Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 27, 2016

Is The U.S. Preparing A "Color Revolution" In Russia?

Via the former Indian ambassador M K Bhadrakumar we learn that the Russian government is preparing for a "color revolution" attempt during the parliament elections in September:

The annual meeting of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), which is the successor organization to the Soviet-era KGB is an important occasion to take the temperature in the ‘East-West’ relations. (The Cold War cliche is becoming useful once again.) President Vladimir Putin’s customary address at the FSB meeting was the hallmark of the occasion on Friday in Moscow.
The sensational part of Putin’s speech is his disclosure that the FSB is in possession of definite information that plots are being hatched in the West to stir up political turmoil in Russia as the country heads for crucial parliamentary election in October. Putin avoided the use of the expression ‘color revolution’ but hinted at it.

The various U.S. services and the neocons in the State Department would certainly like to invite some revolt in Russia. But the chances for a successful putsch in Moscow are tiny. There is no competent opposition to the current government and a bit of economic trouble is not what incites Russians to take on the state. They would have hanged Yeltsin every other day if it were so.

It would be much easier if Washington would accept Russia as it is and make some room form it in global polices. But that never can be, right?

Altogether, a grim scenario has been projected here with regard to Russian-American relations through the remaining period of the presidency of Barack Obama. The core issue for Russia all along is that the US interferes in its internal politics with a view to create political disharmony and weaken the Kremlin, forcing it to adopt policies that are in harmony with American regional and global strategies.
The US cannot countenance Russia (or any country for that matter) in such nationalistic mode, presenting formidable headwind against its global strategies.

Trump or Sanders winning the U.S. presidency could result in more friendly relations with Moscow. But there are many in the various bureaucracies, especially in the Pentagon, who have their budget depending on a hostile relation with Russia (and China). Their voices will be hard to silent. This makes it more difficult to solve the ongoing crises in Syria and Ukraine:

Putin has forewarned that Moscow will defeat any US design to instigate political turmoil in Russia, no matter what it takes. Trust Putin here. However, the big question remains: How could regional conflicts such as Syria or Ukraine be possibly addressed when the two big powers are locked in an existential struggle?

Should the U.S. really attempt to create some kind of trouble around elections in Moscow we can expect an intensification of the conflicts in both theaters, Ukraine and Syria, during the summer. If only to intensify the "Putin is Evil" message the "western" media were told to spread in their populations.

Posted by b on February 27, 2016 at 15:55 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Probably in Belarus.

Posted by: nmb | Feb 27 2016 16:24 utc | 1


And thank God you´r back. Cleaning lavatories is really not my thing...

Posted by: rufus magister | Feb 27 2016 16:26 utc | 2

Is The U.S. Preparing A "Color Revolution" In Russia?

US never stopped preparing a "Color Revolution" in Russia. Just because they cant possibly succeed at this moment, it doesnt mean they wont continue preparing ground for the future.

The Evil empire has patience and resources to do it indefinitely (until it collapses, and that day cannot come soon enough, but we're still decades away from it).

Posted by: Harry | Feb 27 2016 16:30 utc | 3

wow, it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to try that. The best definition of chutzpah is someone who is found guilty of murdering his parents and appeals to the judge for clemency on the grounds of being an orphan.

Posted by: Mischi | Feb 27 2016 16:37 utc | 4

Harry @3

I hope and believe you are wrong about it being decades away from the collapse of American empire. Empire collapses when the people within it no longer have faith in it or those on the outside can cooperate to form meaningful opposition. I believe we are close to that point now with China and its growing list of allies.

I also think humanity is on the brink of ecological collapse that will focus our efforts on other than killing each other for profit.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 27 2016 16:44 utc | 5

@ psychohistorian | 5

It depends on many factors. IMHO US will collapse in a few decades if they continue current path, but it can be anywhere from few years (if lets say US go completely insane and start a WW3 against China/Russia), to 100+ years, if US leadership (real, not elected talking heads) suddenly grow some sense and pursue sensible economic and foreign policies.

Posted by: Harry | Feb 27 2016 16:52 utc | 6

"...there are many in the various bureaucracies, especially in the Pentagon, who have their budget depending on a hostile relation with Russia (and China). Their voices will be hard to silence."

As different players pursue differing agendas, and the internal struggles of the US become more apparent, I think and hope we are moving into a new situation, where these various bureaucracies will increasingly come into the light and be seen more clearly. This could happen in part from Russian "naming and blaming" (too much to hope for "shaming" just yet).

Even though I live in the US, I have a very poor understanding of the fiefdoms and directorates that make up the sprawling, over-funded and completely corrupt US executive. I think most people are similarly ignorant. It's becoming time to start deconstructing this supposed monolith. Just because it seeks hegemony doesn't mean all its working parts move in concert. Surely the way the empire declines is with its parts failing separately and falling away from each other?

Posted by: Grieved | Feb 27 2016 16:59 utc | 7

The mere specter of foreign intervention is enough to justify drastic state measures to stifle opposition groups. So it works both ways...

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 27 2016 17:04 utc | 8

Trump is full of it and only really says he likes Putin just to fake how different he is from his Rethuglican candidates.
For eg, If trump as president was in trouble in the polls he could, and I think would, immediately turn to the Russian threat propaganda BS to raise his poll numbers. And Trump has shown nothing that he can resist the MIC and the neocons there could take Trump out quite easily in popularity stakes if you wasn't ramping up the fake Russian threat, or doing their bidding in other areas. Then Trump would be fired!!

And soon we might have Hitlery in power, and that evil piece of shit would do everything in her power to undermine Russia.

And Sanders, is practically the Syriza of the US. Syriza is now good friends with the ISraeli genocidal maniacs, just like Sanders would be. Sanders too would be willfully impotent in front of the MIC, and he keeps making decorations to prove it.

Posted by: tom | Feb 27 2016 17:11 utc | 9

thanks b. the usa/west want to isolate russia and keep it down. the financial sanctions match the hostile characterizations of recent history: annexation of crimea, murdering the moderates as opposed to isis, shooting down a civilian airliner over ukraine - all these talking points and more are the constant refrain from the same imbecilic minds hell bent on taking russia down. why would it change now? russia will have to prepare accordingly.. all the signs are their of the constant hostility towards russia.. don't anyone expect the usa to grow up either with the present leadership they have in offing..the general breedlove's on down are one really messed up breed..

Posted by: james | Feb 27 2016 18:13 utc | 10

Sanders' rhetoric toward Russia is just as hostile as anyone, and he's a huge mic tool to boot. Lockheed is huge in Vermont. Loves the flying (or not flying, or exploding) piece of crap known as the F35.

Ry Dawson takes Bernie to the woodshed

Posted by: Colinjames | Feb 27 2016 18:16 utc | 11

"Color revolution" is a good term for what occurred in the United States from the turn of the century until now. It remains to be seen whether this country can throw off these bloodstained shackles in the oily mess that pretends to be leading us into the opportunity to choose aright as citizens of this not so fair any longer nation. The only person speaking clearly is Jill Stein, and she is hardly heard. Good for her at least. When she ran last, I watched her numbers from state to state remain fixed in concrete at one point something - it didn't make any sense.

Putting a positive cast on the matter, maybe the US will be to tied in knots maintaining its own color revolution to bother about anyone else's this year. (And speaking about 'bothering' - do check Robert Kennedy Jr's piece at Politico. com - a good analysis also at the Saker site.)

Russia has already faced its color revolution and clawed its way back. Hopefully they are now immune.

Posted by: juliania | Feb 27 2016 18:17 utc | 12

Sorry, second paragraph "too tied in knots".

Posted by: juliania | Feb 27 2016 18:20 utc | 13

@ pyschohistorian 5 @ Harry 6

Regarding the stance the US/UK/EU collapse being in a few decades away.

NO. It is here. There are many who are expecting the collapse will happen suddenly but we are in the collapse. It has begun and is a slow process.
ZIRP, NIRP and on with their push for a cashless society.
Central Bankers will want to act – kick the can further. See this chart with a commentary by Holter. He is not alone in sounding the alarm:

How about the banks?

Here is the architect of the 2008 bank bailout declaring they now pose “Nuclear threat” to the economy. Heh nothing was fixed, let’s have more.

March cometh. Where is Deusche Bank, that stalwart of German banks with its 75 trln derivatives book, 20x Germany’s GDP? Oh, JPM is also a heavy. I am told these two will not be allowed to fail.

We will see hyperinflationary medicine. It is likely in 2016 the reset will be in plain sight.

Posted by: likklemore | Feb 27 2016 18:32 utc | 14

Well the US ‘won the cold war’ i.e. it found a comprador of exceptional quality, totally unsuspected, an unbelivable stroke of luck: Gorbatchev. So the USSR was dissolved, destroyed from the outside and the inside from top-down. Russia went thru agonies and then ‘bounced back’ from the Yeltsin years. Unbearable, of course. Victories are supposed to last! This one can’t be repeated.

Russia took back Crimea (note the deathly silence around this topic), ignored the war-bait in Ukraine, intervened with strength in Syria, and is generally ‘holding its own’ to make it short.

I reckon Russia is now quite up on color revolutions and has some insight into it all. See it its recent laws and regs in the direction of control, banning pf NGOs etc.

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 27 2016 18:34 utc | 15


Trump or Sanders winning the U.S. presidency could result in more friendly relations with Moscow.

Trump seems to be a realist so there is a possibility of more friendly relations with Russia.

But Sanders:

1) has been reluctant to talk about foreign policy;

For a "democratic socialist", this should be another important point of distinction between himself and neocon Hillary. The Scandinavian countries that Sanders sees as a model spend far less for their military as a percent of GDP.

And Hillary's neocon establishment friends have left multiple countries in tatters (Libya, Syria, Ukraine, etc.). This does not make us safe and creates a neocon self-licking ice cream cone where 'a dangerous world' requires increased military spending and adventurism that make the world more dangerous!

2) would support neocon Hillary for President;

3) has a spotty voting record - voting against the Iraq War but voting for other military actions/programs;

4) has been cagey about the extent of his support for Israel - when asked directly if he was a Zionist (a valid question, given his jewish background and residence at an Israeli Kibuttz), his answer was: "Zionism? what's that?"

5) has (like all the other major party candidates) talked of the need for a strong defense and has not mentioned cutting the military budget - compare this with Green Party Candidate Jill Stein who has called for a 50% reduction in military spending.

Note: Years ago Sanders called for cuts in Defense spending, but now he only says he would take a "hard look" at it and that he saw room for “judicious cuts.”

AFAIK, during his campaign, Sanders hasn't even criticized Obama's 'Fiscal Cliff' deal, which led to "the Sequester" whereby cuts in social programs (austerity) were matched by military spending (which need to be cut anyway after the Iraq War!!). (Note: Sanders had performed a mock, just-for-show filibuster of the 'Fiscal Cliff' deal at the time.)

6) doesn't make imperialism or the neocon establishment an issue. At all.

Seems strange for a socialist truth-teller.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 27 2016 18:46 utc | 16

@Harry #3
(until it collapses, and that day cannot come soon enough, but we're still decades away from it)

We are not decades away, but months in my estimation.

Posted by: Sufi | Feb 27 2016 19:00 utc | 17

According to France 24, it's already started. F24 is covering a protest march in memory of Nemtsov. The largish march was headed for (renamed) Nemtsov Bridge and the front row were carrying mass-produced signs saying: Russia without Putin. No obvious violence.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 27 2016 19:28 utc | 18

The US has already tried for a color revolution in Russia and failed. The US has tried for a color revolution in Iran and failed. The US has tried for a color revolution in Hong Kong and failed. Russia's measures to inoculate itself against color revolution, such as strict policies regulating foreign NGOs, raised a howl in the West. Color revolutions might have only one shot at success if once the strategy tips its hand, the target moves strategically to protect itself. The strategic positioning lessens the chance of radical tactical moves in the face of provocation, and provoking mistaken tactical moves is key to color revolution strategy.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 27 2016 19:35 utc | 19

@18 As long as it collapses after I sell a lucrative beach property I'll accept it

Posted by: aaaaaa | Feb 27 2016 19:38 utc | 20

@ 17 Jackrabbit

You're right. Trump is real, Sanders is complete untrustable.

And he seems strong and capable.

More than that. He can formulate and debate and interpret out of the box.

MSM sees that.
"The only thing that's shocking about all this is the fact that while Trump is always on the attack, no one has been able to land a direct hit back."

Posted by: From The Hague | Feb 27 2016 19:45 utc | 21

From the linked-to op-ed:

Putin avoided the use of the expression ‘color revolution’ but hinted at it. To quote him,

"Of course, you (FSB) must also prevent any attempts from outside to intervene in our election and our country’s political life. As you know, such methods exists and have been put to use in a number of countries. Let me say again that this is a direct threat to our sovereignty and we will respond accordingly. I read the regular documents you (FSB) prepare, read the summaries, and see the concrete indications that, regrettably, our ill-wishers abroad are preparing for these elections. Everyone should therefore be aware that we will defend our interests with determination and in accordance with our laws”.

How very silly. These aren't the minutes of an intelligence bureau (which wouldn't be made available to the public), nor even an address by Putin to the FSB. It's quite obviously propaganda for domestic consumption, probably intended to justify a crackdown on dissent by linking it to "outside agitation".

Mind you, I'm sure that the CIA would love regime change in Russia and might well have some schemes for attempting to undermine Putin. But this silly rubbish has all the hallmarks of heavy-handed Russian propaganda, such as the oblique reference to "concrete indications" while providing nothing concrete.

The quoted text is arranged in the form of a political speech, not an intelligence briefing. The audience isn't fellow intelligence officers, who presumably (having collected the intelligence Putin pretends to refer to) wouldn't need to be led by the hand like a bunch of kindergarteners, but rather, the general public.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 27 2016 19:53 utc | 22

@Hoarsewhisperer #21

The marchers marched, then they went home. Reuters and Russia Today reported 25,000 - 30,000 marchers, not exactly a groundswell of activism. The march probably provided the government more benefit from intel than it provided the putschists from propaganda, much like the march a year ago.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 27 2016 20:02 utc | 23

What is America doing in the South China Sea?

Posted by: ALAN | Feb 27 2016 20:04 utc | 24

@ Thirdeye | 22

Color revolutions might have only one shot at success if once the strategy tips its hand, the target moves strategically to protect itself.

Color revolutions can be done many times in any given country, and leadership might know perfectly well whats coming and still not always be able to prevent it. Like Venezuela - Chavez was able to resist, but Maduro is having a very hard time, and IMO only a matter of time till US takes over. Another example is Ukraine, multiple color revolutions were done till the last one fully tilted the scales.

Why is that? Because masses are generally not very bright and have short memories, and can be manipulated against their government, while US builds up 5th column and grows puppets to take over, like Poroshenko/Yats. US also takes over media to brainwash population, and exacerbates any crises the country has by sanctions, blackmail, etc. Even in countries with a very strong leadership like Iran they had a big issue in 2009, Syria is nearly destroyed, what to speak of weak countries.

Posted by: Harry | Feb 27 2016 20:07 utc | 25

@Emil Pulsifer #25

It was a speech, not a briefing. Of course it was for public consumption.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 27 2016 20:08 utc | 26

@Harry #28

The key qualifier is "...if once the strategy tips its hand, the target moves strategically to protect itself."

Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 27 2016 20:11 utc | 27

Re 29: "It was a speech, not a briefing. Of course it was for public consumption."

Putin has a weird habit of trying to combine the two. Haven't you ever seen those television appearances of his in which he pretends to be having a man-to-man meeting with some cabinet official, when it's obvious the true audience is the home viewer?

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 27 2016 20:19 utc | 28

@ emil - ongoing bullshit artist for the west..

Posted by: james | Feb 27 2016 20:23 utc | 29

Re 32: " @ emil - ongoing bullshit artist for the west.."

What, specifically, is the "bullshit" to which you refer?

Yeah, "the west" -- which as we all know is a unified bloc with undifferentiated interests and uniform perspective -- put me up to this. I'm sure not a Russian citizen, since under the Putin administration I would have been rounded up as the unregistered agent of a foreign power if I had persisted in open defiance, criticism and ridicule of the government.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 27 2016 20:36 utc | 30

@Sufi #18

I don't know about projecting a definite timeframe, but the sustaining structure of empires tends to collapse before the visible crust breaks, and even the maintainers of empire are caught off guard. Winston Churchill failed to realize that the British Empire could not be sustained until after Britain failed to direct the allied efforts in WWII to support British imperial aims. The recognition of foreign policy realism forced upon Britain marked the breakup of the visible edifice even though the Britain's debt position in the aftermath of WWI made the eventual collapse inevitable. Breton Woods was, among other things, a plan for managing the vacuum left by British financial power. The UN helped manage the political vacuum. The neocon empire advocates fear the emergence of foreign policy realism in the US for the same reason Churchill resisted it. It is a concession that domination, the lifeblood of empire, cannot be sustained.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 27 2016 20:41 utc | 31

@Emil Pulsifer #31

Haven't you ever seen those television appearances of his in which he pretends to be having a man-to-man meeting with some cabinet official, when it's obvious the true audience is the home viewer?

Yes I have. So what? It's no different from calling a State of the Union Address an "address to the Congress" when it's just a big public pep rally. Nobody in the Congress is receiving any news.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 27 2016 20:50 utc | 32

@emil - the bullshit i refer to is thinking it is okay for one side to do this, while you take exception to another side doing it... that is what i call bullshit and you my friend are full of it..

Posted by: james | Feb 27 2016 20:54 utc | 33

@33 "I would have been rounded up as the unregistered agent of a foreign power if I had persisted in open defiance, criticism and ridicule of the government"

Does that really happen? I live in a democratic country where it's the norm for a president to have a low approval rating. Are you saying Putin jails everyone who criticizes him? I'm not a Russian citizen either but that seems like a stretch.

Posted by: farflungstar | Feb 27 2016 20:55 utc | 34

Here's a cackle: a professionally filmed video posted to YouTube titled "Putin speech at Emergency Secret Service FSB Meeting 2016 (English Subtitles)".

Shhh! Don't tell anyone!

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 27 2016 20:57 utc | 35

@Emil Pulsifer #33

I'm sure not a Russian citizen, since under the Putin administration I would have been rounded up as the unregistered agent of a foreign power if I had persisted in open defiance, criticism and ridicule of the government.

Depends who's paying your bills. I doubt that there's a significant number among the 30,000 or so who just marched in memory of Boris Nemtsov being considered as foreign agents.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 27 2016 21:01 utc | 36

george soros and open russia is paying emil's bills..

Posted by: james | Feb 27 2016 21:04 utc | 37

@Emil Pulsifer #38

That title does not reflect the content of the video. Take the issue up with the uploader, George Dominick. Putin's opening statement was, "Today we will summarize the work in 2015." Clearly no pretense of an emergency meeting other than from the uploader.

You seem incredibly petty and I'm starting to suspect that you're nothing but a troll.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 27 2016 21:13 utc | 38

@41 thirdeye quote "You seem incredibly petty and I'm starting to suspect that you're nothing but a troll." what i have been saying all along..

Posted by: james | Feb 27 2016 21:15 utc | 39

Emil Pulsifer @ 25:

Here is the full English-language transcript of the speech by Vladimir Putin to the Federal Security Services Board (in which speech he reviews the work the FSB did in 2015 and sets out the agenda for the FSB to meet in 2016, and where you will find the reference to "ill wishers") at this link.

Posted by: Jen | Feb 27 2016 21:16 utc | 40

Re 37: "Are you saying Putin jails everyone who criticizes him?"

No, of course not. I was exaggerating to make a rhetorical point. But you can't deny that when it comes to those with the resources to bring such views to a large audience, the Russian government often finds a way to interfere. And I don't doubt that high-profile dissenters are pointedly questioned about foreign influence, reminded of the legal penalties of such acts, and so forth. Whether it's an unexpected tax audit, the denial or suspension of licensing or other bureaucratic red tape, vandalism, robbery, physical intimidation by parties not officially affiliated with the government, or actual arrest, is another matter.

Nor do you have to be a big-shot to get in trouble. Here's an example of some young girls charged with "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred" (a catch-all charge), and sentenced to two years in prison (upheld on appeal) for some antics involving criticism of Putin as a "dictator":

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 27 2016 21:21 utc | 41

Third Eye @ 22:

There was an attempted colour revolution in Yerevan, Armenia, supposedly over electricity price hikes, in June 2015 which failed.

Go ahead and Google "Armenia", "colour revolution" and "2015" and you will find that Global Research, Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul Institute and Vineyard of the Saker among others have already posted articles on that one.

Posted by: Jen | Feb 27 2016 21:24 utc | 42

"We will see hyper inflationary medicine…"

Hyperinflation requires a sudden, large contraction of production or a similar sudden large increase in demand. Hyperinflation has only occurred twice in modern history, both were associated with collapses in production. Printing money to try to keep up is a response, not a cause, and one which is doomed to fail because it isn't possible to buy something that doesn't exist. It's like chasing one's own tail.

An increase in demand requires an increase in spending. Where will such an increase come from? Why will our production collapse? Why is most of the world instead on the brink of or in the throes of deflation?

Posted by: paulmeli | Feb 27 2016 21:25 utc | 43

Third Eye @ 41:

There is a troll on this comments thread masquerading as Emil Pulsifer. Refer to comments 19 and 20. I suggest we and everyone else here do not engage any more with whoever claims to be Emil Pulsifer (real or not) on this comments thread.

Posted by: Jen | Feb 27 2016 21:32 utc | 44

Putin isn't in the business to be liked. He's there to #MakeRussiaGreatAgain.
If a bunch of genuine or western-co.opt subversives want to undermine him then I guess he's going to be onto them and will do what he feels is necessary to stifle them.

Posted by: aaaaaa | Feb 27 2016 21:36 utc | 45

Paul Meli @ 46:

If the world currently stands on the brink of deflation, that situation took the best part of the last half-century to develop and there are many inter-linked causes, among which can be counted offshoring manufacturing away from the First World to the Third World to take advantage of low wage labour in no position to demand higher wages or better working conditions; rises in the cost of living without a proportionate rise in wages in First World countries, leading to massive consumer debt which has reached crisis proportions in some nations; the imposition of austerity programs across First World countries; the financialisation of the global economy; and the US habit of starting up and fanning endless wars around the planet, all of which have to be paid for and from which private companies profit handsomely.

Posted by: Jen | Feb 27 2016 21:42 utc | 46

@Emil Pulsifer #44

I was exaggerating to make a rhetorical point.

...which shows a lack of honesty.

"Hooliganism" is essentially disorderly conduct, fomenting strife, and such. Agree or not with the severity of the sentence (look at the sentences some countries have for DUI, for example), PR's deliberate attempt to shock churchgoers was definitely fomenting strife.

It's been lovely, but chores beckon.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 27 2016 21:43 utc | 47

Re 41: "That title does not reflect the content of the video. Take the issue up with the uploader, George Dominik."

And who is George Dominik?

Those who don't want to sit through the video can find the full English text by clicking on the down arrow (triangle). Here is how the introduction reads:

"Published on Feb 26, 2016 · Putin speech at Emergency Secret Service FSB Meeting 2016 -Vladimir Putin took part in the board meeting of the Federal Security Service, dedicated to the results of the operational activity of FSB organs in 2015 and priorities for 2016."

What a novel concept: a televised "board meeting" of the intelligence service.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 27 2016 21:43 utc | 48

I'm neither trolling nor being petty. George Dominik's flights of fancy notwithstanding, the fact remains that this "meeting" of the FSB where Putin is addressing the FSB but but being filmed for public viewing, is very peculiar. It's as if FDR, in broadcasting his famous fireside chats, was pretending to be conducting a cabinet meeting, but just coincidentally happened to have a radio broadcast crew present.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 27 2016 21:51 utc | 49

Sweetman Cult of Zion pushes relentless agitprop against 'Cult of Putin', along with their 'citizen journalist' (sic) expose: 'Proof Russia Shot Down MH17' now going viral, even as the US fracking industry approaches catastrophic industry and banking finance failure, not seen since the 1980s oil collapse, a Dark Swan that could destroy Deutsche Bank and millions and millions of EU depositors and equity holders:

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 27 2016 21:57 utc | 50

@7 grieved, @16 noirette

I agree that the US is on auto-pilot, with the minority profiting from present 'policies' running the show, and I agree that - not only - Russia has seen through the NED and USAID, and that the Russians, at least, have belled the cat, in the phrase of the day.

The US/Western msm is nothing but noise now ... waiting to see how things actually turn out. Hopefully, thankfully, 'reality' - outside the US - seems to be falling into stronger hands than those of the formula men and women in the US executive, federal bureaucracy, msm - than those of the corporatocracy.

Posted by: jfl | Feb 27 2016 22:21 utc | 51


In ZH today is a revealing P&L statement that US Mil.Gov has assets of only $3.2T, of which $1.2T is student loan debt, created out of thin air by the Fed, then pimped by US DoE and every US Edu college student finance service, and held for one year by the State DoE, then AUCTIONED OFF to a NYC mafia cartel of the same Zio mob financiers that brought you Mortgage.Con in 2008: CountryWide and their ilk!

That's the DoEs 'loan collectors', and believe me, they call you every day at 3AM.

But wait! There's more!

From my own experience in student debt, and now as a college instructor DoE employee, that same Zio mob lathers up the loan debt with their fees and penalties, collateralizes it within a portfolio of similar loans, and then AUCTIONS IT OFF AGAIN, at this point in the same mutual fund equities CDS derivative hot swap scam that brought you TBTF!

And for the student loan holder? No idea who actually holds your loans, but massive penalties and fees before you even know what your payment book looks like, pushing over 8%. In other words, you will pay double over the term of the loan, an additional $1.2T sucked out of the retail economy for cars and houses by the Zio banking cartels.

The only thing student graduates can afford is cell:data, gasoline, groceries, rent and Netflix, the Five Horsemen of their Unlimited H-1B Apocalypse!

In the meantime, my college dean tells me that my survival to teach again next year, depends on every student passing, and preferably with a 'C' average, so they don't lose their Zio mafia Pell grants. No pressure!

Oh, and US Mil.Gov has $45T in unfunded liabilities, most of which are TBTF and their own Mil.Gov pensions for life, which in addition to paying my 8% student loan off, I have to put 15% of my paycheck into their SS/MC retirement fund that I'll never see, and another 15% into the local Edu retirement fund, which is -$24M in debt, ...and going down fast!

23% to Mil.Gov 1040, 15% to SSMC and 15% to Edu, over half of my adjunct teacher paycheck, already looted and gone, before the 8% student lian payment to the Zio mob!


Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 27 2016 22:28 utc | 52

After five years of demonizing President Bashar al-Assad, chanting the mantra "Assad must go" and "Assads days are numbered" it has become clear that not only is Assad still in power he will remain in power long after obama is swept into the dustbin of history. Russia is a far stronger country than Syria and Putin is backed by overwhelming majority of Russian citizens, so any feeble attempt at color revolution in Russia will only further expose the neo-cons as weak and pathetic.

Posted by: Nick Olson | Feb 27 2016 22:42 utc | 53

@Thirdeye - #22

"Russia's measures to inoculate itself against color revolution, such as strict policies regulating foreign NGOs, raised a howl in the West."

Not only Russia ... same for Egypt and Israel.

Egypt kicked out the foreign NGOs
Israel Aiming Punitive Measures at Soft Targets – Investigating NGOs

Posted by: Oui | Feb 27 2016 22:51 utc | 54


You are unfortunately confusing economic terms.

'Inflation' is the growth in the money supply, which (the Keynesians claim) causes increase in demand over supply, thus short-term 'CPI increase', that is, IF consumers see any of that money supply increase.

They don't. It's been all downhill for Labor since 1978, weakly disguised by price declines achieved through 3W labor and automation, e.g. 'Walmartization'.

So we are in a mislabeled 'hyperdeflation', because Keynesian economics has failed, but NAFTA didn't. The money supply is contracting (deflation), but as a result of their structural disoptimization of capital investment, commodity supply is now massively ahead of retail demand, which is referred to as a 'death spiral', or 'The Fed is Out of Bullets.'

And the Zio banker vultures are busy hot swapping their CDS junk products into your 401k MM fund, so they can buy up the bankrupt Producers for 10c on the $1, using your own last life savings, and leaving you with a 401k full of warm poo.

QUIZ: Inflation is the increase in money supply, not CPI.

Whichever way the future money supply inflation increases or decreases, we're trapped in a hyperdeflationary debt cycle by the Keynesians, who all got their pensions for life and their 401ks restored, while the rest of us must endure catastrophic personal financial collapses in our own lives, ...witness EU under a withering economic attack by the Levantim, in their Luciferian Calculus of PNAC nee Keynes TBTF.

Putin is Great Satan! On to Mukva for The Party of Trump!!

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 27 2016 22:57 utc | 56

Regarding the many comments regarding the longevity of the US, this URL:

Predicts that by 2025, 9 years hence, the population of the US will plummet to 64 million
and GDP will plummet to 882 Billion.

The publisher Daegel, seems to be a site devoted to monitoring military matters.


Posted by: Dr. George W. Oprisko | Feb 28 2016 0:07 utc | 57

Well I guess Emil Pulsifer #44 has shown his true colors. He is supporting pussy riot as defenders of liberty. He can join Samantha power and Susan Rice here. If anyone in the US pulled off the stunt pussy riot did in Moscow they would have been sentenced to more than two years in US courts. If someone did something like that in a Baptist Church in Dallas they would be lucky to escape with their lives. And no jury in Texas would have convicted their killers.

Posted by: ToivoS | Feb 28 2016 0:14 utc | 58

60 DrGOW

You have failed to factor in RTP and the post-2016 Exceptionalist State

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 28 2016 0:32 utc | 59

ToivoS @61: There are apparently two MoA Emil Pulsivers, at least one of whom is a troll attempting to make a mess of the comment threads.

Posted by: fairleft | Feb 28 2016 0:38 utc | 60

60 DrGOW

Deagal is a disinformation hangout run by Soros agents-provacateur, as their top four picks for 2025 will attest.
By 2025 BRIC will have ceased to exist as viable societies. Those EM BRIC pimps Soros, Black, Celente and Rogers will be the laughing stock of all but the Crameresque Zio Media.

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 28 2016 0:38 utc | 61


This bit of Russian theater was obviously directed at a local audience to remind them that under Putin's Directed Democracy a strong opposition is viewed as a foreign concept and with the security services monitoring it will be responded to as foreign intervention.

Viewed from the outside Putin's words seem peckish and weak claiming that the US could disrupt anything inside the mighty Russian Federation with their always watchful FSB and their million man military.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Feb 28 2016 0:40 utc | 62

Chipnik @ 59

"'Inflation' is the growth in the money supply"

No, it isn't. Inflation is defined as a general rise in the price level. That is the economic definition of inflation.

You are promoting the Austrian (cult) economics definition of inflation. It's bollocks, the evidence being that there have only been two hyper-inflations in modern history and neither was caused by "too much money" they were caused by "too little of the stuff I need to survive". If a government tries to print (spend) more without any remedy to the supply problem you get hyperinflation, i.e. trying to buy something that doesn't exist, more commonly known as "chasing your tail".

The quantity of money has very little to do with the price level. The Quantity of Money is a stock…a stock that doesn't flow much beyond what business invests, chump change relative to the QOM, and 1/3rd of that is borrowed.

Prices are set by what people spend, and most spending originates with governments (public investment) and business (private investment). Businesses only spend to win some of what the government puts on the table…It wouldn't make much sense to invest if the only money you could win was your own.

$46T, much of it sitting in offshore bank accounts, may as well be on the Moon. How many people here are driving the economy by drawing down their savings? That's going to cause hyperinflation? I have news for you…savings is finite.

I would be more worried about the fact that don't make anything anymore. That could lead to hyperinflation if something suddenly caused what we do produce (and consume) to drop. Like maybe climate change.

Posted by: paulmeli | Feb 28 2016 2:13 utc | 63

Definition of PULSIFER

A name to define someone who lets out a silent but forceful/stinky fart. You must be able to feel(not hear) the "pulse" that the fart exerts. It must also carry a stench within the fart pocket that makes people leave the room.
Person 1- Did you feel that?
Person 2- Yes I did, I smell it now too!!!
Person 1- Ohhh man, she just let a pulsifer.
Person 2- Should we tell her to check her pants?
by Brentanthy December 12, 2007

Fits Emil like a glove

Posted by: CarlD | Feb 28 2016 2:15 utc | 64

Inflation................... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................

Seems Americans have a phobia regarding inflation.................... so they do without services considered the norm elsewhere.

We at Public Research looked into this.............. because........................
Since I returned from the war, housing, fuel, food, and most everything else when purchased today, costs 10X as much as it did in 1970. Back then I started teaching in the public schools for $14,400 / year. Beginning school teachers now make about $50,000 per year or about 3X the amount they did back then.

We discovered that it takes $2 trillion in new debt annually to bring the economy to full employment
Hiring the unemployed and paying them a living wage would cost only $300 billion annually, and were the US
to adopt a universal national service scheme, with 6 years service required, providing room, board, uniforms and $5,000/ year stipend, the US could solve it's unemployment problem for $100 billion annually.


Posted by: Dr. George W. Oprisko | Feb 28 2016 2:26 utc | 65

If Russia acted like the U$A, she would have armed Occupy.

Posted by: ben | Feb 28 2016 2:53 utc | 66

Dr. G@ 68:"the US could solve it's unemployment problem for $100 billion annually."

Cool, problem is, the ruling elites have NO intention of EVER solving the unemployment problem. "The comfort of the rich depend on an abundance of the poor."

Posted by: ben | Feb 28 2016 3:05 utc | 67

Period Vietnam War and its aftermath: 1960-1970s sees US government spending, low unemployment, surging labor costs, economic inflation, dollar crisis 1971, monetary inflation turning into a recession.

    The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of “stagflation,” so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment (“stagnation”) with high rates of inflation. Traditional macroeconomic policy tools seemed powerless to deal with this new beast. In the 1960s, the idea of a stable inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation (known as the “Phillips curve”) became part of the economic-policy orthodoxy. If the unemployment rate was high, inflation was likely to be low, and vice versa. This “tradeoff” left policymakers with the means to combat unemployment or inflation when either appeared separately. When facing a recession, policymakers could lower interest rates, increase government spending, or lower taxes to stimulate demand and bring down the unemployment rate, at the cost of some increase in the inflation rate. When dealing with inflation, they could raise interest rates, lower spending, or raise taxes to reduce demand and “cool off” the economy, at the cost of some increase in unemployment. When high rates of inflation and unemployment appeared simultaneously, however, orthodox policy seemed to lack a solution.
    [Source: That '70s Crisis]

My interpretation was always the US government with it's monetary policy made the western world pay for the cost of the Vietnam War. In linked article I can understand the three periods in the 20th century where capitalism failed the happy 1%.

    The most severe crises may actually threaten not only the established framework, but even the continued existence of the capitalist system itself. In the last century, there have been three periods of profound crisis in the framework institutions of U.S. capitalism: the Great Depression of the 1930s, the crisis of the 1970s, and the current crisis.

    The radical economists Samuel Bowles, David Gordon, and Thomas Weisskopf, in their influential book Beyond the Waste Land, identified three key pillars of the postwar social structure of accumulation, which they termed the “limited capital-labor accord,” the “capitalist-citizen accord,” and the “Pax Americana.”

    The capitalist-citizen accord included the government commitment to preventing mass unemployment and the establishment of the social welfare state. These were responses to the Great Depression and the upsurge in social protest during the 1930s, and helped moderate the levels of social protest in the late 1940s and 1950s. Again, the idea of an “accord” requires serious qualification. In the era before the main advances of the Civil Rights and women’s liberation movements, most of the U.S. population was excluded from any accord. These grievances would give rise to the explosive social protests of the 1960s.

Appeasing Bankers: Financial Caution on the Road to War

Posted by: Oui | Feb 28 2016 3:25 utc | 68

Re 21 hoarswhisperer....
Nemtsov Bridge protest MSM link....

Posted by: Bluemot5 | Feb 28 2016 3:25 utc | 69

A link reporting activity of US activity relating to upcoming elections-not sure Putin has anything to worry about, judging from the mindless appearance of this State Dept cookie monster.

It does not appear that stupidity can be fixed in the Ministry of Truth.

Posted by: Taras77 | Feb 28 2016 3:39 utc | 70


The language is more like a legal script for the ICC.

Posted by: Forest | Feb 28 2016 4:37 utc | 71

And yet over at counterpunch Mike Whitney reckons Erdogan is the chap most likely to be deposed by a color revolution.

Doubtless many MoA posters would support such a move the same sort of short-sighted fools who cheered when amerika and Saudi conspired to butcher the Muslim Brotherhood administration in Egypt. Just because you don't share the views of a nation's voters doesn't give the right to torture and assassinate them, that is the racist amerikan exceptionalism which has gotten the world into this mess.
When erdogan first won in Turkey the amerikan neocons urged that a 'white revolution' for the white turks who have been kissing amerikan ass for 50 years thanks to a gerrymander utilising the same sort of corrupt voting practises that anerika uses, be cranked up and then an election be held with ordinary poor unwhite Turks would be disallowed.

Erdogan's majority was simply too large for such a move to be credible so USuk set about getting erdy onside.
A megalomaniac, erdogan didn't need much persuading to suck up to the army's middle management where the white turks had always got their support from.

So old erdy fast-tracked the up and coming officers and gave the military even more money than his fascist predecessors - they like the money but the risking yer necks bizzo in actual war not so much - particularly if it means going against amerikan trainers and paymasters who provided the thick layer of cream on top of an officer's salary.

So I say color revolution in Russia? no chance the amerikans don't have a sufficiently lartge cluster of disaffected Russians to betray but one in turkey? almost certain that oblam plus replacement will give that a burl.
No matter how bad erdogan is whatever comes next, if delivered via an amerikan 'regime change' will be infinitely worse.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 28 2016 4:47 utc | 72

Chipnik @ 53, re: Your comment about oil, Caleb Maupin had an interesting piece about the oil rivalry between the Rockefeller faction and the Koch Brothers. He says that Trump is their candidate against the Rockefeller interests. Here's an excerpt, but the whole is worth reading for its geopolitical as well as US significance:

"The oil-price drop does not only serve geopolitical ends. There is a domestic side to it as well. The invention of hydraulic fracking and the rise of domestic oil production in the United States have both brought all kinds of strength to Rockefeller’s competitors. The Koch Brothers emerged stronger than ever, along with a slew of smaller oil tycoons, who lack the kind of longstanding and entrenched influence wielded by the Rockefeller dynasty.

"US Congress has lifted the 1973 oil export ban and these domestic competitors can now export on the international markets. It should be no surprise that the Keystone Pipeline, and “Drill, baby, drill!” have become rallying cries of Republican politics. “Drill, baby, drill!” means breaking the power of the Rockefellers and strengthening Koch Industries, along with a whole crew of nouveau riche grouped around them, wanting a bigger chunk of the oil profits."

Posted by: Penelope | Feb 28 2016 4:54 utc | 73

Psychohistorian and Chipnik, You are not alone in thinking that a financial collapse, collapse of the dollar, etc is the way to an improved system. But surely they are TRYING to bring about an economic collapse? The media tells you that they are "confused and desperate & don't know what to do." Are we then to believe that they think the way to US economic progress is to speculate in the market, on commodities, and in currencies-- while investing only abroad? Surely it must be the case that they have purposely de-industrialized the US, while for decades building up China w investment, technology transfers, and even immense R & D facilities.
To the oligarchs the only value in America is her military, and that's being replaced w a number of proxy forces. Surely they are fully prepared to use economic collapse as an opportunity to bring in the SDR as the single currency-- and digital money for the citizenry.

I'm sorry, but I think it's an illusion to see a hope for us in economic/dollar "collapse." Our only hope is to organize behind a positive program for radical change before it happens.

Posted by: Penelope | Feb 28 2016 6:51 utc | 74

IMO it wouldn't matter if cashew nuts or cans of lager became the next unit of currency if the crazy notion that one person/family can own more of them than they could ever need continues.
This bullshit western notion about the sanctity of ownership must be knocked out if humans are to have any hope at all of continuing. Otherwise it won't matter what the system is and how interventionist is the regime that is selected, one mob of greedies will game and cheat and kill until they have all the cashew nuts or cans of lager.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 28 2016 7:27 utc | 75

Debs is dead and Penelope,

I agree that the sanctity of ownership needs to be deprecated. China does 99 year leases. Hand in hand with ongoing ownership is inheritance which also needs to be neutered so none can accumulate enough to effect social policy.

And Penelope, think about those billion Chinese. They think of themselves as communist. Do you really believe that they will compromise their ideology for private finance? Perhaps they currently seem to be more engaged in the existing systems of private finance than we would deem consistent with their values but I believe that when the dollar falls, private finance will as well. It has no place in a human centered world.

Penelope, I agree with you that we should organize behind positive change. For a while we may need to do that while dodging the parts flying off the failing merry-go-round of social organization.......not to mention all those bullets the crazies have.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 28 2016 7:44 utc | 76

@71 Oui
Interesting read in this context:

Posted by: Kassandra | Feb 28 2016 8:18 utc | 77

An article on Saker has come round to my longtime view that Turkey is a current target, at least for regime change. The article is by Michael Collins. (Hopefully not of Jame Austen fame).

Alan @27, I think that little bit of drama in the South China Sea does nothing except shore up Chinese support for their govt. And show us that the US oligarchs are "opposed" to the Chinese oligarchs they have been instrumental in building up.

Posted by: Penelope | Feb 28 2016 8:31 utc | 78

Psychohistorian @79,

I'm not sure that the Chinese think of themselves as communist. The govt has privatized most of the public enterprises, and the most influential who resisted are in jail. Look at this from my file:

11/11/15 Playing Our Game: Why China's Rise Doesn't Threaten the West by Edward S Steinfeld. Osford U Press 2010.
1994 College grads 640k, 14% in sciences, 36% engineering; 2006 3.77 million grads, 5% sciences; 36% engineering, 17% management. 2007 1100 foreign-owned R & D centers in China. US-China Economic and Security Review Commission set up by Congress to eval impact of China on US. China's promised its citizens more than econ progress; also rule of law, not too unequal distribution, better access to medical care & education & at last has come to the belief that it needs the citizens's help in governance. Pages 10-13 Communist Party Academy has stoppd courses on Marxism, now includes comparative democratic systems. It's acknowledged that the desired end-point of the still-continuing authoritarian system is participatory democracy! There is already some activism at the local level, which is being handled w chaotically uneven treatment-- from punitive to encouraging. The liberalisation the state is permitting in order to hold onto power is also loosening that power.

China Investment Corporation, Spring of 2009 began expressing concerns about the safety of China's Trillion dollar US Treasuries. Many Chinese officials and public are restive about the degree to which the Chinese economy is integrated w that of the US.
A key technique in handling China was to allow her some power within the supranational organizations in order to motivate her. I believe Wm Engdahl's last article on China indicates a major backpedaling on his part as to what we should expect from China.

Posted by: Penelope | Feb 28 2016 8:39 utc | 79

The real color revolution is being worked on in finance and economics. Russia is full of enemy combatants, many in high places. Just read Sergei Glazyev's latest interview:

10,000 people on the street don't matter that much; what matters is that the situation reach an untenable position. To quote from Lenin's take on a revolutionary situation:

-"when it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes,” a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way."
The economic crisis is easy to imagine for Russia; the parasitic and incompetent oligarchs never went away - Putin just got them to behave somewhat and to fund things like the Olympics or building a bridge to the Crimea. They still have their economy dominated by Meyer Lansky or Al Capone clones. According to many, outside of the two big cities, Russia is already getting close to a crisis. Does anyone here think the economic and financial elites are up to the task? Sure, there will be more secret police in Moscow and more control over the media, but that didn't help them much back in the 1980's.

Posted by: Lance | Feb 28 2016 10:30 utc | 80

Re 21 hoarswhisperer.... Nemtsov Bridge protest MSM link...
Posted by: Bluemot5 | Feb 27, 2016 10:25:54 PM | 72

Good catch. And very On Topic! This extract sums it up in a nutshell...

"The U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, was among those who paid tribute. He laid a wreath at the site where Nemtsov, 55, was killed."

In tortured Yankee Diplo-speak, "led" = "was among"

Imo, ANY "US Ambassador" who engages in anti-govt activity outside AmeriKKKa should be beaten to death and his cold, dead body returned to The Homeland in an unmarked cardboard box (reflecting due respect).

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 28 2016 10:33 utc | 81

@ 83

Yes, a thousand times yes!
I couldn't agree more...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Feb 28 2016 10:52 utc | 82


Iranian President Hassan Rouhani won a strong vote of confidence and reformist partners secured surprise gains in parliament in early results from elections that could speed up the Islamic Republic's emergence from years of isolation.

While gains by moderates and reformists in Friday's polls were most evident in the capital, where they won all Tehran's 30 seats according to early results, the sheer scale of the advances there suggests a legislature more friendly to the pragmatist Rouhani has emerged as a distinct possibility.

A loosening of control by the anti-Western hardliners who currently dominate the 290-seat parliament could strengthen his hand to open Iran further to foreign trade and investment following last year's breakthrough nuclear deal.

A reformist-backed list of candidates aligned with Rouhani was on course to win all 30 parliamentary seats in Tehran, initial results released on Sunday showed. Top conservative candidate Gholamali Haddad Adel was set to lose his seat.

"The people showed their power once again and gave more credibility and strength to their elected government," Rouhani said, adding he would work with anyone who won election to build a future for the industrialised, oil-exporting country.

Posted by: okie farmer | Feb 28 2016 11:10 utc | 83

I'm dreaming of the day when maybe Russian and China get together and do a "color" revolution on the

Posted by: notlurking | Feb 28 2016 12:37 utc | 84

Not an economics guy,but Warren Buffet calls out Trump for saying America is in decline.He's bullish,that Buffet!!

Posted by: dahoit | Feb 28 2016 14:17 utc | 85

Dr. Oprisko @ 68

"Since I returned from the war, housing, fuel, food, and most everything else when purchased today, costs 10X as much as it did in 1970"

Yet an hour of labor today will buy more than it would then. Inflation is largely irrelevant in that context. It's inequality, defined as gains going disproportionately to a tiny subset of the population, that is killing us.

Posted by: paulmeli | Feb 28 2016 14:50 utc | 86

Oui 71: "The capitalist-citizen accord included the government commitment to preventing mass unemployment and the establishment of the social welfare state."

After 40+yrs. of the "greed is good mantra", the above idea is dead, in most of the world. It's been replaced with "profits uber alles", and its destroying the world. Those of you in the EU, and a few others, still enjoy the benefits of a humanistic "social welfare state".

The greedy and advariced are coming for you also.

Posted by: ben | Feb 28 2016 15:13 utc | 87

I have a somewhat different take on all this: Sanders would be a definite improvement all around from the DLC consensus driving Obama, and which would shape Clinton's Presidency...but President Trump? He has said he wants to improve relations with Russia, but takes a very hard line against China, so he would count on Russian racism to help split the two allies. Would such a strategy succeed with Putin as Russian President? Would the other costs of a Trump presidency give the Russians pause? Hopefully, we won't find out...

Posted by: rararoadrunner | Feb 28 2016 15:51 utc | 88

@ 75, Debs,

We are all in favor of the Turkish people picking their own government. But the rights of the Turkish people don't extend into the borders of Syria.

We are also opposed to a US managed color revolution since whoever they get can only be even worse. However, Erdogan will continue to kill people in Syria as long as he can get away with it. So you can't expect us to hope for his continued rule. We all recognize that once a criminal conspiracy goes up in smoke, the criminals turn on each other. Which is what has happened in Syria since the Russian intervention. Turkey will end up being the fall guy for Western crimes. Hopefully the next tool thr west seeks to employ will learn a lesson.

Posted by: Lysander | Feb 28 2016 16:21 utc | 89


In what world are you living?

Posted by: b4real | Feb 28 2016 16:51 utc | 90

Trump has been measuring and exploiting public opinion for more than a decade. The politicians are all preaching to the choir (their fellow troglodytes), over-sentimentalising everything and trying to out-bullshit each other. Trump talks about America to, and for, the American people. He knows what they think and talk about and he talks about those issues. Everyone else is trying to sell wispy, insinuated pipe dreams. He comes across as a winner surrounded by a dead pool of has-beens, wannabes and pretenders. He's a winner and he can't lose (wouldn't know how).

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 28 2016 16:59 utc | 91
It goes without saying that Trump’s express views on Muslims and Hispanics put him beyond the pale – whether or not he really believe what he says. I doubt that he does – I think that he is only working his marks – but it hardly matters. A vote for Trump is a vote for unmitigated vileness.

However, on many pertinent issues – among others, coddling banksters and corporate profiteers, trade policy, overseas interventions, job creation through public works, health care, the provision of social services, and even U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine – Trump’s views, compared to Hillary’s, are not all that bad.

Posted by: okie farmer | Feb 28 2016 17:17 utc | 92

"he (Trump) talks about those issues…"

Translation: he mentions issues by name (sometimes he renames them in his own words) and then says nothing substantive about them, mostly goblety-goop. People cheer and rejoice.

This is how we have run societies throughout history…with stupid, mis-directed anger. The targets (Invisible to us ordinary humans) always manage to move aside and dodge the bullets as we shoot each other with friendly fire. We are doomed.

Posted by: paulmeli | Feb 28 2016 17:19 utc | 93

@ Penelope 76

Catch up: In 2014 I read in several sources carried worldwide; WSJ, BBC, The Guardian, CBC, GlobeandMail, NYTimes, that the Rockefeller heirs /brothers would divest (the fiqure was 80% of holdings) in fossil fuels; oil and coal and switch to clean energy:

“Rockefellers to switch investments to clean energy."
Heirs to the Rockefeller family, which made its vast fortune from oil, are to sell investments in fossil fuels and reinvest in clean energy, reports say.”

and in Marketwatch, this opinion:

Sell Big Oil. Rockefellers selling. Soon Koch heirs must sell

Posted by: likklemore | Feb 28 2016 17:36 utc | 94


Considering successful color revolutions replace poor leaders with unbearably wrong-headed, society-destroying sociopathic leaders, why would any nation bother launching one in the US? All Russia and China need do is sit back and wait for Americans to dredge up their own human muck to destroy itself.

Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Feb 28 2016 19:03 utc | 95

US led color revolutions will evolve, mutate, and double down until they either succeed or outlive their effectiveness completely. Ukraine was only successful on the second try. Venezuela has had at least two. So of course there will be continuing creative attempts at concocted revolution in Russia. That is the neocon way.

I'm sure that if the North Korean Endowment for Democracy funded and organized regular protest events over decisions made by, say, the Chamber of Commerce, is there really any doubt that NKED would be shut down?

Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Feb 28 2016 19:23 utc | 96

@paulmeli #89

Yet an hour of labor today will buy more than it would then.

That's not correct. It buys more electronic power. It buys less housing. It buys less transportation. It buys less education. What remains of the middle class lifestyle is sustained by debt, not earning power.


Interesting. The current situation with oil prices illustrates the vulnerability of high cost production such as fracking. The gap between the profit margins of oil and future energy sources is closing. The "clean energy" move will no doubt be touted as something high minded and altruistic but it will be profit driven.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Feb 28 2016 21:09 utc | 97

Likklemore @ 97, I'm aware of earlier similar reports. The oligarchs have been behind the global warming hoax from the beginning. Earlier they pretended to be against it, for the same reason that they pretended to be against the Federal Reserve Act.

Now the Rockefeller interests can no longer hide that they are the originators. Maurice Strong was always a Rockefeller man.
As for fracking oil/gas-- it's not profitable at the current prices, and it's doubtful that it ever was, per Wm Engdahl.

I think we may be sure that they will not permit anyone else to use the oil properties that they are "divested" of. Control is, of course, 90% of ownership. Therefore, a more factual explanation of the "divestiture" is that they are taking some properties out of production. Makes perfect sense since there is a glut of oil on the market. Also the oil of some properties is more expensive to produce than others.

If you are still open-minded about global warming, you might be interested in this. Listen, hours, a whole series

Posted by: Penelope | Feb 28 2016 22:46 utc | 98

"What remains of the middle class lifestyle is sustained by debt, not earning power."

Debt levels haven't reached the 2008 highs yet. 8 years. That can't be sustaining anything.

Posted by: paulmeli | Feb 29 2016 2:21 utc | 99

V. Arnold | Feb 28, 2016 5:52:23 AM | 85

Damnit; should have been 84, Hoarsewhisperer...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Feb 29 2016 2:56 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.