but by the US Justice Department. The US is becoming increasingly arbitrary in seizing and freezing other people’s money and is focused on Russia because that country refuses to kowtow to Washington. BTW, I see that Stratfor is a corporation, whereas it is really owned and operated essentially only by one man, you. Aren’t corporations often used to hide income?

BTW, I bet most of my readers have heard that Putin is sitting on at least a $40 billion fortune. This myth is masterfully put to rest by Alexander Mercouris, who writes (all emphasis mine):

The first time I heard allegations that Putin was a billionaire was in 2006 when they were made by an individual called Stanislav Belkovsky.

Belkovsky was an associate of the exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky.  He was one of Russia’s original “political technologists” (ie. spin-doctors) whose heyday was in the 1990s.  Belkovsky was also the first person to put a figure on Putin’s billions.  He said Putin was worth $40 billion and was the richest man in Europe.

Belkovsky has at various times put Putin’s wealth even higher.  On occasion he has put it as high as $70 billion and occasionally figures as high as $200 billion get quoted.

The figure of $40 billion however appears to have stuck and this is the most commonly cited figure for Putin’s wealth amongst those who believe the allegations against him are true.

Belkovsky’s claims centred on a company called Gunvor, a major international commodities trader dealing mainly in oil products which is registered in Switzerland.  

Belkovsky claimed that Putin owned a large share of Gunvor and that Gennady Timchenko – a Russian businessman who was one of Gunvor’s co-founders and co-owners – was in reality Putin’s front man.

This claim is nonsense. 

Mercouris then says that the US Treasury started to regurgitate this lie and use it against Putin and other prominent Russians. Later, he says that The Economist, a notorious anti-Russian rag with a glossy reputation that it does not deserve, inserted this myth in the pages of one of its editions. The article goes on:

In 2009 the allegations that Putin owned an interest in Gunvor became the subject of a libel action between Gunvor and The Economist which in an article it published in November 2008 appeared to lend weight to Belkovsky’s allegations.

The libel action ending with The Economist publishing an apology and retraction in which it admitted that Putin has no interest in Gunvor.  The Economist’s statement of retractionreads as follows:

“In a section of our special report on Russia entitled “Grease my palm” (29 November 2008) we referred to Gunvor and its co-founder, Gennady Timchenko. 

We are happy to make it clear that when we referred to the “new corruption” in today’s Russia, we did not intend to suggest that either Gunvor or Mr Timchenko obtained their Russian oil business as a result of payment by them of bribes or like corrupt inducements. 

Rosneft sells only 30-40% of its oil through Gunvor rather than the “bulk” of Rosneft’s oil (as we described it). 

We accept Gunvor’s assurances that neither Vladimir Putin nor other senior Russian political figures have any ownership interest in Gunvor. We regret if any contrary impression was given.”

 Mercouris goes on to report that this libel suit did not put an end to the $40 billion myth and that both the US government and the Neocon press continued to perpetuate it. The article is full of details on other anti-Russian myths that were similarly discredited but continue to circulate because of the disgraceful disdain that Western elites have for the truth.