Voices from Russia

Saturday, 13 September 2014

13 September 2014. In Russia… “Liberal” Means “Conservative” and “Communist” Means “Patriot”… And That Ain’t All…

00 Liberal Notions. 13.09.14


In Russia, “liberal” means “Anglosphere conservative”… that is, Free Markets, privatisation, no social safety net, no strong state to help people, everything in the hands of scheming oligarchs (what the diff between the Koch brothers and Kolomoisky? None that I can see). Russians hate Liberalism… that is, they hate everything stood for by Rush Limbaugh, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Willy Romney, or Rick Perry. Besides which, even the most corrupt Russian pol has nothing in comparison with the average American congressmen (if they weren’t rich when they came to Capitol Hill, they are when they leave). As Russians say, “The commies didn’t tell the truth about communism, but they told us the truth about capitalism”. The sanctions are seeing Russians look to themselves for their needs… the opposite effect from which the Western oligarchs wanted! Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences! In fact, what these “sanctions” did was to reiterate to all Russians how evil the Free Market is and now evil its advocates are in truth. Thank you, Koch brothers! Your greed and stupidity helped to wake up the Rodina… and that’s a fact…



13 September 2014. You Can’t Make Up Shit Like This… Rightwing Forum Calls Ferguson MO “Nigger Town” and “ChimpOut 2014”

00 Nigger town. 13.09.14


00 Nigger town 01a. 13.09.14


There’s nothing worse than “liberals” using “ni**er” for “nigger” (I’m speaking as a down n’ dirty Leftie). Look, the word exists… if feral sorts use it, you report it as is. The world can be awfully ugly and gnarly at times. Here’s the proof of what some rightwingers are doing. Nasty, ain’t it? I think that we should ALLOW feral sorts to call black folks “niggers”. I also believe that decent folks would then have the right UNDER THE LAW to wield the “board of education” and give ’em some edjamacation (hey, I’m using the spelling of that great philosopher Popeye the Sailor) on good manners and proper civility. That’s board as in “two by four”… as in such board being wielded energetically and with great vigour (you do want to HAMMER the lesson in good n’ hard so that they learn it well the first time, don’t you?). I doubt that there’d be many “repeat performances”. At the least, they’d shut up in public (beaucoup stitches, busted kneecaps, and some new unplanned dental work tend to do that).

Now, I wouldn’t mind being one of the “teachers” of such a “lesson”… what about you?

Here’s where I purloined the idea… hey, guys… don’t be coy and don’t be nice to mofos… it just encourages them. I’m handing out the axe handles, AKs, machetes, and tyre chains out back…


The Ukraine: Some Conclusions

00 due to technical reasons 01. ukraine. 21.05.14


On Friday, 5 September 2014, a ceasefire agreement put an end to the conflict that raged in the former southeastern Ukraine for six months, taking the lives of around 2,600 to 3,000 people, at a time when anti-Kiev forces cut off and surrounded large pockets of the Ukrainian armed forces and at a time when the rebels were gaining ground. The first reaction can only be, thank God for that, because nobody likes to see families torn apart by the death of a son, or husband, or brother, or nephew… or father. Or, in this case, grandmother, daughter, or baby because the Ukrainian armed forces were strafing civilian positions recklessly, committing war crimes. The second is why the Ukraine became the only European country to deploy its armed forces against its own citizens, instead of talking with the rebels to discuss their demands, which is all they wanted in the first place. Now, after six months of fighting, many in the anti-Kiev camp feel that they can’t cohabit with a mass murderer in their midst and prefer to separate, forming their own republics. The bottom line in all of this is that the entire issue is a Ukrainian affair, between Ukrainians and Ukrainians have to settle it for Ukrainians, as Moscow said.

The claim by Barack Obama that the ceasefire came about because of the West’s puerile sanctions on Russia is proof that either he has lost it totally, or else he never had it in the first place. Such claims go together with those nonsensical statements that supermarkets in Russia were bare, when the reality is that the ones who lost out were the Western producers who are now minus one vast market. The winners are the Russian agricultural sector, which can and will be self-sufficient, and Latin American producers, who lined up to sell their produce (being threatened by Europe for doing so, the most blatant demonstration of arrogance since the fall of the imperialistic régimes). Cameron made other nonsensical claims… when his own country committed war crimes in recent years overseas. The ceasefire came about because the Ukraine couldn’t win the war (not in one day as Poroshenko said, not in a million years) and because only a political solution could settle the issue, as Moscow said from the beginning.

Now, what happens? For a start, let’s remember how it all began… the West interfered in Kiev, fomenting an illegal putsch, which ousted the properly elected legal President, V F Yanukovich, amidst street violence, calls for the death of Russians and Jews, fascist pogroms, and a hail of anti-Russian hysteria following edicts coming from the putschists, amongst whom were terrorist elements and fascists. One can see the degree of American involvement, which leads many to call it the United Snakes of America, by the extent to which the family of Vice President Joe Biden is involved in the Ukrainian energy market. Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, is a member of the board of Burisma Holdings, the largest gas producer in Ukraine, which has massive quantities of easy-to-reach shale gas reserves. Therefore, we see the Ukraine in the context of an inexorable push eastwards by NATO, the American energy lobby, and the EU, which hardly comes as a surprise. Back in 1991, I warned in my writings and in messages behind the scenes that one shouldn’t trust the West, that their new camaraderie and back-slapping was false, that it aimed at dismantling the USSR, that it would encroach eastwards, and that it wouldn’t honour a single agreement that it signed.

At the time, people in Russia were riding a wave of pro-Western euphoria, saying they were good guys and only wanted prosperity for Russians. They derided people like myself as being Soviet dinosaurs and considered us nutcases. Now, today, what do we see? For a start, the USSR provided jobs for all, zero unemployment, free housing, free healthcare, free basic and higher education, subsidised transportation, leisure time activities, sports facilities, social mobility, meritocracy, free activities in the youth movements, free public utilities, safety on the street, security of the state, opportunities for travel, free basic foodstuffs, and an indexed pension. This, while it was freeing millions from the yoke of imperialist tyranny, and was spending 250 billion USD back then on development programs overseas. This, after bringing medieval societies into the frontline of development in two generations, virtually eradicating illiteracy and bringing the USSR into the modern industrial and technological age, a pioneer in space travel, and a cutting-edge in so many areas of scientific and cultural life.

What has the West provided in comparison? Education is a business, healthcare is a business, getting a house is virtually impossible, keeping it also, unemployment is endemic and reaches some 40 percent among young people in some countries, the streets are violent, public utility prices are soaring, food is expensive. In fact, their system is a struggle from beginning to end, it doesn’t provide work for everyone, and due to the behaviour of Western leaders, there’s a growing list of countries destabilised to the point of being failed states. Dare a Western citizen step foot in Iraq? Libya? Syria? For some reason, it must be.

Therefore, after the USSR voluntarily dissolved (it didn’t “collapse”) and after the Warsaw Pact disbanded (again, it didn’t “collapse”), we see that the West spent decades performing historical revisionism, claiming the USSR “lost” (which is sheer nonsense), belittling the USSR’s massive contribution to the defeat of fascism in the Great Patriotic War (World War II) and today invents lies about Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and the Ukraine. The West gave assurances to Russia that if it disbanded the Warsaw Pact, it wouldn’t encroach eastwards. Thus, we can conclude that the West in general, and NATO in particular, are nothing but barefaced liars.

The cases of South Ossetia and Abkhazia goes back to post-Soviet times. Under the Soviet Constitution, there was to be a referendum in these Republics to ask the people what they wanted. Georgia never held this, so Georgia can’t claim these territories as its own. Regarding the Ukraine, given the fact that the putsch in February was illegal, the legal entity with the right to impose law in the Republic of Crimea was its Supreme Soviet (given that the properly elected President was overthrown without having any of the three legal scenarios for such removal), and this Soviet organised the Referendum and the resulting plea to rejoin Russia. Therefore, no one annexed or invaded the Crimea. It was, and is, Russian territory. How can Russia invade itself?

In conclusion, we see the entire Ukraine story in 2014 was a Western machination, which has no respect for the livelihoods of the Ukrainian citizens at all. If they join the EU, they’d lose their jobs, industry, agriculture, and fisheries, and this is precisely what Yanukovich was trying to protect. At the end of the day, NATO can encroach eastwards, as it always intended to. However, one thing is setting up bases, yet another is becoming a target for a missile attack so massive that it would blot out the Sun, blowing a crater 200 metres around any NATO bridgehead. What NATO intends to achieve is perfectly easy to see. What is NATO? It’s a meeting place for the weapons lobby, which dictates NATO policy, and which represents an annual budget of 1.2 trillion dollars (45.4 trillion Roubles. 7.4 trillion Renminbi. 73 trillion INR. 1.33 trillion CAD. 1.32 trillion AUD. 926 billion Euros. 738 billion UK Pounds) {that’s a combined total of military budgets for all NATO states: BMD}. It wants new markets. However, make no mistake… my writings over the years have proven me right time and time again. NATO won’t stop at Russia’s borders.

It’s an ogre. It’ll sing its Siren’s song, shake hands, make promises… but then again, let’s look at who invaded Iraq, against the will of mankind, against international law, breaking the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. Who committed war crimes in Iraq, in Serbia, in Libya, and in Syria? Who ran the torture and concentration camps at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay? Who cavorted with terrorists in Libya and Syria? The only thing NATO understands is a massive show of force, because NATO only attacks defenceless states, imposing its freedom and democracy today from 30,000 feet, as yesteryear its members imposed civilisation with the Bible and with the bullet, shooting “natives” in the whites of their eyes. One thing we can conclude… the history of NATO and its leaders is a history of lies and false propaganda, misinformation, murder, torture, breach of international law, disrespect for the UN, and an outrage against democratic principles. Its leaders are stupid, manipulated, or evil.

6 September 2014

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey



Scotland: The Courage to Grasp the Future?

00 vote yes for the future. Bugger off Westminster! 13.09.14


Does Scotland have the courage to grasp its own future, to be master of its destiny, and to make decisions for Scots taken by Scots, or are Governments in Westminster, for which the majority of the Scottish people didn’t vote, going to continue to rule Scotland repeatedly? Are Scots going to bow to the manipulation of fear? If the Scottish people largely didn’t vote for the Government in Westminster, then, why is it making decisions that shape the livelihoods and futures of the Scottish people and their children? Let’s look at the opportunities that an independent Scotland could take advantage of.

First, an independent Scotland would be nothing new. After all, it only joined England and Wales in the Union in 1707. Secondly, an independent Scotland would hardly be the smallest country in Europe. There exist many examples of small but prosperous countries with fewer resources and a smaller… far smaller… geographical area than those of Scotland. Thirdly, an independent Scotland would have a massive economic zone around it, stretching out into the Arctic… indeed, Scotland could become an Arctic nation, using its considerable scientific and technological expertise towards harnessing the untold wealth under the seas… mineral wealth to be discovered, fisheries, and alternative energies. If Scotland used the Scottish Pound divorced from GBP or created a new currency, it’d be free to follow its own economic policies, using its currency as leverage to create jobs and wealth by favouring exports, translating this into opportunities and work posts for its youth and added income for the State through revenue from taxation and duties.

Famous for its whisky, Scotland produces a range of products in numerous areas of economic activity in all three economic sectors… in the primary sector, Scotland produces barley, fish, Iron-Bru, beer, potatoes, whisky, timber, shortbread, and mineral waters; in the secondary sector, from cutting-edge technologies in aerospace and naval systems to vehicles for public transportation, computer hardware and software development, from chemical products to oil and gas, electricity, electronics, pharmaceutical products and renewable energies, ships and textiles; in the tertiary sector, Scotland is also a  major player in business and financial services.

Despite threats from London and the EU to make things as difficult as possible for Scotland, as they try to scare Scots with hypothetical “What if…” questions, so, what if Scotland left NATO? Who’s going to invade Scotland, Mars? Or Burkina Faso? Maybe, the Færøe Isles? If Scotland left NATO, it’d be free from its massive payment to the coffers of this organisation, whose annual budget is 1.2 trillion USD (45.4 trillion Roubles. 7.4 trillion Renminbi. 73 trillion INR. 1.33 trillion CAD. 1.32 trillion AUD. 926 billion Euros. 738 billion UK Pounds) {that’s a combined total of military budgets for all NATO states: BMD}. Each year, every year. Perhaps, England and the USA would like to pay rent for their bases in Scotland, bringing in more revenue. In fact, an independent Scotland would be free from the web of deceit, skulduggery, arrogance, and intrusion that Washington and its NATO poodles in Europe weave and impose on other countries and cultures, creating hatred, sowing chaos, and reaping terrorist threats at every turn. It’d be an island of peace, stability, and prosperity; respected by all, not hated.

As far as the EU concerned, Norway’s just been named as one of the three most prosperous nations on Earth. Does Norway belong to the EU? Switzerland is also in the top three. Does Switzerland belong to the EU? There’d also be nothing to stop Scotland becoming a Tax Haven for companies the world over to set up their headquarters, bringing added value, income, and capital to the country, bringing also opportunities for its citizens. In fact, Scotland has the full potential to become a pioneer for tomorrow, taking advantage of its formidable geostrategic position at the southern gateway to the Arctic, the western gateway to the Baltic, the Eastern gateway to the North Atlantic, its area of influence spanning a vast area from Norway to the Americas, with untold riches lying on its northern shores, waiting to be harnessed. Finally, tourism. From the Scottish Isles to Loch Ness, from Ben Nevis to the lochs, from that beautiful pearl, Edinburgh, to the Orkneys, to the Shetlands, from its magnificent scenery, its castles, its golf, its restaurants, gastronomy, wildlife, Scotland has the potential to become one of the world’s leading tourist destinations. After all, what’s holding Scotland back?

11 September 2014

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey



Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.