Piece by Tony Ortega on Scientology and Yats. Yatsenyuk has also been linked to Obama follower Soros. Scientology and Soros don’t mix, different sets of assets. 😉

Posted by: Oui | Jun 10 2015 16:06 utc | 4

What surprises me is that some people still believe public opinion has any real affect on Ruling Class decisions. We live in the Age of Manufactured Consent and even when there isn’t sufficient time to manipulate the public, decisions are made no matter what the public may think.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jun 10 2015 16:38 utc | 6

If this country got into a war with Russia and we did what we do, we would roll their conventional military up like a cheap carpet. We have better conventional forces and the ability to concentrate force.
With That said, the Russians know what happens to countries we conquer in a “fair fight” and their leadership would have no interest in becoming a broken American Satrap. At the first sign of cruise missile attacks on their rear echelon strategic assets, They would launch a nuclear decapitation strike with the goal, not of destroying our military, but of destroying US as a functioning first world economic,military, and social organism.
They’d figure “we die, you die”. Can anyone visualize what would happen if the top 20 cities in this country went up in smoke, becoming black holes for disaster relief that no amount of help from the rest of the world could mitigate? (and the rest of the world would be too busy dancing on our grave to have any interest in helping us) Every supply artery for every form of supply, food, fuel, everything, would bleed out in days and people in small town America would be dying of starvation (after eating their pets and the neighbors’ children) within a month. Are we ready to take that chance? The Russians are better equipped to contend with that than we are with their more primitive small town economy and local food production.
I think people higher up in this country know that and they won’t seek to deliberately bring this on. The risk of course is it happening incrementally.
The EU countries, all NATO members know this of course and , not having the colossal ego and sense of exceptionalism we have, are understandably skittish about getting sucked into such foolishness.

Posted by: A | Jun 10 2015 18:03 utc | 8

The U.S. numbers are so high in the Pew survey because there has been a huge investment in Putin-bashing and Russophobia by the American MSM. Respondents are both brainwashed and, even if they know better and suspect bullshit in all the Russophobia, are afraid to tell the person conducting the interview the truth.
That being said, the goal of the sanctions was to bleed out support domestically for Putin. The Pew proofs sanctions are a failure.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 10 2015 18:34 utc | 10

B doesn’t give us the actual numbers for Europe but we can assume from his comment that nearly as many Eurotrash support the same belligerence as we Yanks and they can see Putin from their front porch. It appears that many of them have the same inflated ego and exceptional views of their power and righteousness.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jun 10 2015 18:52 utc | 12

Why are we not told ? Only 3 % use of nuclear arsenal will create a global winter. No light, no growth, freezing temperatures. No way to hide. We would all starve or freeze to death. So simple. Check on the information while you are alive.

Posted by: bjorn richter | Jun 10 2015 19:06 utc | 14

If you are a current oligarch/plutocrat that is connected to family that has been in control of finance for centuries you know what is at stake and are probably willing to go nuclear to maintain the status quo. The oligarchs/plutocrats might even be willing to go nuclear as a first strike measure as the cumulative effects of Fukushima become apparent and retribution pressure starts to build.
Russia , China and their friends are organizing to stand up to the oligarchs/plutocrats controlling bully America. The kabuki in the Ukraine is part of that stand up.
The current global oligarchs and plutocrats are not necessarily American. The empire that America represents is the transnational power base of the Western world controlled by private finance which is owned by the oligarchs/plutocrats. Any country that deems itself beholding to the IMF and World Bank are puppets of empire.
Life is short, eat dessert first. I thought for a while in my life that space exploration could be the growth frontier to keep the capitalist myth going but we seem to be despoiling ourselves and our home in a manner that reeks of extinction.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 10 2015 20:02 utc | 16

You lot have forgotten what it might be like to to be nuked. I posted The”>http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kwz5u_the-war-game-peter-watkins-1965_tv”>The War Game the other day. But that might be too British for you. I’ve ordered “Failsafe”, more American, but haven’t seen it yet. I don’t think that “Dr. Strangelove” is ever likely to discourage US nuclear ambitions.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 10 2015 20:16 utc | 18

Latest from the Saker:http://thesaker.is/

Posted by: ben | Jun 10 2015 20:23 utc | 20

The idea that those poll numbers against intervention would stay the same after a military attack is just silly.
Support for intervention, more sanctions, political isolation from the west etc, would all rise highly In the polls of the people in such circumstances. Most of the people’s fear and hate complex would immediately rise, and in the example of the Western people’s concern against the Russians generally, they are ready to, if not already, think of Russia as the USSR.

Posted by: tom | Jun 10 2015 20:51 utc | 22

You mean to tell me that Europeans don’t want to fight another apocalyptic war on their soil?
And as for the ones who are in a belligerent mood… Sure, they don’t like Russia. They probably have very good reasons. But fighting a war? I think they wouldn’t be so gung-ho without Uncle Sam and his Nuclear Umbrella standing behind them. And someone here on MOA said it very well about a year ago (I don’t remember who): Despite all their bluster, The US isn’t going to soak up a nuclear strike to save Riga or Warsaw.
Washington has no illusions about a nuclear exchange, and neither does Moscow. But holding the threat of nuclear annihilation above the heads of your citizens is a great way to keep ’em in line…

Posted by: Almand | Jun 10 2015 21:03 utc | 24

in re 21 —
Nothing like a well-chosen handle.
From the Wiki review — “Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film one-and-a-half stars, writing that he felt that ‘the movie makes no attempt to make [Napoleon] likable’ and that it contained ‘a kind of studied stupidity that sometimes passes as humor’.”
Sometimes, not this time. The studied stupidity and lack of likeability are spot on, though.

Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 10 2015 22:38 utc | 26

Haha. Calls other people “pompous windbags” then the little princess farts all over himself for three posts telling us why he “picks such names”… It’s really… you are so stupid, foff. You are a dry well.

Posted by: guest77 | Jun 11 2015 0:10 utc | 28

Dirty Nappy, I see from your 19-21 it’s cut, paste, and abuse. Way to go, junior.
Of course, if I just rambled on with no sources, that would be narcissistic.
Don’t forget the bad taste in videos, like this one.

Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 11 2015 2:07 utc | 30

Here’s a gob of paste from which no one will learn anything, myself included.
Some know-nothing college type says Obama Sacrifices Integrity Over Maidan Ukraine. This presumes he had any credibility after letting the banks off before he was even in office.
You’ll have to see for yourself what he says about our Beloved Nobel Laureate, but here’s a teaser on Maidan.

By no stretch of any reasonable imagination can it be considered that the imposition of new leadership in Kyiv was either democratic or constitutional.
So if there was not a legal transition, what happened?
If you examine the facts you will find it hard to disagree that a complete constitutional collapse occurred. The president was forced under threat of death to leave the country, and the democratically installed constitution was nullified.

And what do you know, I didn’t cut myself with the scissors! Well, this time, anyway….

Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 11 2015 2:45 utc | 32

Geez, scissors worked, problem with the paste. I intend to edit out at least 1/2 of that out, and finish with this.

But by not only relying on these dodgy groups for stability but also by empowering, training and further arming them, leaders from both Ukraine and the United States are making very poor choices. They are gambling with the future of the Ukrainian people—one that is not theirs to lose.

At least the italics look purdy.
Sure to hear about that, right? Hey, why shouldn’t the trolls have a little fun?
At least I learned a little something about being more careful with the mouse this time. It’s all good, Barflies!

Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 11 2015 3:06 utc | 34

@rufus magister, 50:
“Instead these members claim that the swastika-ish symbol on their flags and logo is not a swastika but an N and an I combined to mean ‘national identity.'”
The symbol is a simple bind rune, an old Scandinavian magical glyph. The thing about putting runes together is getting as many meanings into one bind rune as possible.
Remember whose symbol this is now, and who they took it from. They might go on in public about the N and I, but amongst themselves it is an SS.

Posted by: Vintage Red | Jun 11 2015 5:03 utc | 36

Oui at 52 — Always good to see bad news about the anti-Russian Dynamic Duo of Sikorski and his spouse, Anne Applebaum. Russia Insider reports that she has suffered a sharp drop in income after Washington’s largesse slacked.

Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 11 2015 5:33 utc | 38

The latest attempt at another Maidan resulted in a man who was photographed with John McCain being beaten by ‘unknown assailants’.
This encapsulates Washington’s hypocrisy perfectly.
http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2228560.html

Posted by: Bill | Jun 11 2015 8:04 utc | 40

. . . . . Rules of Trolling. Rule #1 If one can’t negate the argument you’re targeting, then use ad hominem attacks. As examples, see #’s 42 through 46 inclusive above. Unfortunately the ad hominem attacks do draw attention to ones motives and new user names must be regularly introduced to remain even mildly effective.

As we can see by TC’s pathetic attempts to sideline the discussion & exchange of ideas on MoA, he/she/it is following the first rule of trolling and thereby displaying his inability to engage in anything meaningful.

. . . . . Rules of MoA Rule #1 DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.

Posted by: Chris in Ch-Ch | Jun 11 2015 8:53 utc | 42

re 32

The City boys knew the working population was going to be unhappy about this so a nice little scary Nuke-Fest movie was just the thing to distract and scare people.

Nice to see conspiracy theories aren’t dead.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 11 2015 9:36 utc | 44

It is a little funny how the opinions that are sceptic toward NATO policies can be dismissed as results of Russian dangerous propaganda machine. Pew did not ask if the respondents watched RT, but my bet is that few did, and even fewer as the main news source. Western media is dominated by the output of western corporate groups: kind of by definition, if you own TV network with wide viewership, you are not a major corporation. So if there is a perception that USA is arrogant and untrustworthy, this cannot be explained by Russian propaganda alone, given its relatively minor reach. Perhaps, unlikely as it may seem, the perception is grounded in “grains of truth” of various sizes (see http://knsgeo.ukw.edu.pl/wyjazdy/grodek_2009.jpg for an example).

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 11 2015 12:51 utc | 46

…
It’s why I come here to laugh at you so much.
…
Posted by: Ignore the Trolls! | Jun 11, 2015 8:09:59 AM | 46
No it isn’t.
You come here to make anonymous, puerile, uninformed jokes – and laugh at them yourself.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 11 2015 13:47 utc | 48

Sorry, crossed ‘grenades’, not crossed hammers.

Posted by: Ananymus | Jun 11 2015 17:01 utc | 50

There’s quite a bit of data online that casts doubt on Pew’s alleged non-partisanship.

The PEW Charitable Trusts were established by the surviving sons and daughters of Joseph N. Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company, known today as Sunoco. The founding fortune of PEW’s trusts came from the often brutal tactics of the early American oil industry. By the end of fiscal year 2008, the total assets of PEW Charitable Trusts had grown to over $5 billion. When your independent public charity corporation is worth over $5 billion, it takes a lot of moxy to call yourself a “non-profit” organization.
. . .
PEW also has a history of investing in companies its alleged “principles” are in direct contrast with. For example, PEW has for years made sizable donations to environmentally conscious groups like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund. In spite of this, one of the seven PEW trusts, Pew Memorial Trusts, contains over $24 million worth of purchased stock in Exxon-Mobil, one of the premier faces of the fracking industry that is destroying eco-systems throughout the US.
Another member of the PEW trusts, J.N. Pew Jr. Trust, has over $9 million invested in 12 different oil ventures, including Chevron, Marathon Group, and Phillips Petroleum. Unbelievably, the PEW Charitable Trusts formed a joint trust with 6 other “non-profit foundations” that included the Rockefeller Foundation, bringing its total assets to over $21 billion, in order to form the Energy Foundation. The Energy Foundation is the main financial supporter of the most prominent anti-Exxon Mobil activist group, the Texas Fund for Energy and Environmental Education.
PEW Data On Public Perception Of Intelligence Agencies Is Biased And False

An apparently right-wing org called “Ron Arnold’s Left Tracking Library” seems to thinks that PCT is a devilish left-wing outfit devoted to bringing down capitalism by funding environmental groups:

A non-profit conglomerate of epic size and ambition, operating many projects, all designed to reduce the power of the for-profit sector and increase government power over all aspects of American life.
. . .
Transparency is not a Pew virtue. Even the basic 2008 income and asset information above is so puny compared to the real money behind the organization that it stirs mistrust.
Pew Charitable Trusts

This page lists Pew’s gifts in year 2001 to environmental organizations. This list can’t be cut-and-pasted, so I have manually typed just a few of the ones over a million dollars:

(2001) Clear the Air Campaign, $4,997,00 (funded through a grant to Pace University)
(2001) National Forest Planning Public Education, $3,475,000 (funded through a grant to US Public Interest Research Group Education Fund)
(2001) Farmed Salmon Contaminant Study, $2,530,000 (funded through a grant to Research Foundation of State University of New York)
(2001) The Columbia and Snake Rivers Campaign, $1,375,000 (funded through a grant to Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition)

This same Ron Arnold page lists the disclosed assets of some of the trusts with the PCT. This is the list for one them, the Pew Memorial Trust:

Corporation # of Shares Value (in 2008?)
Burlington Resources 38,300 $1,934,150
Coastal Corporation 40,654 $3,590,256
Exxon Mobil Corporation 97,641 $8,488,664
Kerr McGee Corp 27,222 $1,822,173
Occidental Petroleum Corp 159,800 $3,875,150
MCN Energy Group Inc 69,400 $1,921,513
Helmerich & Payne Inc. 44,700 $1,961,213
Occidental Petroleum Corp 295,100 $7,156,175
Ocean Energy Inc 132,000 $2,293,500
Pittston Brink’s Group 30,800 $612,150
Swift Energy Co 128,986 $4,853,098
Vintage Petroleum Inc 41,850 $899,775
Southern Energy Inc. 37,500 $1,061,719
Energy East Corp 16,430 $3,234,656
Burlington Resources 24,725 $1,248,613
Chevron Corp 9,100 $768,381
Coastal Corporation 18,800 $1,660,275
Exxon Mobil Corporation 50,895 $4,424,684
Kerr McGee Corp 18,150 $1,214,916
Occidental Petroleum Corp 34,125 $827,531
Schlumberger Ltd 16,325 $1,304,980
MCN Energy Group Inc 62,525 $1,731,161
Chevron Corp 40,600 $3,428,163
Exxon Mobil Corporation 53,700 $4,668,544
Schlumberger Ltd 46,600 $3,725,088
Transocean Sedco Forex 6,800 $2,152,800
Duke Energy Corp 29,400 $2,506,350
Burlington Resources 59,550 $3,007,275
Coastal Corporation 62,300 $6,902,838
Exxon Mobil Corporation 79,400 $6,902,838
Kerr McGee Corp 41,950 $2,808,028
Occidental Petroleum Corp 241,525 $5,856,981
Duke Energy Corp 31,550 $2,689,638
MCN Energy Group Inc 10,4200 $2,885,038

It seems obvious to me that the value of these stocks is far more important to the people running PCT than the values of the enviro orgs that they throw a few million bucks to, and that these donations are not intended to bring down capitalism, but to undercut and to neuter the recipient organizations.

Posted by: PhilK | Jun 11 2015 20:38 utc | 52

further to 18 & 52 —
Good choices, Laguerre and Dr. Y.
I’ve seen Fail Safe read the novel too. Saw it many years ago, then saw a bit of it recently, a little too early in the morning to see it through though.
Didn’t see all of On the Beach on TV recently, I remembered the novel from my youth and it was too depressing to sit through.
I recommend The Bedford Incident as well, with Richard Widmark, Sidney Poitier, and James MacArthur.

Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 12 2015 2:45 utc | 54

Thank you PhilK @ # 51 Although the phrase “There’s quite a bit of data on line . . . . ” is one I see frequently, it is rarely (if ever) followed by any of the actual “data”.
I appreciate the effort that you took to actually follow up the statement & provide facts & figures. Whats that all encompassing modern saying ? ? ? Ah thats it – “Respect”

Posted by: Chris in Ch-Ch | Jun 12 2015 14:28 utc | 56

PhilK at 57 — Don’t be shy, join the fun! The more the merrier.
And don’t be afraid to specialize. I myself try not to wander too far from the Ukraine and former Union, and a few other topics. I get in trouble otherwise.
You too can learn to debunk both alternative media and the mainstream press for fun and profit. All in the privacy of your home!

Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 13 2015 4:13 utc | 58

PhilK at 59 —
Your most welcome. You had a solid post.
I second Chris at 56. I’m a sucker for good data and good form.
Don’t be afraid to go with the grudges, its a fine aid to a persistent attack with some edge (works for me on the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, the Banderists, and pretty much anything E. European post-USSR). The trick is not letting it cloud your judgement.

Posted by: rufus magister | Jun 14 2015 1:56 utc | 60