Russian “propaganda” sounds suspiciously like the truth

Don Hank

I recently read an opinion indicating the Russia is up to its old tricks of dividing the Western world and trying to destabilize the Middle East. The author cites the fact that Russia is refusing to go along with Western intervention in the Middle East. I was surprised to read this opinion because if anyone can be blamed for destabilizing that region it is the Western powers and their military adventures there.

The commentary also stated that Russia is a much bigger threat than the New World Order.

I disagree.

From what I see, the New World Order is actually an extension of the Soviet Union, but not of Russia, which is no longer a totalitarian communist state—or at least no more totalitarian than, say, the EU, whose commissioners are not elected democratically and who wield all the important power.

I think some US conservatives subconsciously conflate today’s Russian Federation with the Soviet Union. Even Reagan seemed to have a problem with seeing a Russian person in a positive light, including the Russian dissidents we should have reached out to, notably Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was treated with suspicion. Details here:

http://laiglesforum.com/aleksander-solzhenitsyn-tragically-misunderstood-by-conservatives/298.htm

During the cold war, I believe there were millions of confused people believing that it was the Russian nation and people we were supposed to oppose, not communism. Or rather, many felt that communism came with being Russian, just as freedom comes with being American.

Americans who tenaciously stick to this suspicious attitude toward all things Russian either no longer recognize communism when they see it or they aren’t afraid of living in a totalitarian state as long as it is orderly and they have enough to eat and as long as their keepers have Anglo-Saxon names and call themselves Christians on the campaign trail.

The truth is, what has happened in recent decades is an almost complete role reversal in terms of communist totalitarianism.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I think that essentially, Russia is becoming America and the West is becoming the Soviet Union.

Here are just a few of the blatant symptoms of communism that you and I have been seeing throughout the West:

Economic communism:

1-Wealth redistribution between the rich nations, esp Germany, and the poor nations of the EU, to the extent that the euro and the European economy are being wrecked to maintain this ideology-driven scheme. Many blame this on the greed of the bankers, but there is something else going on here, not far beneath the surface, and that is the steadfast belief, even among business people and bankers, that the wealth (all but their own, that is) must be redistributed to achieve “social justice.” The CRA, which forced certain banks to lend to “underserved communities” (minorities and the poor), is a perfect example. The knee-jerk reaction when this is pointed out is to quickly assert that the CRA had little effect because only some banks were enforced upon. Nonsense. By forcing some to comply, the US government was tacitly agreeing to prop up the loans of any bank to these underserved communities, and as a result, most banks went along, driving up housing prices and causing a bubble that ultimately led to the crash. The banks that made the most reckless loans under this socialist scheme were rewarded with your money in the form of bailouts. They made out like the bandits they were.

The scheme was shoved down our throats because, despite his socialist policies, Bush was seen as “conservative.” It was perfect camouflage for a people who see politicians with white faces talking about their faith in Jesus as beyond reproach.

2-In the US, a record and vast number of people on food stamps. The “rich” (i.e., workers) are supporting America.

3-Obamacare

4-The obliteration of borders. In world socialism, which was first promoted by the Soviet Union, there were eventually to be no borders. In keeping with this idea, Obama refuses to deport illegal aliens and provides only a modicum of border protection. He and many others consider Mexico and the US to be a common territory. Particularly under G.W. Bush and Barack Obama, the 2 nations have come to be a de facto economic and political union (North American Union).

The old Soviet regime was anti-Christian.

5-Obamacare forces Catholic hospitals to pay for abortions

6-For decades, the ACLU has been winning battles all over our country to take Christian symbols out of public life

7-We are importing Muslims wholesale, who refuse to integrate and recently, have literally “stoned” Christians in Dearborn (those who are on my daily alerts list got a video link to that yesterday) while the police turned a blind eye.

8-The EU and its puppet “national” governments in Europe import millions of Muslims who do not integrate, cause trouble, have doubled and tripled the rates of crimes like rape, etc, and have created no-go zones where police, fire personnel and ambulances dare not enter. Police in Europe respond to Muslim rioters the same way as US police: they don’t. Laws and enforcement favor the Muslims and disadvantage Christians (proselytizing to Muslims, for example, is now considered a crime or misdemeanor in much of Europe).

9-The EU and the US have totally wrecked the Middle East. Except in Syria, which the West is itching to attack, there are almost no indigenous Christians left. They have been murdered or exiled, their churches burnt to the ground. 

10-The West has started making it difficult or illegal to discuss homosexual behavior from a biblical standpoint. Pastors don’t dare mention it. Canada and parts of Europe fine people for speaking against it. 11 Christians were arrested in Philadelphia in 2006 for expressing a scriptural viewpoint regarding homosexuality at a homosexual “OutFest.” They were charged with a “hate” crime that carries a sentence of 47 years in prison and a $90,000 fine for each one:

http://laiglesforum.com/federal-judge-refuses-to-release-homosexual-group-from-philadelphia-eleven-lawsuit/30.htm

Contrast this with Russia, which does not acknowledge same sex marriage and, in some jurisdictions, does not allow homosexual demonstrations.

Now let’s look at Russia:

Do you see the Russians importing Muslims? Whom are the Russians supporting in the Middle East? Do they have satellite states and do the richer ones have to send money to the poor ones? Are they obliterating the Russian border?

And here is the key: Do they interfere in the political affairs of sovereign nations to overthrow existing governments?

Here is a video of a speech by Putin on what can be called the New World Order (he didn’t mention the term explicitly). Whether or not you consider this to be propaganda, which side comes off as being right here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr5GxN3C8uw&feature=related

If you are interested in joining my daily alerts list, just send an email to zoilandon@msn.com and type “Daily alerts list” in the subject line.

The EU expands further

Quote:

Prime Minister, Ted Heath when he said in a Government White Paper of July 1971, “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”. (On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue. His answer was “Of course, yes”.)

There is a bit of history to this idea of politicians lying to the public to achieve what is supposed to be a noble end, a phenomenon we see on both sides of the pond. In the 1880s a group of wealthy English met in a private home in London to discuss how best to implement socialism and eliminate Christianity (which stands in the way). The group included Karl Marx’s sister, just to give you an idea of the ideology they represented.

They met later a number of times and eventually settled on a name for themselves: The Fabian Society, after a Roman general who had successfully used stealth to gain victory, thereby saving lives. They would do likewise, preferring stealth to usurp power over the violence used later in Russia.

But is stealth necessarily harmless?

Suppose you stop your car and ask me directions to a place. I direct you over a bridge, which happens to have collapsed in a recent hurricane. I tell you that it is narrow, so in order to avoid meeting another vehicle, you should speed up as you approach it. You do so and plunge to your death in the canyon below.

I didn’t harm you directly. But I caused you great violence through my stealthy and false directions.

So it is with the EU. It was sold as a community of states that would contribute to economic stability and greater harmony in Europe. No sovereignty would be lost and there would be a net gain for all.

But this community is now called a union and is a de facto empire with central control and almost no participation of the populace, with formidable power, ever-expanding boundaries (see Sonya Porter’s article below), a court, one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, and a growing military, and its economic policies are leading, by socialist wealth redistribution, to what is expected by many economists to be the greatest economic crisis of our age.

The Soviet Union has been reborn.

Don Hank

 

Sonya Jay Porter on the ever-expanding, rarely-asking EU

The creation of a European union of states was considered a noble aspiration following the destruction of the continent in two world wars. First proposed in the Schuman Declaration of 1950 by the then-French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, it aimed to transform Europe through a “step-by-step” process, leading to the unification of Europe and so ensuring that the individual nations of Europe should never go to war with one other again. But although senior politicians may have been aware of the gradual subsuming of their countries into a Federal Europe, most of their populations were not.

In Britain, for instance FCO 30/1048 which was written in 1971 by civil servants at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but only brought to light in 2001 under the 30 year rule, shows that the FCO was definitely aware of the gradual loss of Britain’s sovereignty that entry into the Common Market would entail. However, introducing the 1972 Bill, Geoffrey Rippon, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said “there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty” and this was echoed by the Prime Minister, Ted Heath when he said in a Government White Paper of July 1971, “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”. (On a TV current affairs programme in 1990, he was asked if he had known that this statement was untrue. His answer was “Of course, yes”.) So it would be unwise to take what the EU authorities say at face value, including the fact that it is a strictly European union of nations or that any other countries brought into its fold would be there simply as trading partners.

Turkey is not a member of the European Union, and may never be. Yet on 30th March 2012, the members of the European Commission (who are appointed by the governments of member states rather than elected) quietly decided to grant Turkish citizens the same residency and labour rights as full members of the Union.

This accord will apply to Turkish workers who are or have been legally employed in the territory of a member state and who are or who have been subject to the legislation of one or more member states, and their survivors; to the members of the family of workers referred to above, provided that these family members are or have been legally resident with the worker concerned while the worker is employed in a member state. The text reads:

“It follows from Article 12 of the Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (the Ankara Agreement) and Article 36 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement (the Additional Protocol) that freedom of movement for workers between the Union and Turkey is to be secured by progressive stages.”

It adds,

“This proposal is part of a package of proposals which includes similar proposals with regard to the Agreements with Albania, Montenegro and San Marino. A first package with similar proposals in respect of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel was adopted by the Council in October 2010.”

As a mark of their devotion to openness and transparency, the following laconic note appears under the heading “Consultation of interested parties” –

“There was no need for external expertise.”

Later still, the following difficult-to-believe statement appears:

“The proposal has no implications for the Union budget.”

Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Israel are not in the EU but many of their citizens will now be allowed to live in, and benefit from, EU countries – which could cause many problems, not least that of how the EU is going to cope with yet more unemployed at a time when the Union’s financial situation is so parlous.

Read more:

http://www.quarterly-review.org/?p=919

 

Greece: No denouement, just more misery on the way

Don Hank

The news of Greece’s poll results, widely construed as a decision not to immediately exit the euro, is all over the foreign cable news programs, and Brussels is shouting for joy. They fail to see what’s coming! The markets responded favorably for a little over an hour, than plunged again when people woke up to reality: Endless bailouts for Greece until Germany and the others go bust.

To give you some perspective, here are some figures on the contributions of the various member countries to the EU, and hence to the bailouts:

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=7925

Briefly, at the time of that report, Belgium’s Flanders paid top euro per capita, 282.6 euros per Flemish person, for a total of 1 billion 780 thousand euros.

But it is widely believed that Belgium will soon need a bailout of its own. That’s a double whammy for the EU. Not only would it lose the net contribution from Belgium but it would also have to take more from the remaining countries that are just barely above water to pay the Belgians. A net loss instead of the current net contribution.

Italy contributed 2 billion 938 million at the time of that writing, or about 49.7 euros per capita.

But Italy will eventually need a bailout, despite the phony optimism of Super Mario Monti.

That is another loss of a contributor, which becomes a net liability for the EU.

Spain will also need another bailout, and so will Greece.

And the more needy countries line up at the trough and stop being net contributors, the harder it will be for those few economically sound nations to pull their weight. Further, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the German powerhouse, is demanding — and will eventually get — full-scale “green” energy to replace all of the traditional cheap nuclear and fossil fuel plants that have so far made Germany the no. 2 exporter in the world. Once this transformation is complete, Germany too will line up at the trough, but the trough will be empty by then.

It may seem as if the EU has spun out of control. But the founders of the EU were men imbued with the socialist vision. Their idea from the start was that the rich nations should pull the weight of the poor, ignoring the vast difference in work ethic between them that drives some to work while others consume the fruits of their labor. This is socialism in drag, since in traditional socialism, there is roughly a wealth transfer of rich individuals to poor individuals, while in the more sophisticated version, the transfer is from rich nations to poor nations. You’d think Europe would have noticed, after all these years of being duped, that the EU is just a sophisticated version of the Soviet Union, but it is as if someone had taped their eyes shut. As time goes on it becomes increasingly clear that this transfer was never intended to be temporary. It has been a de facto systemic state of wealth transfer, always propped up with a new crisis and hence a new pretext to prolong the outright daylight robbery.

Thus, as long as the EU’s power masters can continue to strike fear in the hearts of the serfs who do their bidding, they will continue to steal the wealth of the rich nations, whose workers work longer hours with less pay, and send it to the “poor” nations, whose workers work less, retire earlier and demand — and get — more of everything. Meanwhile, the only win-win group is the bankers. Italy, for example, recently paid a handsome 7% for its credit. Good money for folks who sit like vultures at a carrion feast.

Socialism hasn’t changed one iota in its gross unfairness to the productive. But it has changed its guise and has trained its propaganda machines full tilt against the working men and women of nations unfortunate enough to be “rich,” warning that if their plan is not followed, there will be chaos, tanks in the streets, starvation, rioting, war, etc. So keep your noses to the grindstone. Arbeit macht frei.

Yet, these dread social phenomena are precisely what the EU and its policies are leading to. But they are the unintended consequences, and as stealthy and crafty as the EU power masters are, they have no good moves left for this end game, because the final outcome belongs to God, not to them.

Just as the populace didn’t see their machinations, the power masters didn’t see Him at work.

Don Hank