Paul Craig Roberts: "The extraordinary propaganda being conducted against Russia by the US and UK governments and Ministries of Propaganda, a.k.a., the “Western media,” have the purpose of driving the world to war that no one can win." "In contrast, Russia has emerged from tyranny and from a government based on lies..."

---

War Is Coming — Paul Craig Roberts

---

July 28, 2014 | Original Here                                              Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

War Is Coming

Paul Craig Roberts

The extraordinary propaganda being conducted against Russia by the US and UK governments and Ministries of Propaganda, a.k.a., the “Western media,” have the purpose of driving the world to war that no one can win. European governments need to rouse themselves from insouciance, because Europe will be the first to be vaporized due to the US missile bases that Europe hosts to guarantee its “security.”

As reported by Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge, the Russian response to the extra-legal ruling of a corrupt court in the Netherlands, which had no jurisdiction over the case on which it ruled, awarding $50 billion dollars from the Russian government to shareholders of Yukos, a corrupt entity that was looting Russia and evading taxes, is telling. Asked what Russia would do about the ruling, an advisor to President Putin replied, “There is a war coming in Europe.” Do you really think this ruling matters?”

The West has ganged up on Russia, because the West is totally corrupt. The wealth of the elites is based not only on looting weaker countries whose leaders can be purchased (read John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man for instruction on how the looting works), but also on looting their own citizens. The American elites excel at looting their fellow citizens and have wiped out most of the US middle class in the new 21st century.

In contrast, Russia has emerged from tyranny and from a government based on lies, while the US and UK submerge into tyranny shielded by lies. Western elites desire to loot Russia, a juicy prize, and there stands Putin in the way. The solution is to get rid of him like they got rid of President Yanukovich in Ukraine.

The looting elites and the neoconservative hegemonists have the same goal: make Russia a vassal state. This goal unites the Western financial imperialists with the political imperialists.

I have recorded for readers the propaganda that is used in order to demonize Putin and Russia. But even I was stunned by the astounding and vicious lies in the UK publication The Economist on July 26. The cover is Putin’s face in a spider web, and, you guessed it, the cover story is “A Web of Lies.” http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608645-vladimir-putins-epic-deceits-have-grave-consequences-his-people-and-outside-world-web?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

You need to read this propaganda both in order to see the gutter level of propaganda in the West and the obvious drive to war with Russia. There is no evidence whatsoever in the story to support The Economist’s wild accusations and demand for the end of Western “appeasement” of Russia and the harshest possible action against Putin.

The kind of reckless lies and transparent propaganda that comprises The Economist’s story has no other purpose than to drive the world to war.

The Western elites and governments are not merely totally corrupt, they are insane. As I have previously written, don’t expect to live much longer. In this video one of Putin’s advisors and Russian journalists speak openly of US plans for a first strike on Russia:
http://financearmageddon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/official-warning-u-s-to-hit-russia-with.html

Blogger's Note: I provide below the video linked to just above. Everyone should play this video!

Does The Economist magazine portray the British economy in an intellectualy honest fashion? Not in my book! What do you think?

---

Thatcherism: Good or Bad for Britain?

by David L Griscom | April 17, 2012

The April 13th edition of The Economist magazine featured a picture of Margaret Thatcher on the cover together with the words "Freedom fighter." What did they mean by that?
 
Well, they said "She thought nations could be great only if individuals were set free." They clarified this thought as "...the right of individuals to run their own lives, as free as possible from micromanagement from the states."
 
The Economist goes on to say that when Tharcher took power "She privatized state industries, refused to negotiate with unions, abolished state controls, broke the striking miners and replaced Keynesian with [Milton] Friedman's monetarism."
 
This sounds to me as though the "individuals" being set free were solely those that held corporate personhood.
 
The Economist does mention that Thatcher had her critics: 
"Her reforms, it is said, sowed the seeds of the recent economic crisis."
 
This article further describes the nature of these criticisms in this way:  "Without Thatcherism ...Financial services would not make up such a large slice of the British economy and the country would not now be struggling under the burden of individual debt caused by excessive borrowing and government debt caused by the need to bail out the banks."
 
From what I have learned from the intellectually honest economists that I regularly feature on this blog, the preceding criticism is mostly correct ...except for failing to explain that the burden of individual debt is traceable to Thatcher's privatization of all utilities (see below).  In addition, one might add that "the need to bail out the banks" was due to Thatcher's total deregulation of banking -- a virtual invitation for bankers to speculate in caustic derivatives and credit default swaps, creating a bubble that was bound to blow up.

The Economist concedes that "Some of this [criticism] is true" but continues with the rationalization "but then without Thatcherism Britain's economy would still be mired in state control, the commanding heights of its economy would be owned by the government, and militant unions would be a power in the land."
 
My comment regarding this last "defense" of Thatcherism is that if she hadn't sold off the then-price-regulated, government-run utilities at fire-sale prices to greedy corporations, the British people would not now be shivering in their unheated houses, unable to afford the current kleptocratic prices of heat, electricity, and water.  This cruel state of affairs would never have come to pass if the "militant unions" were still "a power in the land."

But this is just my labor-sympathetic make. Watch the video below for the opinion of a female Member of Parliament and draw your own conclusion:

http://youtu.be/XDtClJYJBj8

Glenda Jackson launches tirade against Thatcher in tribute debate 

 barnetbugle 
 Published on Apr 10, 2013