People are desperate for leaders and heroes. This is an undeniable condition of human life and of human civilization. Some historians and social observers, however, seem to think it is enough to simply point out this condition and pretend as if they have made some grand declaration; as if they have come to the root of the problem of mankind. In their laziness, they have mistaken a symptom for the cause.
Why do people so often demand leaders and heroic figures? What drives the institutionalization of hierarchy, celebrity and geopolitical idolization? I believe this condition is caused by three factors – fear, ignorance, and apathy.
This is not to say that there are not people throughout history that are worth looking up to, or that looking up to a particular hero figure is wrong. Heroes and sometimes leaders can act as points of reference, helping us to aspire to greater personal accomplishment and extraordinary achievement. The problem is many historical figures labeled heroic are in fact monsters in masks paraded as saviors by history writers with agendas. Real heroes (in the past hundred years in particular) are most often unsung, and remain little known.
This is why the idolization of puppet leaders is so disturbing to those of us in the Liberty Movement. We witnessed the blind militancy of the so-called “right wing” in the support of George W. Bush after 9/11, only to be led into quagmire, economic despair, and a surveillance state based on numerous lies. We then had to witness the insane cult-like fervor of the so-called “left wing” as Barack Obama took office, only to continue and accelerate the same draconian policies of the Bush Administration while conjuring new methods for the division and destruction of American society and prosperity.
Yes, the Liberty Movement has examined every detail and is well versed in the horrors of the false Left/Right paradigm. Again, I'll have to quote the ever useful elitist member of the Council on Foreign Relations and mentor to former president Bill Clinton, Carroll Quigley, on this particular issue, from his book 'Tragedy And Hope':
“...The argument of two parties should represent opposed ideas and policies, one perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinate and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.”
What truly disturbs me is that our movement can be so awake and aware of the false left/right paradigm while remaining astonishingly naïve and short sighted when it comes to the false East/West paradigm. And once again, I have to attribute this naivety to a desperation for heroes caused by fear and apathy.
I have written on the reality that Eastern political interests are just as controlled by globalists as Western political interests for years. Readers can review the considerable amount of data and evidence I have collected on Russia and Vladimir Putin in particular and the ties between the East and international financiers and well known globalists in recent articles such as 'Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too', 'False East/West Paradigm Hides The Rise Of Global Currency', and 'The New World Order And The Rise Of The East'.
In fact, I predicted almost every aspect of the current Syrian crisis based on the knowledge that the East versus West dynamic was purely an engineered conflict designed to diminish American power and economic influence through the use of planned chaos, and I did this years before events were ever triggered in the region.
I knew what was about to happen in Syria only because I understood one important fundamental – that there are no “sides” in any modern conflict, only proxies fighting on a global chessboard controlled by the same elitist interests. Syria represented a perfect catalyst for a planetary scale conflict triggered between East and West in way that could divert attention from internationalists. Modern war, whether through kinetics or economics, is almost always theater designed to distract and terrorize the masses, which are the true target of any conflagration.
We must set aside childish assumptions on war. Wars are not about resources. They are not about territory. They are not about the hegemony of any particular nation state. If you buy into such notions, you have been duped. No, war is about something much bigger. War first and foremost is a tool for the manipulation and molding of public psychology. As Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda said:
“The great enemy of any attempt to change men's habits is inertia. Civilization is limited by inertia.”
War is meant to forcefully change the “inertia” of civilization, and thus, forcefully change the direction of civilization in a manner that benefits the engineers of the conflict.
One great threat to the mechanism of globalism and the elites behind it is the liberty movement, which is slowly but steadily growing in popularity and influence as America edges ever closer to economic and sociopolitical oblivion. As the U.S. is homogenized, harmonized, and brought down to third world status for the benefit of a one-world system, resistance continues to grow.
You see, one negative side-effect of the rush towards centralization and a single global power (often referred to by the elites as the “New World Order”) is that the harder the globalists push society toward their Utopian ideal, the more individuals (not controlled governments or political puppets) wake up to the threat. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The Liberty Movement is the equalizing reaction to forced globalization.
In order for the elites to neutralize the threat we present, they must either destroy us or co-opt us. I believe the East/West paradigm is being used in part to attempt the co-option of liberty elements.
Despite the fact that many liberty analysts are beginning to understand the nature of the false East/West paradigm and the truth behind the rise of Russia, the predictable escalation in Syria is energizing a strange brand of Putin-worship once again. Liberty elements WANT to believe that Putin is somehow in opposition to globalization, that he is somehow morally superior to the Obama Administration, and that Russia is on the side of right in the fight against ISIS and the evil Western empire.
They want to believe this because they are afraid – they are afraid that they are alone in the fight against the NWO. They are afraid that they will have to commit to personal sacrifice and struggle against a vastly technologically superior opponent. They are afraid that they alone will have to take responsibility for America's destiny and that no great leader on a white horse is coming to blaze the path ahead of them.
Because of this fear, they sometimes commit the crime of cognitive dissonance in order to protect their false belief in a heroic Putin. They will ignore the fact that Putin is a long time friend of Henry Kissinger, the most publicly vocal proponent of the “New World Order, and that Putin describes Kissinger as his “trusted foreign policy adviser”.
They will ignore the fact that Russia's primary economic adviser is none other than the hitman of the international banking syndicate, Goldman Sachs, and that Goldman Sachs has been deeply involved in Russia's economic affairs since at least 1992, just after the fall of the Soviet Union.
They will ignore the fact that Putin and Russia have allied closely with the IMF (an institution supposedly dominated by the U.S.). Putin and the IMF are so intertwined that it was Putin who demanded that the IMF take over the management of Ukraine's finances after the regional crisis began, and, it was the IMF that blatantly supported Putin's call for a change in Ukraine's bond status from private to “official”. Russia also demanded that Ukraine's debts be repaid in Special Drawing Rights, the global currency basket which the IMF plans to use to replace the U.S. dollar as the world reserve mechanism.
They will also surely ignore the fact that Putin and the Kremlin have on multiple occasion called for the IMF to take over global management of the worlds financial systems through the implementation of the SDR as the new world reserve currency.
And of course, the fact that Russia is a member of the Bank for International Settlements and the BIS is the policy dictator of ALL central banking (do I really need to quote Carroll Quigley on the BIS yet again?) does not bode well for the affiliations and intentions of Russia as a whole, yet we are still bombarded in the liberty movement with platitudes on how Putin is “sticking it to the bankers”. No, I'm afraid not. According to the evidence, Putin is just like Obama: Yet another whore for the internationalists. Post all the pictures you want of the guy holding an uzi or finishing a judo throw, but his public persona does not fit reality.
The mainstream media in the U.S. has for the most part run on the narrative that Putin is the next Stalin, and if you are going to perpetuate a false East/West paradigm this makes perfect sense. But there is also a separate narrative being presented to the liberty movement and the rest of the world.
The talking points coming out of outlets like RT (Russia Today), a media machine controlled by the Russian government, has for the past few years stolen brilliant observations by American liberty proponents and repackaged them as video fluff. Most of these observations are negative in their view of U.S. government policy as well as central banking dictatorship, and they are also entirely correct. The problem is, RT does not apply the same standards of journalistic skepticism to the Russian government or its ties to the central banking cabal.
Time Magazine publishes pro-Putin articles naming him “man of the year” in every other nation where they have distribution, but removes these stories and covers when publishing in America.
The general American public is being sold on the idea that Putin is a calculating danger to global stability and that Western governments must become more aggressive to counter the threat. The rest of the world and the liberty movement are being sold on the image of a benevolent Putin and a Russia standing firm against the corrupt war machine of the West, but this image simply is not real.
The danger for the liberty movement in the near future is considerable. Our blind support of the false East/West paradigm makes us vulnerable to easy co-option, for if we as a movement are tricked into closely affiliating with Russia then we lose our identity as a force for American independence and become nothing more than an “Eastern created” faux revolution. Think it can't happen? Mainstream media outlets are ALREADY building the narrative. The Atlantic was the first, with an article directly connecting “right wing” movements and “conspiracy theorists” in the U.S. with Russian influence and propaganda.
As the false East/West confrontation grows, the real purpose of such a crisis will become apparent. ISIS agents conveniently shipped out of Syria among millions of "refugees" before Russian forces finally decided to strike will wreak havoc in Western nations. Economic chaos will become prevalent. The U.S. will lose the dollar's petro-status as the East subsumes Eurasia. Fear of another world war will haunt public perception. The ever uneducated and terrified mass majority will become far less tolerant of intelligent dissent. And, the Fabian Socialists infesting global institutions will suggest a clever solution to the problem they created - the dissolution of all sovereign nations and the complete centralization of governance into the hands of a select few to save humanity from such destructive divisions.
If you understand that a primary goal of globalists is to fully remove constitutional protections in America and assert a totalitarian framework, then you have to admit that a conflict with Russia is an excellent opportunity for them. War fever makes men delirious and malleable, and outside threats make internal despotism more tolerable.
In the meantime, if the liberty movement refuses to treat Russia with the same x-ray vision it has used against western governments (a Russia clearly working with international financiers and globalist institutions) then we make it far easier for the elitist propaganda machine to paint us as Eastern backed traitors rather than freedom fighters down the road, thus crushing our chances at garnering increased support from the public and awakening new voices.
Mark my words, in the end we will not only be forced to rebel against centralization under our own criminal government; we will also have to rebel against criminal puppet governments everywhere. I have no doubt that when we see the ranks of the globalist enemy, there will be Russian faces standing right alongside Western oligarchs. Maybe then people will finally admit that the East/West crisis was a carefully crafted hoax all along.
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
written by Ivan the Terrible , October 14, 2015
Certainly what you say may be true, particularly given Russia Central Bank's control of the Russian economy. But how would you explain the very real damage done to the Russian economy at the hands of the West, which shouldn't have happened if they were both being controlled by the same people, i.e., why destroy Russia in addition to destroying the US through the US attack on the ruble, the intentional collapsing of oil prices, the US-led coup in Ukraine, sanctions on Russia, etc.,. These US actions seem to me to be desperate moves to intentionally demonize an opponent in order to create a scapegoat for the collapse of the US dollar reserve currency, more so than to perpetuate a faux East/West paradigm.
written by Brandon Smith , October 14, 2015
@Ivan
Why not destabilize Russia? The goal of the globalists is HARMONIZATION - meaning, all economies around the world on the same footing (everyone equally poor and destitute). The effects of sanctions against Russia are minimal at best, and oil is falling due to the lack of demand catching up to the markets, NOT manipulation to the downside (there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim). Notice that oil prices began to fall AFTER the fed introduced the taper of QE? If anything, the U.S. was propping up oil prices - which was never going to last long anyway.
China is suffering a considerable downturn as well. Do not assume simply because multiple countries are experiencing economic crisis this means that there is not an agenda, and do not assume that the globalists have ANY loyalty whatsoever to any particular nation.
The existence of sanctions does nothing to disprove the evidence I have already presented showing Russia's clear relationship with globalist institutions and persons. For a better understanding of the globalist game plan, I highly recommend you read the article 'Get Ready For A Global Currency By 2018' published by the Rothschild owned 'The Economist':
https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/flashback-1988-get-ready-for-a-world-currency-by-2018″-the-economist-magazine/
The globalists were openly admitting to the plan to elevate the IMF's SDR as a global currency back in 1988. Putin supports the IMF and the SDR. Russia's economy is just as expendable as ours in the globalist pursuit of a world currency and world government. We just happen to have further to fall than Russia.
written by Rev Jim , October 14, 2015
...the idiots and plants in the alt media that claim Russia is preparing to move ships into the Gulf of Mexico to "help" patriots escape a coming civil war. How do they come up with this crap?
written by Andy Sloan , October 14, 2015
"In the mid-seventies when the SALT II (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) was being discussed by the U.S. Senate, the author of this article (Iserbyt) arranged for a Soviet defector by the name of Igor Glagolev to come to Maine to participate in a debate with Secretary of Defense Paul Warnke. This debate was arranged by Maine's Chamber of Commerce. Glagolev did a superb job presenting reasons why the United States should not sign onto this Treaty. At dinner the same evening Glagolev informed me that prior to his defection, when he held a very high position in the Kremlin, he sat in on meetings at which David Rockefeller Sr. and Henry Kissinger were often present."
See;
http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt3.htm
written by pablito , October 14, 2015
what will happen to the liberty movement, if at some point in the near future, some members become co-opted by one of the political parties.
They say that everyone has a price, so what happens when the liberty movement gets officially involved in the political process, (as that seem to be the only way to change politics and influence society, to become "one of them")
Imagine Bernie Sanders gets elected, and ask a prominent member of the liberty movement to become a cabinet minister, for a new position on helping people become more self sufficient.
I know this is pure speculation, but, being offered a position of power, to effect the change you believe is required is a pretty powerful incentive.
Then what happens to the liberty movement?
does it go mainstream?
or does it morph into something else?
It is easy to be an outsider, chanting for people to wake up, but, eventually one must consider what is the best way to advance the agenda, and that usually means climbing on to the soap box, located in the public square.
This is a serious question, and it dovetails into the thread of this post, which is about leadership
written by Brandon Smith , October 14, 2015
@Pablito
It already happened. Rand Paul stabbed his father in the back by publicly supporting neo-con scumbag Romney during the 2012 election, all for some extra media attention and I'm guessing a promise of climbing the GOP ladder. Some will argue that he did it to "change the GOP from the inside". Maybe, maybe not. All I know is, his shift away from his father's principles did NOT affect the Liberty Movement in any way.
In fact, the Liberty Movement is an individualist movement that does not rely on any person or group in order to function. Unlike most activist movements that are driven by the cult of personality and political celebrity, the Liberty Movement is based solely on principle. You could remove ANY person within the movement and it would not change the general momentum of the movement.
Also, we had the soap box with Ron Paul and the media made sure he was ignored. Clamoring for mainstream attention is the WRONG approach, being that the alternative media now has higher traffic and readership overall compared to the MSM. Beyond that, the elites will never allow us to field liberty candidates successfully. They control the entirety of the political process. Period. And the more control they assert over that process, the more liberty proponents will be forced to step away from the now useless soapbox and pick up an ammo box.
written by Beano , October 14, 2015
Look at Kissinger. Why do their appearance change when they do EVIL?
written by HBD , October 14, 2015
How does Paul Craig Roberts not know this, or is he part of the plan to confuse us?? He's always building up the East/West paradigm.
written by immxdmta4 , October 14, 2015
I'm so thankful for this article. I've had these suspicions for a while now and wondered why I was seeing NOBODY speak out on this falsehood! The louder the 'pro-Russia' group screamed the more convinced I had become. ESPECIALLY the tripe that comes out of Paul Craig Roberts' writings! His writing was my first confirmation, of sorts, that I was spot on.
I'm not a history expert nor a political expert. I've only just recently awakened, in stages over the past 12 years, to the realities of our world. So I just want to say again, THANK YOU! I'm content knowing that there is one other person who sees this!!! God bless you sir.
written by Pdog , October 14, 2015
Dear Brandon:
Maybe this is just the age old struggle between good and evil? Maybe the new world order is just the beast, the old babylonian system writ modern and the end times are what we have in store? Watch Rick Ackerman on Greg Hunter's show and Rick says money system will likely shut down without notice. Then What? Allegience to the NWO will quickly wane when the goodies are gone. Is fear alone enough to glue humanity together to accept lucifier?
I see a big blow up, like the apocalypse which of course means the "lifting of the veil"
Pdog
written by Andy Sloan , October 14, 2015
You can see how the UN have conveniently planned a world of 10 regions, for after the planned WW3.
http://nuclearsuntan.blogspot.co.uk/
Apocalypse 17:12-14
And the ten horns which thou sawest, are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom, but shall receive power as kings one hour after the beast. These have ONE DESIGN: and their strength and power they shall deliver to the beast. These shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because he is Lord of lords, and King of kings, and they that are with him are called, and elect, and faithful.
Also, a very insightful interview with an illuminati defector and Mr Henry Makow;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83UqLDoZUn8&oref=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83UqLDoZUn8&has_verified=1
(Relevantly 16 mins, 15 seconds)
written by awed bawl , October 14, 2015
Dr. Roberts career almost ended a few years ago with his "retirement." Then mysteriously he came back- as a Marxist!
I read at least two of his columns where he said "I am using Marxist analysis here." I almost fell out of my chair.
I wonder if he was made an offer he couldn't refuse?
Roberts also wrote that POS book "The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism." Where is this "Laissez-Faire?" Nowhere.
Mr. Soros was also griping about "too much laissez-faire."
written by CaptHankb737 , October 15, 2015
A little off topic, but check this out from CNBC Brandon.
If someone would have suggested, as recently as six months ago, that China would sell over $150 billion of U.S Treasurys in a handful of months, analysts would have warned of an impending disaster in the U.S. bond markets.
Forecasters would have said that the dollar would crash, rates would skyrocket and stocks would plunge as America's reliance on the kindness of strangers to finance its budget deficits had finally exhausted their generosity.
Well, guess what? China did just that and other global central banks have slashed their holdings of U.S. Treasurys with barely a ripple in the multi-trillion dollar bond market.
Once again, the prophets of doom were wrong. And again, wrong for all the wrong reasons.
First, the sale of U.S. Treasurys by the Chinese was far from a repudiation of America's fiscal policies. It was an act of desperation to cover capital flight that has plagued China, and other emerging-market economies in the last several months.
It has been reported that Chinese nationals, despite restrictions, have moved a half trillion dollars abroad … into the relative safety of U.S. real estate, among other offshore assets, as the Chinese market melted down. So, too, in other emerging-market nations.
Chinese foreign-exchange reserves have also fallen markedly as Beijing spent quite liberally trying to prop up said market, forcing the government to raise cash to replenish their coffers.
As NYSE floor trader Art Cashin has long said, "When you can't sell what you own, you sell what you can." With the U.S. Treasury market among the most liquid and deepest markets in the world, China's bond sales were easily absorbed.
The other reason there was scant impact on U.S. interest rates is the desire, and/or requirement, among many financial institutions to hold high quality, long-dated bonds.
With capital requirements rising for banks, brokers and insurers, U.S. Treasurys fit the bill quite nicely as Tier One capital. In addition, while rates are low, U.S. Treasurys have generally higher yields than other sovereign bonds, not to mention infinitely less credit risk.
The higher yields in the U.S. are also reflective of relative economic strength … witness negative interest rates in some parts of Europe and near-zero returns on Japanese bonds of similar maturities.
In other words, there were willing buyers for whatever China, Middle Eastern and emerging-market nations offered for sale.
All of this happening AFTER the Federal Reserve ended its bond-buying programs that, over the last several years, were designed to keep long rates low and stimulate domestic growth.
Many of the prophets of doom also said that the dumping of U.S. debt would come as America's budget deficits continued to rise from the record $1.4 trillion print back in 2009. Instead, deficits have been slashed by more than 50 percent and are now less than three percent of U.S. GDP.
In other words, the world is not choking on U.S. debt, instead, there is a relative shortage of it.
As always, it is easy to predict the end of the world, as we saw on the night of the "blood moon," and again on Sept. 23 (another date with supposed apocalyptic significance). But the end of days never arrived.
The doomsday clock may still be ticking, but the time bomb is more likely to go off outside the U.S. while bonds remain the world's safest and most resilient economic bomb shelter.
Commentary by Ron Insana, a CNBC and MSNBC contributor and the author of four books on Wall Street. Follow him on Twitter @rinsana
written by Brandon Smith , October 15, 2015
@Capthank
It is typical of CNBC to construct such a strawman argument. I don't know of anyone who made the claim that the dollar or bonds would collapse if China sold only $150 billion in treasuries. They have over $3 Trillion in dollar related holdings.
I will say that $150 billion is a considerable start, and that what CNBC fails to mention is that the Chinese dumping of U.S. bonds is likely to continue. If they stick to their current pace, it would take over a year for them to dump all bond holdings. That is assuming they do not speed up their rate of sales.
CNBC also fails to ask an important question - if China, our primary creditor (besides the Federal Reserve) is slowing the purchase of new U.S. debt instruments and dumping their current holdings, WHO is going to take their place as our sugar daddy? WHO? The U.S. needs exponentially larger bond sales in order to support our exponentially larger spending and debt problems.
Beyond that, when has CNBC ever been right about anything? They didn't see the credit and derivatives crisis coming - alternative analysts did. They didn't predict the blatant use of fiat stimulus by the fed to stall the crash - we did. They didn't predict that the stimulus and QE measures would eventually fail - we did; it is patently obvious today that QE accomplished absolutely nothing except to buy the Fed a few years of tepid non-growth. And, they didn't predict that China would dump U.S. Treasuries at all, let alone $150 billion worth - we did.
So, my question is, if we were RIGHT about everything else, and CNBC has been consistently wrong, then aren't the chances pretty good that we are right about a U.S. debt and dollar crisis in the near future, and CNBC is full of sh*t, which is why they have to construct such a strawman argument in the first place?
written by William Hunter Duncan , October 15, 2015
There will likely be war or an economic collapse before TPP/TTIP/TISA trade agreements are passed by Congress in March or April. Seems like a prominent step in the evolution of Direct rule by corporations and banks. If not, and TPP doesn't pass, it will come up again whenever war starts or the economy collapses, with any of the monsters running for President, with the possible exception of Bernie.
written by Michael Butler , October 15, 2015
Very astute observations Brandon. I've asked various Putin worshipers a simple question and they never have an answer, it only triggers cognitive dissonance, so I'll pose the question here. If Putin is such an enemy of the US, he could literally destroy his faux foes in an instant by doing a 'controlled demolition' on the 911 narrative, and every false flag that has followed, like Sandy Hoax and the Boston Bombing. 14 years on from 911 and all we hear is crickets. Putin is also by some accounts, the richest gangster/oligarch on the planet, and I'm sure he didn't get that way by being a humanitarian. Putin's harboring of 'Edward Snowden' is also another 'tell', part of this deception to boost Putin's image. Putin's backstory is just as mysterious as Barack Obama's. It's pretty clear old Vladimir is a creation of intelligence and simply carrying out the role that was scripted for him.
written by Michael B. , October 16, 2015
Kissinger is shaking hands (with a masonic grip) with one of his doubles...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2013-06/07/c_132439563_2.htm
written by Random reader , October 17, 2015
Understanding Putin or "Get a New Hero"
There seems to be more and more people operating under the mistaken impression that Putin is a self made and independent actor (and "actor" may be the operative word, as Putin's specialty is political theater). And anyone who imagines that he has supreme power in Russia and therefore may be a fair policy broker in the Middle East probably needs this primer in Kremlinology.
This video, one of the numerous propaganda videos betrays far more to the person who recognizes the figures involved. In the video, Putin here "dresses down" a top businessman supposedly, before he signs over control of another multi billion public enterprise to a private businessman. Now who is this private businessman? Oleg Deripaska, one of the closest oligarchs to Vladimir Putin. But there is more to him, than that. The largest shareholder in both of the companies he nominally runs, United Company RUSAL and Glencore (which together are possibly the largest private holdings in Russia) is the British businessman Nathaniel Rothschild.
Putin like Yeltsin was handpicked by Jewish oligarch Boris Berezovsky who was nicknamed "the Gray Cardinal" because of his kingmaking in Russian politics. Berezovsky was the head of a Russian criminal oligarchy syndicate that ran the Kremlin, called "The Family". This Jewish criminal syndicate with close ties to Israel whose members still to this day figure among the most powerful and wealthy figures in Russia, and are the power behind the Kremlin. They read as a list of the richest Russians- Roman Abramovich (besides being likely the richest man in Russia, is chairman of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia which is allied with Putin's administration), Boris Rotenberg and Arkady Rotenberg (Putin's longtime friend and jujitsu partner), Leonid Mikhelson, Mikhail Fridman, Alexander Abramov, Leonid Mikhelson, Pyotr Aven, Vitaly Malkin, Vladimir Gusinsky, Viktor Vekselberg, German Khan, Alexey Kuzmichev, Alexander Abramov, David Davidovich, Vladimir Lisin, Eugene Shvidler, Abram Rezniko (an Israeli born Russian who is possibly the richest man in Russia, very secretive and does his business through Vladamir Potanin), Viatcheslav Kantor (billionaire oligarch and head of the European Jewish Congress), Leonard Blavatnik (lives in London but still owns Alfa Group, largest bank in Russia)...
As often noted in the media, the original six of seven of the original oligarchs were Jewish, and had connections to Israel, and together they controlled over half the wealth of Russia. Now they have expanded that number. The phrase "follow the money" (to find the root of power) draws the map clearly as to who runs the Kremlin.
Berezovsky in many ways was the sacrificial lamb of The Family, due to him being responsible for the murders of countless powerful Russian officials in the coup that brought down the Soviet Union. (The circumstances of his death are unclear but he previously narrowly escaped several murder plots in Moscow and London, and was in the constant presence of his Mossad bodyguards.) Yet neither his money or power ever left The Family- his money went to Abramovich, and those associated with The Family have only become that much more wealthy and powerful.
Another member of the Family with close relations to Israel (also Jewish himself) is Mikhail Fradkov, the head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence. Fradkov in many ways seceded Berezovsky from the political angle and wields even greater authority. His position as head of Russian Foreign Intelligence is one that normally would have been problematic in Russia given his background. He is known for being able to dictate whatever position he wants and to have went through each bureaucracy, replacing in it the previous officials with those loyal to him and The Family.
In 1992, Fradkov was appointed Deputy Minister for Foreign Economic Relations. A year later he became First Deputy Minister for Foreign Economic Relations. On 15 April 1997, a presidential decree appointed Fradkov Minister of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade. In the middle of 1999, another presidential decree made him Minister of Trade. He was made director of the Federal Tax Police by Vladimir Putin in 2001, having previously been Deputy Secretary of the Security Council as well. In 2003 he was made Russia's representative to the European Union. In 2004, he was nominated by Putin as the next Prime Minister and confirmed by the Duma.
Another person instrumental in selecting Putin, was of course the man who had helped arrange the original coup against the Soviet government, the late Sergei Primakov, once a leading Soviet official himself. Sergei Primakov had served as Prime Minister of Russia, at first in the All Russia Party which he controlled and then serving with the party put together to dominate corrupt elections, Unity. Primakov, also Jewish and an ardent supporter of Israel (his educational specialty was in Middle Eastern Affairs) was the emissary sent to tell Saddam Hussein to resign or jeopardize his life, and insisted that (the non-existent) WMDs be found, thus paving the way for the U.S. invasion.
Also supporting Putin as the successor to the severely ill Yeltsin and the aging Primakov was Vladimir Potanin, whose companies' major shareholder is George Soros. Potanin and Soros were accused of having auctions fixing the auction in favor of Potanin and Soros by their competitors due to their political influence.
Michael Cherney the Russian-Israeli crime figure, took on Oleg Deripaska, then an independent metals trader from a poor family, and was backed by Cherney and TWG to become general manager of Sayansk aluminium plant in Siberia. Deripaska does not dispute making $250 million payments to Cherney in London the arrangement also included Anton Malevsky, a veteran of the Soviet war in Afghanistan named in court papers as the head of a criminal network. Deripaska claims he no longer works with Cherney, though there are charges that he continues to money launder for them- Spain's High Court sent the criminal cases against Deripaska to the Russian General Prosecutor's office. The Russian prosecutors declined to pursue the matter.
Deripaska who married into the Yeltsin family is on close terms with Yeltsin's successor in the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin who has granted the company he runs, with Rothschild, control of huge mineral contracts. Visits by Deripaska to Nathaniel Rothschild yacht in the Mediterranean with a group of British politicians in tow, including Lord Mandelson made British headlines when it became public, due to said British politicians being involved in politically and economically sensitive issues before the British government and European Union regarding international trade and security in and around 2006. Mandelson, who has a close relationship with Nathaniel Rothschild and through him, many of the oligarchs who control Putin, served as a UK Member of Parliament (MP) from 1992 to 2004, and served in a number of Cabinet positions under Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and was the European Commissioner for Trade between 2004 and 2008.
Putin does still have to contend with the pressures by others in Russia, members of the defense and intelligence establishment or "siloviki" that were members of the formerly All Slavic club that was Russia's upper echelons of the KGB, but today, that is not the primary broker of power. One need only look at who the US leveraged most of its personal sanctions against, connected with the Ukraine dispute, to see how the West made the choice in many circumstances to penalize oligarchs most connected to the silovik class.
On the other hand, it is common practice for Arab states to attempt to appeal to rivals of pro Zionist elements of powerful nations, particularly in the areas of defense and intelligence, using oil sales or oil price manipulation, weapons purchasing and other business dealings. But it is clear that this class in Russia including Putin, perhaps more so than the U.S. or France for instance, does not have (nor is pursuing) the same latitude of independent action even if they want to pursue their own course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMlsbB33QSc
written by timothy von fuelling straus , October 17, 2015
Unless one believes that all human history is the result of one totally unified elite or supreme entity of God or man, there will always be ebbs and flows from factions within even the highest levels of wealth and power. This creates the appearance of a diversity of end goals, but is merely nothing more than differences of approach on how to attain the same ends and who will be holding the reins.
Factions of the same party whose end goals are the same-- a transnationalist fascist socialism for the masses ruled by a technocratic, crony capitalist elite--can, in fact deeply, violently disagree on the process of achieving shared ends without it being a sham conflict, as human nature is the driver for the desire to amalgamate wealth and power beyond all reason, so it too allows for such internal conflicts. Internal factional power plays and the temporary internecine turf battles of global elites should not be allowed to fool those who understand the dynamics of the war for civilization that has been unfolding for many decades, if not centuries, nor what is at stake for all of humanity.
Nothing, nothing is as it is presented for mass consumption. Even the planned chaos needed to destroy the last vestiges of nationalism and the imposition of one global authority can get out of the control of the powers seeking to take advantage of it, it is their soft underbelly. The time to revolt is now--the world may seem unprepared to wrest back our destiny from those in control, but out of chaos comes order, we must not let it be their order.
written by M. , October 17, 2015
What's interesting to me is that markets worldwide have staged their biggest rally in four years since the first day of Russia's intervention in Syria.
Obviously, the globalist money changers are not at all worried about their interests in the Middle East. Quite the opposite actually.
written by Daryl Davis , October 17, 2015
Brandon,
I applaud your skepticism with respect to what could be geopolitical theater at play; and I find the idea of a liberty movement intriguing. But two questions arise:
Why should the elite, who already own 99.9% of Earth's resources, have further need to manipulate and to impoverish the rest of us? (Surely they've secured for themselves both the sanctuary and the technology, military and otherwise, to dominate the world without recourse to the media, SDRs, or government figure heads?)
And what proposals would the liberty movement put forth to replace or to reform our current failing system? In what you've written it might be inferred that you were once but you are no longer awaiting Ron Paul--nor any other potential movement leader. So what changes would be necessary, both political and economic, in order to re-establish either an objective polity or a sound economy?
If your answer falls within the parameters of the current electoral system, then I hope you'll include a practical plan for changing the electorate instead.
https://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/in-brief/
https://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/
written by Brandon Smith , October 17, 2015
@Daryl
First, I don't agree that the elites control 99% of the Earth's resources. As long as individuals maintain private property rights, the elites cannot own everything, and, they can lose control of resources over time. Their goal is to completely remove private property for the common man.
Second, they do not have the military power or technology to necessarily dominate the world, otherwise, again, they would have already taken away all private property rights as well as constitutional freedoms. Instead, they have been forced to convince us to slowly give up those freedoms through the use of engineered outside threats that inspire fear.
Third, if you take the time to read through the numerous articles I've written on solutions, I think your last question will be answered. Here are a few to get you started:
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1990-non-participation-and-decentralization-as-primers-for-revolution
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/521-decentralization-is-the-only-plausible-economic-solution-left
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2266-organized-community-defense-is-americas-last-hope
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2506-understanding-the-fear-of-self-defense-and-revolution
written by Useless Eater , October 18, 2015
Another insightful article, Brandon. Of course, I tend to call it merely another common sense article, of which there are too few, relatively.
Just wanted to note (publicly) that Kissinger looks like Santa after a close shave.
(I rarely miss an opportunity to poke The Kiss in the eye, however, I promise to step up my insults towards him in the future.)
written by truth-hertz , October 20, 2015
Great analysis. So why is it so easy to get sucked into the "Putin's the good guy" scenario when all through history there have been no good guys? There have only been puppets and puppeteers, people who bleed and die in the globalist wars and people who profit handsomely from all the death and destruction of those same wars. Seems to me you hit the nail on the head when you listed " fear, ignorance, and apathy"
written by Joe Saba , October 20, 2015
so there you have it
default on U.S. debt in russia - just $1.2 TRILLION
and what will happen to western bankstsers?????
I M P L O S I O N
of course we can HOPE for more CHANGE - from little king himself
written by Brandon Smith , October 21, 2015
@Joe
"Western" bankers will be completely unaffected by a U.S. default. In fact, they have been engineering such an event in order to make way for their global currency basket for decades (which Putin supports). I find it amazing that people assume that the international financiers have any concern whatsoever over the death of the U.S. They control the central banks of every nation in the world. They can shift their wealth wherever they want whenever they want.
