One piece of surprising news lately has been the announcement by Obummer that the US will move to re-establish relations with Cuba.
On the outside, this may seem like something that was a long-time coming, and has received praise from many people-except for the handful of nasty malcontents in Southern Florida and their political whores on capitol hill.
It’s clear that for fifty years that the US kept the Cuba blockade going, it was not isolating Cuba, but itself!
Year after year since the 1980s the UN General Assembly had a vote on lifting the Cuban embargo. Each year the US, along with the Zionist shit-pit and a South-Pacific micro-stan or two, voted no while the rest of the world vote to lift the embargo.
So it’s clear who has been isolated internationally, and it wasn’t Cuba.
This blockade has cost Cuba over $100 billion in revenue since it was enacted. Think of how better things would’ve be there if there was no embargo.
But as good as this sudden US about-face on a very stupid and hopeless policy seems, there’s a cause for concern. Below are some suspicious caveats
For one, it’s very important to read between the lines. Pay attention to the way Obama’s statements are written, and it’s clear that he’s not after reconciling with the Cuban government, but trying to continue the policy of overthrowing it from the inside. He speaks about the policy of sanctions as failed, and then talks about achieving ‘change’ in Cuba by ‘engaging’ with the Cuban people.
It sounds like regime change from the inside, which has been tried in Ukraine and other countries, and which left them in chaos.
There are also strategic reasons to engage with Cuba.
Cuba and Russia are again growing close economically and strategically. Russian gas companies have discussed gas exploration off Cuba’s coast. Cuba also has a barter system with Venezuela, whose government the US hates and wants to get rid of.
So this so-called engagement with Cuba is a clever ruse to drive a wedge between Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and any other nations who support Cuba whom the US doesn’t like.
It’s also an attempt by the US to sneak enough operatives, money, and equipment into Cuba that will be used to subvert the country from within and lead to a Maidan-style scenario.
There are some clues that point to this direction, namely:
-The US isn’t lifting the sanctions totally. Only a little bit of business will be done with Cuba, and the amount of remittance money that Cuban-Americans can send to their relatives in Cuba will be raised.
-In return for this so-called ‘re-engagement,’ Cuba must release political prisoners and dissidents, as well as allow greater internet access for Cubans.
So the US will allow conditions to improve just enough to make it possible to inject saboteurs and other subversives into Cuba to work for regime change, but not enough for Cuba to see substantial change that would give credit to the Cuban government, thereby weakening opposition to it.
-A few months ago this year the US voted no against lifting the blockade on Cuba, something that it has done consistently for almost thirty years. So why the sudden change? If the US was really serious and meant well, then it would’ve abstained or vote yes. It would’ve considered lifting the blockade months or some years ago. This is all too fast, and contradictory.
-Obama said that the economic blockade of Cuba has failed to meet US objectives, and that it was the wrong policy, but at the same time he sanctions Iran and Russia ever more.
It’s clear that this so-called rapproachment is just a way to isolate Cuba from their true allies, and bring down its government.
The US will NEVER accept Cuba as it is, and the only way the blockade will be totally lifted is if the island is ruled by 100% pro-US puppets for the economic and strategic benefit of the US, and no one else, including the Cuban people.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Monday, December 15, 2014
Let's Talk About the Rich
In today’s warped and narcissistic consumer culture, idolization of the rich and powerful has been turned into a religion.
The constant TV shows and specials about this or that millionaire or billionaire keep the vast majority of the public spellbound by wealth and falsely give them the illusion that they too can be rich.
Becoming a millionaire or billionaire is taught and implanted into the heads of the public as the pinnacle of achievement. It’s the aim around which everything revolves around, no matter what the ways to get there are.
But it’s all a part of the subtle brainwashing and conditioning of the dumbed-down public to see the wealthy 1% as intelligent and hard-working people who made their riches through good decisions, judgment, and sacrifice. People are manipulated into accepting the wealthy as good, as people to be revered and respected.
The insinuation is that ‘you too may be wealthy like these people someday, so you shouldn’t talk mean about them.’
This fake carrot has been dangled in front of the gullible public for decades now. The main aim of this false premise is to force the people into shutting up and stop criticizing the wealthy and their actions. It’s also to smear any person that dares to criticize the wealthy, and who airs out their dirty laundry of fraud, deceit, and thievery for all to see as ‘engaging in class warfare,’ being a ‘socialist,’ and ‘Anti-American.’
People who criticize the wealthy are demonized as losers, as lazy, stupid, and if all else fails, jealous.
This worship of the wealthy is primarily driven by the stale myth that every wealthy person in America got to where they are because of great ideas, dedication and hard work.
But the historical facts are not as kind to the rich. Self-made millionaires/billionaires who made their money by doing something revolutionary only number about 13% in the US overall. The vast majority of them were either born into wealth and inherited it, or earned it by hook, crook, and murder.
For example, JP Morgan, the great financier of the 20th century started his fortune selling shoddy and defective second-hand rifles to the Union Army during the civil war.
The other great industrialists were no better, and the immense wealth they enjoyed came from the blood and sweat and exploitation of their legions of miserable workers and numerous dirty tricks.
Today, speculators and hedge fund managers who make tens, hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars a year are a great example of how the rich get rich.
These people are the vultures of society. They don’t do any meaningful and honest work, but get paid vast sums of money that the average worker will never see in multiple lifetimes.
There is no one in this world that deserves a salary of millions or billions of dollars a year, no one! It doesn’t matter what school they went to, how smart they think they are, and what position they’re in.
For one person to be getting so much money is terribly wasteful and unfair. How many people had to lose their jobs, retirement pensions, homes or life-savings just so one of these already-wealthy vultures could collect their $5 million bonus on top of an already disgustingly high salary of millions or billions of dollars?
How much is enough for these people? Excess wealth is a sickness, an addiction. It’s not normal at all!
No one in this world should be making more than $500,000-including salary, stock options, bonuses, etc. This amount is already way above the average working person’s pay per year.
Anyone who thinks $500,000 is too little is abnormal, period.
These excess salaries are also a drain on the economy, because it doesn’t get spent at home. It will be put into Wall St. investments and expensive goods in another state or country, contributing nothing to the local economy.
The average worker who’s given a raise will spend most if not all of that extra money locally, making the economy better.
So contrary to popular belief, the rich can’t save us. Their vast sums don’t equal more spending by the wealthy because they won’t go to the store and buy 300 pairs of jeans, twenty new cars, or buy 500 meals at a restaurant at one time. There’s a limited amount the wealthy will buy. The rest of the money they make gets saved or invested, creating no long-term value for the wider economy.
The very presence of millionaires and billionaires in any society is a sign of serious dysfunction. It means that there is a chronically uneven distribution of income, and such a situation doesn't bode well for the long-term economic well-being of any country.
My criticism of the rich is not driven by personal resentment. I’m angry at the ones who do despicable things to the people below them, and who profit from exploitation or theft.
If tomorrow I won $100 million in the lottery, my thoughts about the rich wouldn’t change. I’d still live a modest life, contribute to the community in which I live, and I’d give zero dollars to the Wall St. or hedge fund vermin.
My thoughts of rich and poor are inspired by Charles Wagner. He spoke of the bad rich and good poor and vice versa. Not all rich people are venal and greedy.
But most of the wealthy out there are jerks that just don’t care about those below them. This is especially true about the rich of today.
I recently read the results of a poll done where people were asked if they prefer socialism even though it means everyone has less or capitalism with poor people and millionaires.
Sadly, too many people opted for capitalism even though it meant that some people will end up poor. This is a sad indictment of the human race as a whole. It shows how very far we are from being truly civilized. That someone would rather have another person be poor so they themselves end up with more is just disgusting.
The rich are the ultimate representation of the materialistic disease that affects capitalist economies. It infects peoples’ mind and judgment. It makes them want more, want bigger and better everything. There’s never enough. It’s a constant race to out-buy the other person and show off that new possession, even if it leaves people in debt or ends in bankruptcy.
As long as this sick behavior is present in society, and people don’t learn to curb their needs and wants, and become modest, the rich will get away with whatever greasy methods they employ. And they will continue to be fed by the weak-willed people below them.
The constant TV shows and specials about this or that millionaire or billionaire keep the vast majority of the public spellbound by wealth and falsely give them the illusion that they too can be rich.
Becoming a millionaire or billionaire is taught and implanted into the heads of the public as the pinnacle of achievement. It’s the aim around which everything revolves around, no matter what the ways to get there are.
But it’s all a part of the subtle brainwashing and conditioning of the dumbed-down public to see the wealthy 1% as intelligent and hard-working people who made their riches through good decisions, judgment, and sacrifice. People are manipulated into accepting the wealthy as good, as people to be revered and respected.
The insinuation is that ‘you too may be wealthy like these people someday, so you shouldn’t talk mean about them.’
This fake carrot has been dangled in front of the gullible public for decades now. The main aim of this false premise is to force the people into shutting up and stop criticizing the wealthy and their actions. It’s also to smear any person that dares to criticize the wealthy, and who airs out their dirty laundry of fraud, deceit, and thievery for all to see as ‘engaging in class warfare,’ being a ‘socialist,’ and ‘Anti-American.’
People who criticize the wealthy are demonized as losers, as lazy, stupid, and if all else fails, jealous.
This worship of the wealthy is primarily driven by the stale myth that every wealthy person in America got to where they are because of great ideas, dedication and hard work.
But the historical facts are not as kind to the rich. Self-made millionaires/billionaires who made their money by doing something revolutionary only number about 13% in the US overall. The vast majority of them were either born into wealth and inherited it, or earned it by hook, crook, and murder.
For example, JP Morgan, the great financier of the 20th century started his fortune selling shoddy and defective second-hand rifles to the Union Army during the civil war.
The other great industrialists were no better, and the immense wealth they enjoyed came from the blood and sweat and exploitation of their legions of miserable workers and numerous dirty tricks.
Today, speculators and hedge fund managers who make tens, hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars a year are a great example of how the rich get rich.
These people are the vultures of society. They don’t do any meaningful and honest work, but get paid vast sums of money that the average worker will never see in multiple lifetimes.
There is no one in this world that deserves a salary of millions or billions of dollars a year, no one! It doesn’t matter what school they went to, how smart they think they are, and what position they’re in.
For one person to be getting so much money is terribly wasteful and unfair. How many people had to lose their jobs, retirement pensions, homes or life-savings just so one of these already-wealthy vultures could collect their $5 million bonus on top of an already disgustingly high salary of millions or billions of dollars?
How much is enough for these people? Excess wealth is a sickness, an addiction. It’s not normal at all!
No one in this world should be making more than $500,000-including salary, stock options, bonuses, etc. This amount is already way above the average working person’s pay per year.
Anyone who thinks $500,000 is too little is abnormal, period.
These excess salaries are also a drain on the economy, because it doesn’t get spent at home. It will be put into Wall St. investments and expensive goods in another state or country, contributing nothing to the local economy.
The average worker who’s given a raise will spend most if not all of that extra money locally, making the economy better.
So contrary to popular belief, the rich can’t save us. Their vast sums don’t equal more spending by the wealthy because they won’t go to the store and buy 300 pairs of jeans, twenty new cars, or buy 500 meals at a restaurant at one time. There’s a limited amount the wealthy will buy. The rest of the money they make gets saved or invested, creating no long-term value for the wider economy.
The very presence of millionaires and billionaires in any society is a sign of serious dysfunction. It means that there is a chronically uneven distribution of income, and such a situation doesn't bode well for the long-term economic well-being of any country.
My criticism of the rich is not driven by personal resentment. I’m angry at the ones who do despicable things to the people below them, and who profit from exploitation or theft.
If tomorrow I won $100 million in the lottery, my thoughts about the rich wouldn’t change. I’d still live a modest life, contribute to the community in which I live, and I’d give zero dollars to the Wall St. or hedge fund vermin.
My thoughts of rich and poor are inspired by Charles Wagner. He spoke of the bad rich and good poor and vice versa. Not all rich people are venal and greedy.
But most of the wealthy out there are jerks that just don’t care about those below them. This is especially true about the rich of today.
I recently read the results of a poll done where people were asked if they prefer socialism even though it means everyone has less or capitalism with poor people and millionaires.
Sadly, too many people opted for capitalism even though it meant that some people will end up poor. This is a sad indictment of the human race as a whole. It shows how very far we are from being truly civilized. That someone would rather have another person be poor so they themselves end up with more is just disgusting.
The rich are the ultimate representation of the materialistic disease that affects capitalist economies. It infects peoples’ mind and judgment. It makes them want more, want bigger and better everything. There’s never enough. It’s a constant race to out-buy the other person and show off that new possession, even if it leaves people in debt or ends in bankruptcy.
As long as this sick behavior is present in society, and people don’t learn to curb their needs and wants, and become modest, the rich will get away with whatever greasy methods they employ. And they will continue to be fed by the weak-willed people below them.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Russia in the EU (?)
The sanctions war on Russia has brought out two separate sides that normally don’t get a lot of attention in the media.
One side advocates EU membership for Russia, and the other is against it.
Let’s examine both sides’ arguments, and whether it would make sense for Russia to become an EU member.
The first side says that if Russia wants to show its friendly intentions toward Europe, and modernize itself, it should join the EU.
First problem with this argument is the veiled arrogance that any nation outside of the EU is poor, broke, and backward; that no nation can be advanced and move forward without becoming a EU vassal.
As if Russia, with its superior rockets, impressive military technology, and well-trained technicians and scientists needs the west. All that Russia needs to advance and modernize is peace and quiet, something which the west refuses to provide.
Second problem with this argument is that Russia stands to lose a good deal of its freedom and sovereignty if it became a member of the EU, just like all the Eastern European countries lost. This has led to a situation where EU members are forced by Brussels to support politically-motivated policies which hurt their own economies.
Russia knows this, and President Vladimir Putin has also stated this simple fact in public.
Third, if Russia became an EU member it would have to submit to rules, regulations, and policies from Brussels that primarily benefit the west. Worse, Russia would have to follow US dictat since the US is the political and ideological overseer of the EU.
Russia’s entry into the EU would be a total invasion and takeover of Russia by the US and the EU by non-military means. Russia knows this, and that’s why it won’t join.
Besides, Russia has the human, technical and natural resources, infrastructure, and the culture to survive and thrive. It doesn’t need a patron to give it instructions, and a crutch to sustain it with hand-outs—which is the situation with the former ex-communist EU member countries.
The second side is against Russia’s membership in the EU, primarily the US and its Eastern European vassal nations like Poland and Romania.
These countries are afraid that if Russia joins the EU, the EU would have to let Russia play a decisive role in economic and political decision-making. This is something Russia would insist on during any EU-accession negotiations, as Russia’s economic potential and natural resources, especially in energy, would make the EU a global energy giant.
It would also insist on the EU dumping it’s outdated and stale pro-US Trans-Atlanticist mentality. A new European-only security realignment would be created in which the US has no role.
Naturally, this would make NATO totally unnecessary as a nuclear Russia would be the natural protector of the EU, and could no longer be provoked and demonized by the US as a convenient enemy. Russia would probably demand that NATO be either dissolved or Russia became a leading member with decision-making powers.
Of course this would eradicate Russia as a very cherished enemy of the US military-industrial complex, which thrives from having Russia as an officially-designated threat.
Russia’s entry into the EU would not come free for Brussels. Yes, the EU, under heavy and unrelenting US pressure would try to screw and cheat Russia in the most creative and nasty ways, but Russia wouldn’t succumb.
So if Russia ended up joining the EU on terms favorable to itself, it would have powerful influence on the EU’s foreign and economic policies. This would result in the US losing most, if not all of its influence over EU policies.
Russia in the EU would make the bloc the richest and most powerful economically and militarily. Russia would also serve as the EU’s gateway to Asia, which would make transport cheaper and quicker with less peril as opposed to sea lanes, which the US can block if it wants to.
This would also cause Asian countries, even traditional US vassals like South Korea and Japan, to switch sides as well.
The US ruling establishment is scared to death of Russia joining the EU. Such an act would undermine US influence, and seriously erode weapons sales.
And where would the US be as the number one weapons peddler and the ‘Protector of Europe?’
Personally, I don’t think Russia will ever join the EU.
Russia cherishes its independence and not being tied to some ineptly-ran, indecisive bloc. It also doesn’t want to run the risk of being exploited and aggravated on a continual basis by the EU’s virulently pro-US ‘old guard’ and their newly-minted pawns from Eastern Europe, who would undoubtedly vote Russia’s accession down because of personal and historical hatred, and pernicious US influence.
Russia also wouldn’t want itself to be an unwitting vassal of indirect US control via pro-US EU regimes. This would undermine EU cohesion and security. Taking into consideration the two US/German spy scandals of the past two summers, it’s a given that the US has spies in high levels of Eastern European governments who will do anything to prevent greater Russian and EU cooperation.
One side advocates EU membership for Russia, and the other is against it.
Let’s examine both sides’ arguments, and whether it would make sense for Russia to become an EU member.
The first side says that if Russia wants to show its friendly intentions toward Europe, and modernize itself, it should join the EU.
First problem with this argument is the veiled arrogance that any nation outside of the EU is poor, broke, and backward; that no nation can be advanced and move forward without becoming a EU vassal.
As if Russia, with its superior rockets, impressive military technology, and well-trained technicians and scientists needs the west. All that Russia needs to advance and modernize is peace and quiet, something which the west refuses to provide.
Second problem with this argument is that Russia stands to lose a good deal of its freedom and sovereignty if it became a member of the EU, just like all the Eastern European countries lost. This has led to a situation where EU members are forced by Brussels to support politically-motivated policies which hurt their own economies.
Russia knows this, and President Vladimir Putin has also stated this simple fact in public.
Third, if Russia became an EU member it would have to submit to rules, regulations, and policies from Brussels that primarily benefit the west. Worse, Russia would have to follow US dictat since the US is the political and ideological overseer of the EU.
Russia’s entry into the EU would be a total invasion and takeover of Russia by the US and the EU by non-military means. Russia knows this, and that’s why it won’t join.
Besides, Russia has the human, technical and natural resources, infrastructure, and the culture to survive and thrive. It doesn’t need a patron to give it instructions, and a crutch to sustain it with hand-outs—which is the situation with the former ex-communist EU member countries.
The second side is against Russia’s membership in the EU, primarily the US and its Eastern European vassal nations like Poland and Romania.
These countries are afraid that if Russia joins the EU, the EU would have to let Russia play a decisive role in economic and political decision-making. This is something Russia would insist on during any EU-accession negotiations, as Russia’s economic potential and natural resources, especially in energy, would make the EU a global energy giant.
It would also insist on the EU dumping it’s outdated and stale pro-US Trans-Atlanticist mentality. A new European-only security realignment would be created in which the US has no role.
Naturally, this would make NATO totally unnecessary as a nuclear Russia would be the natural protector of the EU, and could no longer be provoked and demonized by the US as a convenient enemy. Russia would probably demand that NATO be either dissolved or Russia became a leading member with decision-making powers.
Of course this would eradicate Russia as a very cherished enemy of the US military-industrial complex, which thrives from having Russia as an officially-designated threat.
Russia’s entry into the EU would not come free for Brussels. Yes, the EU, under heavy and unrelenting US pressure would try to screw and cheat Russia in the most creative and nasty ways, but Russia wouldn’t succumb.
So if Russia ended up joining the EU on terms favorable to itself, it would have powerful influence on the EU’s foreign and economic policies. This would result in the US losing most, if not all of its influence over EU policies.
Russia in the EU would make the bloc the richest and most powerful economically and militarily. Russia would also serve as the EU’s gateway to Asia, which would make transport cheaper and quicker with less peril as opposed to sea lanes, which the US can block if it wants to.
This would also cause Asian countries, even traditional US vassals like South Korea and Japan, to switch sides as well.
The US ruling establishment is scared to death of Russia joining the EU. Such an act would undermine US influence, and seriously erode weapons sales.
And where would the US be as the number one weapons peddler and the ‘Protector of Europe?’
Personally, I don’t think Russia will ever join the EU.
Russia cherishes its independence and not being tied to some ineptly-ran, indecisive bloc. It also doesn’t want to run the risk of being exploited and aggravated on a continual basis by the EU’s virulently pro-US ‘old guard’ and their newly-minted pawns from Eastern Europe, who would undoubtedly vote Russia’s accession down because of personal and historical hatred, and pernicious US influence.
Russia also wouldn’t want itself to be an unwitting vassal of indirect US control via pro-US EU regimes. This would undermine EU cohesion and security. Taking into consideration the two US/German spy scandals of the past two summers, it’s a given that the US has spies in high levels of Eastern European governments who will do anything to prevent greater Russian and EU cooperation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)