The 'Liberal' Media

Throughout the years, there has been much confusion about the state of the media in the US.

From right-wing and conservative circles, we often hear the accusation of the ‘Liberal media.’

According to these circles, the mainstream media in the US is ‘liberal,’ meaning that it’s opposed to ‘conservative’ values, like God, guns, is pro-LGBT, supports abortion, is against the death penalty, war, military spending, wants socialized medicine, etc.

But in reality, the mainstream media isn’t liberal, and never was. The accusation was, and is, a myth.

Any news outlet, commentator or author who doesn’t serve as a propaganda and disinformation whore for the US regime and their corporate buddies is automatically branded as ‘liberal.’ This is done to discredit and shut down anyone who tries to present unpleasant and embarrassing facts about the US regime’s illegal and questionable deeds.

The phrase ‘Liberal media’ today refers to any news source which is openly critical of cherished US myths and delusions.

The truth is that the mainstream media in the US is neither liberal nor conservative. At most, there are liberal and conservative media niches within the US, but in general the media in the US is corporate media. This is the most accurate phrase to use, and it best reflects the reality of what, and who controls it.

Add to that the fact that certain media outfits are wholly-owned subsidiaries of defense companies. So to find out whose interests are being served, one must follow the money.

The corporate mainstream US media will toe and promote the US government propaganda line because their parent companies or owners have a vested financial interest in doing so.

The US government grants the mainstream media access, privileges, business, various favors, and protections from accountability that ultimately enrich the media owners’ fortunes. In return, the media owners use their control over the airwaves and news print to shill for, and defend disastrous and vile US government policies, especially when it comes to US foreign policy. They also lie for the US government.

It’s simply a case of one hand washing the other.

Notice how the mainstream media is always pro-war; how it amps up threats on cue from the State Dept.; how it goes into full demonization mode against any foreign leader that the US regime doesn’t like for whatever reason.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a democratic or Republican-led regime; the charade continues regardless.

There is also a stunning absence of impartial investigative journalism into government policies and actions, and of individuals that have caused serious problems for the country. No hard questions are asked by the mainstream media journalists of US politicians at all.

This cannot be the result of simply incompetent journalism. These journalists know how to do their job. Just look at how they conduct themselves when interviewing any representative or leader of a country that is an ‘officially designated enemy’ of the US. These journalists suddenly flip on the courage and ask very hard-nosed questions, are condescending, and practically level accusations and threats against that foreign leader on-air. But such courage and confrontational behavior is totally missing when these same journalists interview an Obama, Hillary Clinton, or some other US regime representative. In these situations, these journalists suddenly forget how to do their job.

So there’s got to be something going on. And that something is the reality that the US mainstream media is willingly self-censoring itself for the benefit of the US government, in return for business and favors.

After all, if someone owns a TV news channel and a factory that makes bombs, what do you think will be promoted on that news channel? Will that person promote peace and non-intervention, or war?

It’s not hard at all to see what their priority will be.

No matter how wrong and illegal a war is, that owner will make sure that a pro-war angle is followed exclusively; that pro-war government officials and ‘experts’ are the only ones allowed on-air, that pro-war messages and propaganda prevails, that patriotic and militaristic themes are constant. A critic of the war, maybe two, may be invited on the channel, but only to be ganged up on, ridiculed and skewered by the pro-war ‘patriots’ for ‘entertainment’ purposes. We saw this in the run-up to the illegal war on Iraq in 2002-2003.

After all, the owner of the TV station will make millions, or billions from the sale of the bombs that will be used in that war.

The US doesn’t have a free mainstream media. It is censored and controlled for the most part, and important facts are being suppressed. A US news outlet that actually says what is really going on is usually obscure and ignored, or is labeled as ‘Liberal.’

Just the Facts!

The US is a land of contradictions and deceptions. To figure out what the truth really is, you have to simply take what is being said by the US regime and rotate it 180 degrees. Then you’ll have the truth.

The US regime has been suffering some pretty bad failures lately. The Turkish coup didn’t work out, and Aleppo, the largest Syrian city which for the past five years has served as a depot and clearinghouse for US-sponsored criminal goon squads, is about to be liberated by the Syrian forces and their allies once and for all.

Nevertheless, the perception and illusion of US success, and that all its policies are worth it has to be maintained. But there are no real principles or meaning behind US military power, it's just military power for the sake of US economic hegemony. The pentagon goons know they're full of it, and can't really do half of the things they say they can on paper and TV. The US regime can fool people with talk of 'defending freedom and democracy' and all that; the individual soldier can believe in it. But in reality it's not about any of this. Behind all US noble intentions are hidden lies and dishonorable aims. And that's why the US won't succeed in the long-run; no country can.

That's what this NATO and US world hegemony is all about: money. The US system needs a constant influx of plunder to keep itself afloat. Without new slaves the US economy will die, as we are witnessing now. This is why the US is so desperate to subjugate Russia and China. Without those two economies under the US regime's thumb, the US cannot survive much longer in the shape it's now. The US can't squeeze much out of their old vassals; they've been pretty much tapped out.

The US in the decades ahead has two choices: continue on trying to dominate the world and eventually crash and burn and lose its influence and power to others, or start rolling back its empire and wars now, and retain some influence.

Also, what we see is Russia and China sitting there and not invading and bombing countries and overstretching themselves, while the US is. This will result in the inevitable US imperial overstretch and fall. Then Russia and China just step in. This is why the US is so keen on provoking Russia and China into a conflict.

The US must keep everybody down at its level, or worse, or it will fall.

Killer Cops and Cop Killers

The US has been wracked lately with killer cops and cop killers striking back.

After overzealous, inbred cops tackled and shot unarmed people, there has been a rash of 9/11 calls and ambushes of cops by armed, angry blacks.

In the last 4 years, the number of unarmed people being killed by cops has reached unacceptable limits.

Videos of these shooting almost always show an unarmed person being shot, either while standing, running away, or after being tackled to the ground. In these cases, those shot weren’t armed and not even resisting arrest.

This increasing knee-jerk, homicidal behavior by cops is another sign of a sickness that pervades US society. There is no excuse or defense for this.

We can thank the skewed and psychopathic laws that allow cops to react in such excessive ways and not being punished, vast majority of the time.

We can also thank the increasing militarization of the US police forces by having them receive training from Israeli police.

The Israeli police operate in a violent apartheid state which occupies and represses Palestinians. The Israeli police forces are trained killers; they’re taught to kill, not protect. They protect by killing.

They also racially-profile Arabs as standard operative procedure, and are allowed to shoot Arabs with impunity. This defective policing culture is today being transmitted to US police forces against blacks.

This is absolutely not the right way to train US police, and all police departments must cease all training involving Israelis.

These cops who get shot by angry people deserve zero sympathy. This is the price they pay for their idiotic counterparts who shoot people for no good reason. It doesn’t matter if that particular cop who was killed never pulled a gun on anyone. The lesson has got to be learned.

These shootings of cops are a natural and understandable move. After all, the courts let these killer cops off the hook, or with light punishment. So where is the justice in that?

Hopefully, this targeting of cops will make them all think twice before pulling out their gun and shooting someone for no reason.

You do not pull a gun on someone unless they are clearly seen pulling a gun, or some other weapon on you, period!

That these cops continue to do so shows that it is not simply their personal decision. They are taught, and told to do this. And if they do these things repeatedly all over the country, then they were also told that they won’t be punished. It doesn’t matter what the police chief says or if they ‘resign.’ The laws and operating procedures have still not changed.

And why is it that with all the technology in existence today, no one has bothered to come up with a weapon that administers a non-lethal, albeit very painful projectile?

Why does someone necessarily have to be killed? Why not just incapacitate them to such a degree that they simply will not be in a state to react, but still alive to face justice?

This tit for tat murder of cops vs. civilians is getting serious, and may even start some type of a race war or insurrection, if it continues.

Same Old S*it

The on-going US election season has exposed a dirty truth about the US political system that most didn’t see before; although one still had to pay good attention to what was going on to catch it.

The truth is that there is not one lick of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Consider the evidence.

Late in 2015 and early in 2016, when the Republican field of candidates was still well-stocked, the media, political pundits, and Republican Party ex-officials were falling over themselves to condemn Donald Trump.

The status-quo was up in arms against him, and even long-time neo-cons were lining up to denounce him as ‘dangerous’ and ‘wrong’ because Trump didn’t see eye-to-eye with them on foreign policy and US hegemony.

At the same time, these Republican neo-con operatives were also lining up to support Hillary Clinton, because they felt that she will continue the current broken and failed US policies of war and intervention.

This paradoxical behavior of veteran Republicans and arch neo-cons toward Trump and Clinton proves that when it comes to US hegemony, military power, regime changes and interventions, both parties are in total agreement.

This exposes the divide between the democrats and republicans as a cruel farce. They both aspire to the same things.

It exposes the Democratic Party as not the party of peace and progress, but warmongering and aggression, just like their republican counterparts.

These people in congress owe their wealth and influence to this system, so they will always go with the flow.

Don’t believe this? Look at what Bernie Sanders did recently. He capitulated to, and endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, after all that we know about that evil witch’s criminal behavior. There people don’t have any principles; it’s all just a game for them.

Fast-forward from January of 2016 to the Republican National Convention In July 2016, and what do we see and hear?

Creatures such as Rudy Giuliani and others, who were absolutely against Trump 5-6 months ago, are now taking to the convention floor and are endorsing Trump left and right with flowery speeches.

So, what happened? How did Trump go from ‘dangerous’ to the best choice in so little months?

Was there a private meeting where Trump was finally ‘scared straight?’ Or are these opportunists just playing nice in the hopes of getting favors from Trump, if he wins.

The US political system is a one-party circus. It all comes down to who will get to feed at the public trough for the next four years.

Electing any of these people is only going to make things worse. Voting for either Hillary or Trump is useless. These people won’t fix anything.

Better to stay home on election day with a 12-pack and relax.

The Lies and Fears of NATO

The NATO summit has just ended in Warsaw, and it seems like the US pimp Obummer, together with his European whores, are still stuck on stupid.

The conference was one big PR exercise in covering up internal divisions and serious operational problems that recently came to light after the Anaconda military exercise held in Poland. The knee-jerk communique was also the result of Russian political, diplomatic, and military successes against the US and their terrorist pals in Syria.

The final communique at the end of this anti-Russian circle-jerk was as follows:

‘In its final communique NATO accused Russia of “provocative military activities in the periphery of NATO territory” and “willingness to attain political goals by the threat and use of force”. The alliance said Moscow’s actions “are a source of regional instability, fundamentally challenge the alliance, have damaged Euro-Atlantic security, and threaten our long-standing goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.”’ 1

It is a statement of hypocritical proportions. NATO has expanded three times since 1999, up to Russia’s borders and now complains that Russia is ‘threatening’ NATO states that it borders?

And are not NATO’s actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere a source of instability?

The NATO cabal seems to always be 180 degrees from reality.

NATO also has the conceit and arrogance to criticize Russia of invading countries! Yes, the US and company have no conscience of their own, or a very bad memory. Such an accusation is also a very sick joke, and an insult to all those victims of US invasions, torture, and oppression in Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere.

How many countries has the US attacked, invaded, and occupied in the last 25 years? How many has Russia? Hands down the US is the record holder here for the greatest amount. Russia stands at zero. 

What happened in the Caucasus in 2008 was started by ex-Georgian President Shaakashvilli-even according to a EU report on the matter. Crimeans voted in a free referendum to rejoin Russia at a time when Ukraine had no legally-elected government. In both cases, there was no Russian coercion in defiance of the wishes of the populations of those regions, but in harmony with them. Russia didn’t invade those countries and overthrow governments, like the US has done in Ukraine end elsewhere.

Obummer also has the gall to boast that he is the least war-like president, and less interventions happened under his watch than under previous US regimes. Surely, the millions of people made lifeless or miserable by Obama’s criminal interventions feel better about him not destroying as many countries as his predecessors.

By the way, if Obama managed to destroy a few less countries than his rotten predecessors, we can thank Putin’s diplomacy and courage for this. It is he who stared down the US from bloody imperial misadventures in Iran and a total destruction of Syria.

It is NATO that is threatening Russia. It is NATO that is expanding and building bases on Russia’s borders, not vice versa.

Are we to believe that the movement of Russian military forces on Russian territory is a threat, but US military exercises and bases in countries bordering Russia are okay?

NATO is long past its expiration date. It should’ve been mothballed after the fall of the Soviet Union. But it has been artificially kept on life-support; always coming up with some lame excuse to justify its unnecessary and destructive existence.

Wherever NATO goes, it causes mayhem. It looks for enemies, and when it can’t find any, it creates them. This is all done to keep itself alive, and keep taxpayer money going to weapons peddlers.

The fact that this NATO summit was held in Warsaw is no coincidence. It was done deliberately as a reaction to the new Polish government’s earlier criticism of the EU and its changing of the supreme court and media laws that sidelined pro-EU shills.

Worried that Poland may seek an independent course, the nervous EU and US threw the Poles a bone in the form of a small US military base and a reiteration of the US ‘commitment to Poland’s defense' from an imaginary Russian threat.

The Poles, always the cowardly Russia-hating push-overs when it comes to the west, were mollified, and will now shut up. Because as we know, these bases and ‘protection’ most likely came with strings attached, even if the media doesn’t tell us.

Poland has been strangely mute on any further EU criticisms lately. So we can pretty much see what happened behind the scenes.

There is also no doubt that the Polish government, regardless of political party, as well as the Polish military, are staffed with US agents and bought Polish spies. After all, if Germany found US spy cells within its own government in 2014 and 2015, Poland surely has a nest of them.

This also explains the stupid, Russophobic foreign policy of Poland, which has been one of the main losers from the sanctions Russia passed on the EU. A free, independent Poland led by real, courageous patriots who put Polish interests first would not work overtime to keep Russia as an enemy, but would come to some sort of an agreement with it. 

It is also a fact that countries like Poland serve only as a NATO frontline and buffer zone to slow down and occupy the enemy in the event of war, and give the US time to organize a defense of Western European states. That is E. Europe's role, as a firewall and sacrificial cow, and as a potential front.

What is also worrying is the official NATO communique in its entirety. It certainly throws a lot of red flags, and if read between the lines, it issues ominous warnings to the world.

Countering imaginary Russian threats is only the tip of the iceberg for the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization.

They plan to go further, with things like natural disasters, famine, human rights violations, discrimination against women and children, as well as internal political unrest in any country as an excuse for NATO’s involvement. Even internal policies of governments that US doesn’t like will be deemed as ‘threats’ ripe for NATO’s involvement, even if those policies don't threaten any other countries.
 
NATO is the main threat and danger facing Europe and the world, not Russia.

It is an organization that throughout its existence had the goal of keeping Russia and the rest of Europe divided and not at peace.

When it saw that this division was disappearing, it stirred up the Ukraine mess to provoke Russia and scare its European vassals into line with Russophobic paranoia to make them cough up more money for the US military-industrial complex, and pass sanctions on Russia.

This of course was done by the US to hurt the EU as well as Russia. The US wants to keep its bloody boot on Europe’s throat indefinitely, and not allow it to become economically better than the US. After all, the EU is a competitor of the US regardless of the ‘trans-Atlantic unity’ drivel regurgitated by US regime and their European vassals.

But Instances of true US ‘friendship have shown themselves whenever any EU country acts outside of US orders. France, UK, Hungary and others were threatened with law-suits and sanctions themselves if they refuse to follow US orders, or dare to separate themselves from US grip. Such is US friendship.

NATO is an organization which seeks to stifle independence in Europe and keep the continent under US control, despite the damage that this causes to individual European countries, and regardless of the fact that this contradicts European interests. In fact, according to the NATO communique, NATO aims to make its policies the policies of the EU itself. It seeks to basically control the EU, and make itself inseparable.

This hitching of NATO policy to the EU is most likely a face-saving measure caused by the BRExit fallout. This is also a desperate move by NATO keep other countries who are thinking of leaving the sinking EU ship within the union.

But regardless of the PR rhetoric and talking points about NATO ‘unity,’ there are disagreements among NATO members when it comes to Russia and other policies.

Also, some members don’t like and trust others. Greece and Bulgaria don’t trust Turkey; Bulgaria even going as far as rejecting the creation of a NATO Black Sea fleet on its territory.

Certain German politicians, as well as France and Italy disagree with anti-Russian policies and don’t see Russia as an enemy. Most of Germany, and other western European states don’t want their troops to be sent to defend Poland or the Baltic states.

But regardless of NATO’s public rhetoric which is only for the cameras and the useful idiots, NATO in reality knows it must cooperate with Russia, and privately these NATO honchos say the opposite when behind closed doors with Russian officials. Russia seems to understand this, or else it would react in stronger ways to NATO’s bullshit.

Even though Russia isn’t interested in war and confrontation, it seems like NATO wants to create the false perception that Russia is. A Russia that wants war only exists in the warped imaginations of the NATO cabal and their useful idiots in the media and the public.

There are cracks within NATO itself. They can setup their bases, stage color revolutions, and cry wolf against Russia, but NATO is not, and never will be in a state to attack Russia. In such an event, NATO’s performance is at best questionable.

It is quite doubtful that NATO would be able to fulfill its mandate of protecting everyone. That would mean the expansion of limited men and materials which would grind to a halt once member countries start dropping off. At best, NATO may inflict some limited damage on Russia, but it would suffer damage to its European member states, and loss of allies after Russian military moves in.

It is doubtful what would happen within the individual NATO states when faced with a Russian invasion. Studies have shown that most of the NATO troops in those countries would most likely flee, surrender, or be destroyed quickly. The peripheral NATO countries also are poor, and would be unable to afford resupplying themselves indefinitely, especially when supply routes are closed in the event of a war. It must be understood that all these weapons purchases by Poland and other E. European states are for parades and the news media photo-ops.

NATO may start out with some strong moves, but once Russia starts rolling, E. Europe would be left for dead, and the US and their western European allies would most likely roll back and just defend western Europe. It is highly doubtful if US, France, Britain would protect Poland in the event of a Russian onslaught. They failed to do so in 1939.

And in case anyone thinks that Japan and S. Korea would hit Russia from the East, forget it. Russia is watching them close, and then there’s the big elephant in the room named China. North Korea with its nukes is also there, ready to defend itself.

So any war between NATO and Russia would end in a stalemate and some sort of an agreement. Some NATO members would be taken out of NATO, most likely permanently, by any agreement between Russia and NATO after the dust settles.

Such a campaign may even be the end of NATO itself, as the member countries would realize that NATO’s protection is ineffective.

It can be said with a high degree of certainty that in a NATO-Russia confrontation, there would be no victor. Both sides would reach a point where the initial destruction would be too scary, and both sides would move to halt military operations by some agreement. NATO would most likely lose more than Russia, mainly current E. European member states. Russia only stands to lose whatever territory it may gain by its military operations.
And as recent history has shown, the US is always ready to compromise and halt fighting when it starts to suffer setbacks.

Of course, these are scenarios that would most likely come to pass if a hypothetical war between NATO and Russia was strictly conventional. If it goes nuclear, then there’s no point of discussing the results, as there would be nothing left to talk about or salvage. 

Russia will use nukes if overran; NATO knows this. Therefore, no victory can be had. In such a scenario, US missile shields would be as useless as bottle rockets.

These NATO honchos most likely know all this in the back of their minds, and it drives then nuts when they go to sleep at night. All these military exercises, PR shows and meetings, and anti-Russian demagoguery just serves to mask the weakness, fear, and helplessness of this useless organization.

It is also a reaction to the frustration of the US inability to run roughshod throughout the world as an unopposed hegemon due to Russian political, diplomatic, and military brilliance.





1. https://www.rt.com/news/350434-nato-war-russia-warsaw/

Bye-Bye Brussels!

Today is a happy day, indeed!

After much fulmination from the Eurocrats and their useful idiots, and much social tension, the UK has finally voted to leave the hapless and failing EU.

Much has been done by the pro-EU vermin to scare and force the UK public to vote for staying in the EU. From economic threats, to accusing Putin of being behind the Leave campaign, to the mysterious 11th hour shooting of a pro-EU shill, to Obummer’s own not-so-subtle threats of economic and political exclusion if UK leaves, to street protests, everything that the ‘Stay’ campaign had in their arsenal they threw at the other side.

But it didn’t work.

The UK voted for sovereignty and independence. Hopefully, this creates the momentum for other European countries to have their own EU secession referendums.

It was patently obvious that UK’s association with the EU has done much to hurt the country. The UK became a prime destination for unemployed malcontents from E. Europe, as well as for an influx of undocumented migrants feeling US-made wars in the Mideast and N. Africa.

All these factors overwhelmed the British national health care and social programs. The UK became a dumping ground for other nations unwanted masses, especially for Poland.

Now that the UK’s exit is a reality, the morons in Brussels, Warsaw, and especially in aspiring EU serfdoms like Ukraine, are soiling their pants. They don’t know what to make of it.

This is especially worrisome to the degenerate boot-lickers in Warsaw. Poland has offloaded much of its unemployed masses onto the UK, and hoped to have this be the case in the future. Poland will undoubtedly now have to contend with a higher unemployment rate. But this is all the better. Poland needs to roll up its sleeves and start solving its own economic problems instead of relying on foreign investments and other countries opening their borders to its unemployed.

Ukraine is especially in a bad spot right now. It has burned all bridges with Russia as far as its economic well-being is concerned. It staked its future on EU membership and the offloading of its unemployed masses onto the UK and others.

Now with the UK out of the fetid EU pool, the Kiev junta are left to stand there with their limp dicks in their hands, and with a major case of EU blue flag colored balls. But it serves them right! Will they still continue to pitch EU membership as Ukraine’s salvation?

This is all a wake-up call to the rest of Europe-to start being independent and sovereign again, and take matters into their own hands, instead of relying on un-elected bureaucrats far away.

This is also a wake-up call to all aspiring EU applicants. They seriously need to think again, real hard, about their EU aspirations. If BRExit doesn’t shake their confidence in the EU, then may God have mercy on those nations souls, as their future will not be pretty if they still decide to join.

It seems that barely after the vote, the UK is getting the ‘Russia’ treatment. S&P has downgraded UK’s AAA credit rating, the Pound has taken a sudden plunge, and threats of economic destitution are swirling around. Much of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy by angry Euro-ite elites. Being deprived of UK money won’t fare well for Brussels. Who are they gonna bilk now to make up the difference? Ukraine? Croatia, Romania?

Yes, there will be some short-term uncertainty and stumbling along the way, but that is always the case when a major change is made. But in the long-term, the UK will be better off. Once the dust settles, the British government and public will definitely like the regained freedom to spend their money on British priorities, be free to allow or not allow migrants, and to pursue or not pursue treaties.

This is also a wake-up call to all the eurocrats. The EU has gotten way too unbalanced and reckless. The EU needs to put an immediate moratorium on all new membership applications and so-called ‘association agreements’ until it sorts out the serious problems it has created for itself and its existing members.

If EU membership was so beneficial for the UK, then why have economic and social conditions there been getting worse? All these problems that drove the majority of Brits to vote in favor of leaving happened while UK was in the EU, not outside of it. So why would any country want to stay in such a bad situation?

No one would entertain any notion of an EU exit referendum if the EU was truly worth it, and really made things better. It wouldn’t make sense. No one would be that stupid.

As for those who utter dire warnings that UK’s economy will shatter, and that the UK cannot prosper if it leaves the EU, then what about Greece and the other EU member countries who have been bankrupted and are suffering economic doldrums? Was their misery caused because they left the EU? No. Their misery was 100% made in the EU, not outside of it!

So as we can see, these doomsday arguments are just a bunch of bullcrap; and they’re not really arguments; they’re simply veiled threats. Read between the lines: What these Eurocrats are really saying is ‘If the UK leaves the EU, we will make your economy suffer.’

It defies logic and reality for people to say that the UK will be worse off economically if out of the EU when the UK is already in bad shape inside the EU. Do these rotten EU cretins truly buy their own worthless, sense-defying arguments?

Exiting the EU may also open the doors of opportunity between the UK and Russia, as well as Iran. Since it is no longer an EU member, the UK would no longer be bound to the anti-Russian and anti-Iranian sanction. The UK could maintain them on its own, but it would not be under any collective obligation to do so, not to mention it would be stupid for them to do so. If it lifts or annuls them, it could be the only western European country not under Russian counter-sanctions, and it could restore trade with Iran, and this would mean good economic opportunities that the EU member states don't have.

The main problem remains the US. What will it do, and how will respond, and exploit the BRExit for its own evil purposes remains to be seen. Hopefully, with this new-found freedom from the EU the people of the UK will be inspired to step things up and also defy the Washington-controlled Atlantic consensus and formulate an independent foreign policy as well. It’s high time for it.

Will the US roll out some sleazy color revolution in the UK? Will it stir up a war somewhere, maybe even with Russia, to keep its tottering EU slave plantation standing? Don’t ever underestimate a cornered, wounded animal.

So, what is the moral of this BRExit story?
  
It is that countries should not join the EU because they will inevitably create worse problems for themselves than they had before joining. 
   

Alliance Against Peace

The last month has witnessed an increasing amount of bizarre US and NATO prophecies and pronouncements that have no basis in reality, and which only serve to scare the idiots in certain E. European countries into coughing up more money they don’t have on US-made military junk.

Russia has been billed as the main threat facing the US, Europe, and NATO. It has even surpassed the threat posed by ISIS in the warped and deluded minds of certain E. European government officials.

This propaganda has only intensified in the run up to the NATO meeting in Warsaw this July.

Russia is now accused of being behind every problem facing the US and Europe. The BRExit campaign is being seen as the work of the Kremlin to divide the EU and the US. Russia has also been accused of 'weaponizing' the migrant crisis. The existence of ISIS is also now being made to be Russia’s fault. Never mind the fact that Russia has warned the US and Europe for years against supporting the jihadi rebels in Syria and elsewhere, whose barbaric acts served as the catalyst for the migrant crisis and the growth of ISIS.

But no matter how hard Russia tries to dispel the BS NATO propaganda and fear-mongering, and regardless of how nice it acts, NATO just becomes more paranoid and unhinged.
 
Let's face it: without Russia, NATO has no mission. What real, existential threat is Europe and the US facing today? None, really. NATO failed in Afghanistan against the rag-tag Taliban, and so far against fighting terrorism everywhere it went.

NATO needs a sure, predictable, civilized adversary; one that will justify high military spending and stave off the crumbling of the EU-Atlanticist social cohesion, but with which NATO won't actually have to fight a war. Russia fits the bill perfectly.

So of course NATO and its acolytes will strive to foment tension (but not too much) between Russia and the rest of Europe to justify NATO's existence under the pretext of 'Russian aggression,' and keep that taxpayer money and votes coming. Stirring up the Maidan mess in Ukraine was part of this NATO strategy.

As I said before on this blog, NATO is unable to ‘protect’ its European members. There are serious faults and lack of material, know-how, and money in that organization. NATO leaders know that they can‘t really win a war against Russia, so they posture, bloviate, and put on military exercises and parades for marketing and PR reasons to cover up NATO’s weakness and failures.

NATO protection is only on paper; it isn’t guaranteed. Even if it does try to help, will it be successful? Will that help be enough? What if it’s not? What if it fails?

That is why Europe must move away from this stale, rotted through NATO paradigm, and move forward toward a new, just arrangement for security in Europe. 

This agreement must be fair and considerate, and make Russia a full partner. Such an agreement must be based on consensus, peaceful resolution of all issues, and general disarmament, not on outdated and wasteful military alliances which further their unnecessary existence by manufacturing enemies and provocations which endanger its members and non-members alike.