Arrests at 'Pussy Riot' hearing

by pat c Wed Jun 20, 2012 13:02

Latest on the case.

Russian filmmakers, opposition activists, musicians, artists have gathered to express their support for the members of the Pussy Riot feminist punk band, as a court is considering prolonging their arrest.
Around 150 supporters are in front of the Tagansky court in Moscow. Police have already detained five people.

The court is due to consider a petition to prolong the arrest of the three Pussy Riot feminists for a further two months.

The three girls, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Ekaterina Samutsevich and Maria Alehina, are charged with hooliganism after rushing into Russia’s main church and performing what was called a “punk prayer”, have already spent 107 days in prison.

Prosecutors say they have found no motive in the girl’s actions. The investigation was said to be completed two weeks ago.
Since March when the three girls were arrested Pussy Riot members have received widespread support at home and outside Russia. British filmmaker Terry Gilliam and Beastie Boys band member Adam Horovitz have expressed their support for the arrested girls. The human rights organization Amnesty International named the girls “prisoners of conscience.”

The Pussy Riot case is still a matter of pubic debate, with people arguing over whether the band’s actions should be qualified as a criminal or as an administrative offence. The girls may face up to seven years in prison if found guilty of hooliganism.

by pat c Sun Jun 24, 2012 23:56

ANTI-FLAG RELEASE SONG IN SUPPORT OF RUSSIAN ACTIVIST BAND PUSSY RIOT

http://www.anti-flag.com/

Dear Friends and Family,

Punk rock is much more than a t-shirt, a sound, a record, or a band, and it knows no borders or nationality. Punk rock is a community and a family that spans around the globe. By now you may have heard that three members of our community, three young women who are members of the band Pussy Riot, are being detained by the Russian authorities for performing their protest song ‘Virgin Mary, redeem us of Putin’ in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral on 21 February 2012. The three have been charged with “hooliganism” under Article 213 of the Russian Criminal Code. If found guilty, they could be jailed for up to seven years.

Pussy Riot embody the spirit of punk rock which speaks truth to power that inspired the members of Anti-Flag to start our band and dedicate ourselves to the punk rock community and the planet. The Russian authority’s actions against Pussy Riot are clearly an attack on freedom of thought, opinion and artistic expression which must be protected for any society to be free. Anti-Flag calls for the immediate release of Pussy Riot and all prisoners of conscience. Whether it be trumped up charges levied by police against Occupy protestors, or the trumped up charges levied by the Russian authorities against the members of Pussy Riot, there is no difference in the police-state tactics that those in power will stoop to in order to oppress those who are willing fight for equality and justice for all, not just the wealthy few.

We need everyone’s help in this fight! We are trying to help in our small way by releasing this cover of Pussy Riot’s ‘Virgin Mary, redeem us of Putin’ in order to raise awareness.

Here are some ways you can help…

-Spread the word to your friends and family about Pussy Riot’s unjust incarceration.

-DONATE!!! Pussy Riot need money for their legal defense fund! No amount is too small or too large. http://freepussyriot.org/de/node/65

-TAKE ACTION with Amnesty International! Help Amnesty tell the Russian authorities to drop all charges and release Pussy Riot! http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/Acti...17749

“…The song calls on Virgin Mary to become a feminist and banish Russian President-elect Vladimir Putin. It also criticises the dedication and support shown to President-elect Vladimir Putin by some representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. The performance was part of wider protests against Putin and unfair elections in Russia. This, and the anti-clerical, anti-Putin content of the song’s message, appears to have been reflected in the severity of the charges that have been brought against the three women.” -Amnesty International

For more information please visit freepussyriot.org
In Solidarity, Anti-Flag

ANTI-FLAG: PUNK-PRAYER “Virgin Mary, redeem us of Putin” (Pussy Riot Cover) by antiflag

http://soundcloud.com/antiflag/punkprayer

Lyrics to Punk-Prayer “Virgin Mary, Put Putin Away” by PUSSY RIOT
Lyrics via http://freepussyriot.org/content/lyrics-songs-pussy-riot

(choir)

Virgin Mary, Mother of God, put Putin away
Рut Putin away, put Putin away

(end chorus)

…
Black robe, golden epaulettes
All parishioners crawl to bow
The phantom of liberty is in heaven
Gay-pride sent to Siberia in chains

The head of the KGB, their chief saint,
Leads protesters to prison under escort
In order not to offend His Holiness
Women must give birth and love

Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!
Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!

(Chorus)

Virgin Mary, Mother of God, become a feminist
Become a feminist, become a feminist

(end chorus)

The Church’s praise of rotten dictators
The cross-bearer procession of black limousines
A teacher-preacher will meet you at school
Go to class – bring him money!

Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin
Bitch, better believe in God instead
The belt of the Virgin can’t replace mass-meetings
Mary, Mother of God, is with us in protest!

(Chorus)

Virgin Mary, Mother of God, put Putin away
Рut Putin away, put Putin away

(end chorus)

by boris Mon Jun 25, 2012 08:23

Without Putin, the west military industrial complex would ride roughshod over human rights in its unquenchable lust for natural resources. We need Putin or we're fucked.

Putin dragged russia back from the precipice as chicago school scum fed vodka to yeltsin and, with the help of corrupt oligarchs, robbed the russian people. There were no bailouts for russia. Putin is a hero.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:17

..you are right.

But I have no illusions about the new oligarchs either, any more than I do about the next dish on their global carvery after Russia's resources are parcelled to the usual angelic saxons. It will be return to the Open Door on China.

Our best hope sems to be imperial overreach continuing the current financial/economic implosion, even though it will take down much collateral civilisation in its continuance, if not all.

by Ivan Ivanov Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:36

Boris Kagerlitsky, Socialist, comments on how Putin didn't face a real election fight but at the same time people are fed up with the neo-liberal system.

Caption: Video Id: c0J0lf5yw64 Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Google video

by Ivanski Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:40

I can't see the video. Opus can you? Not good at these things so I will give a link and I hope you get to it there. Sorry about the mess up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0J0lf5yw64

by Ivanich Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:48

An article by Boris Kagerlitsky, published on the Irish Enough Campaign site, hardly a group bought off by Western interests. You can get the rest of the article at the link, thats if I haven't messed it up.

-----
Boris Kagarlitsky: A very peaceful Russian revolt

The calls by the “moderate left” for passively following behind the liberals are supposedly based on the need to “work among the people”, to go where the masses are. But how, and with whom, are the forces of the left to set out after these ardently pursued masses? With badly printed leaflets full of abstract slogans?

The December outburst of street protest in Russia was the natural result of a growing discontent which for several years had been building up but which had not found a means of expression. Nevertheless, it would have been hard to predict that a crisis would break out over the results of elections to the essentially decorative State Duma, which has no power (its members, including the opposition, are mere puppets of the administration). Just a few weeks ago, when I discussed the looming political crisis with colleagues at our institute, we could not identify what might serve as the detonator for an explosion. The general conclusion to which participants in the discussion came was that the pretext for mass protests would be something ridiculous, some vulgar everyday transgression by the authorities.

The elections played exactly this role. The fictitious nature of the whole proceedings and the open collusion between the authorities and the Duma opposition were no secret to the public, especially the part of it that attended the demonstrations. But the massive, absurd and virtually unconcealed fraud was perceived less as a political act than as a display of boorishness. It was as though society had simply looked for an excuse to break out in revolt, and had found it when the routine procedure of election rigging unexpectedly became an object of general discussion. http://enoughcampaign.org/2011/12/23/boris-kagarlitsky-...volt/

by Anti-CIA propaganda Mon Jun 25, 2012 15:40

"An article by Boris Kagerlitsky, published on the Irish Enough Campaign site, hardly a group bought off by Western interests. "

1) The article is not to be found at the 'Irish Enough Campaign" website despite what 'Ivanich' says.

2 ) NO other article by Boris Kagerlitsky is to be found at thew 'Irish Enough Campaign"

'Ivanich' also states the 'Enough! Campaign" is
hardly a group bought off by Western interests

Which is a complete nonsense statement given that from it's website there is absolutely no way of anyonre knowing anything about this 'Campaign' or how the get their finance. The website contains no info on who they are nor who finances them, so from looking at the website alone no one has any way of knowing who finance them, so as far as I'm concerned they could be financed by George Bush or Boris Berezovsky

It seems all it takes to fool some people into believing you, is to stick the word 'socialist' in front of your name and these rather gullible people will treat your every word as gospel

by Anti-CIA propaganda Mon Jun 25, 2012 15:53

Kagerlitsky writes:

The December outburst of street protest in Russia was the natural result of a growing discontent which for several years had been building up but which had not found a means of expression

Kagerlitsky only managed to get to the start of paragraph 2 before he started lying.

The December 'protests' in Russia were the direct result of US meddling in Russian internal politics.

The groups organising these protests were in reciept of money from the US through is orwellianly-titled National Endowment for Democracy (N.E.D.)

Russian Protests: Western Media Lies
What the media says and what the media doesn't tell you.
by Tony Cartalucci - http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ie/2011/12/russian-protes....html

1. What the Media Says:

From CNN: "Between 20,000 and 25,000 protesters had gathered in the capital, Moscow, Ria Novosti said Saturday, citing police. There have been no reports of unrest and security has been tight.

Vladimir Ryzhkov, co-chairman of the Party of People's Freedom, said 40,000 people had massed and some 10,000 were headed to the main protest venue, the news agency reported."

What the Media and 'Ivanich' and 'Boris Kagerlitsky' Doesn't Tell You:

Vladimir Ryzhkov is a member of the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) "World Democracy Movement." NED was also financing the very poll monitors Ryzhkov is citing as his justification for filling Russia's streets with unrest.

2. What the Media Says:

From CBS/AP: "Hundreds of people, were arrested in smaller protests earlier in the week. Some, including prominent opposition blogger Alexei Navalny, were sentenced to 15 days in jail."

What the Media and 'Ivanich' and 'Boris Kagerlitsky' Doesn't Tell You:

Alexei Navalny, defended by Neo-Con, Fortune 500 think-tank (page 18) Henry Jackson Foundation, was the co-founder of US NED-funded "Da!" or "Democratic Alternative." Fellow co-founder Mariya Gaydar would coordinate activities with another US NED-funded movement, the Moscow Helsinki Group which heads the "Strategy 31" campaign led by another "prominent" activist mentioned throughout the Western media, Ilya Yahsin.

3. What the Media Says:

From the London Telegraph: "Russian elections: Boris Nemtsov calls for vote rerun. Boris Nemtsov, a high profile figure in the country's liberal opposition movement, was one of those arrested during an anti-Kremlin protest on Tuesday night. He has since been released."

What the Media and 'Ivanich' and 'Boris Kagerlitsky' Doesn't Tell You:

Boris Nemtsov leads the Russian "People's Freedom Party" with the above mentioned, US-NED collaborator Vladimir Ryzhkov. Besides being in the same party, Nemtsov's political adviser Vladimir Kara-Murza (of Solidarnost), recently took part in a September 14, 2011 NED-sponsored event titled, "Elections in Russia: Polling and Perspectives."

4. What the Media Says:

From the Guardian, Comment is Free: "Having worked for Golos, Russia's only independent election monitoring organisation, for more than eight years, I never dreamed the president's administration would engage in an open campaign against our organisation – especially in the week running up to the country's Duma elections last Sunday."

What the Media and 'Ivanich' and 'Boris Kagerlitsky' Doesn't Tell You:

Golos is funded by the United States government-funded National Endowment for Democracy. Stated on the official NED.org website:

"Regional Civic Organization in Defense of Democratic Rights and Liberties “GOLOS” $65,000
To carry out a detailed analysis of the autumn 2010 and spring 2011 election cycles in Russia, which will include press monitoring, monitoring of political agita­tion, activity of electoral commissions, and other aspects of the application of elec­toral legislation in the long-term run-up to the elections. GOLOS will hold local and national press conferences and publish reports on its findings, as well as pro­vide detailed methodological advice to its monitors and other monitoring agencies."

The inseparable common thread between the patchwork of opposition groups now filling Russia's streets is their funding and support courtesy of the United States government and the National Endowment for Democracy.

The mainstream Western media refuses to acknowledge this, and has been muted over the fact that the poll monitors reporting "corruption" and "election rigging" in the first place were also US NED-funded, including the frequently cited "Golos."

When admissions are made, they are down-played, and words like "independent" are still used despite Golos' foreign-funding by a government clearly siding with Russia's opposition being a matter of record and illustrating an obvious conflict of interest.

When the media systematically omits the ties of the Russian opposition with the United States government who is facilitating their networks, NGOs, and political activity, a very real conspiracy exists. To uncover the ties between the US government and Russia's opposition is the duty of every journalist, to provide the unequivocal truth and to truly inform the public.

Only with a properly functioning, honest, and dedicated corps of journalists can "democracy" actually function. While the US State Department squawks about promoting "true democracy" in Russia, the blinding hypocrisy emanating from the Wall Street-London financier occupied governments of the West gives it the hollowest of rings.

by Anti-CIA propaganda Mon Jun 25, 2012 15:55

US Media Caught Faking Moscow Protest By Using Violent Images From Greece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEnrNkBOF4A

"As the evidence begins to mount pointing the accusing finger at the increasingly illegitimate corporate-financier occupiers of the West’s governments as having built up Russian opposition movements and being behind the current unrest filling Russia’s streets, the corporate media has already started to rewrite events as they unfold."

by Natasha Mon Jun 25, 2012 16:02

These twats should be consigned to the pile marked "kasparov"
Another failed attempt to drum up popular sentiment against a great russian leader.

The US should look at their own leaders and question them instead of backing shite like this. Bunch of liars and crooks and murderers beholden to corporations and banks, and a silver tongued commander in chief who goes through his "kill list" on a tuesday. Nice!

by Anti-CIA propaganda Mon Jun 25, 2012 16:06

all appear to be the same person posting under 3 different names.

Looking at the posting time stamps, all 3 posts are posted within 12 minutes of each other - highly unlikely that 3 seperate paople ALL choosing pseudonyms containg soem forn of the word 'Ivan' or it's derivations, should suddenly decide to post at Indymedia.ie within 12 minutes of each other, is it not?

Why would any HONEST person wish to decieve readers like that?

by Ivanovich Mon Jun 25, 2012 19:57

Only a fool would think that I was trying to pretend 3 (now 4) different people were posting. Or perhaps a paranoid. You seem to be happy to support a dictator. Putin is not Left, hes a capitalist as well. He supports Syria and Ira, long may he do so, even if its for his own interests, but that does not mean he should be put on a pedestal, above crticism.

The Enough Campaign have lost ownership of their site and ironically its controlled by capitalist consultants.

But if you google enoughcampaign.org you will get some of the articles that were on it: eg

Slavoj Zizek: Occupy Wall Street: the wake-up call - Enough Campaign
enoughcampaign.org/.../slavoj-zizek-occupy-wall-street-the-wake-up...
Block all enoughcampaign.org results
12 Oct 2011 – But the reason we are here is that we had enough of the world where to recycle your Coke cans, to give a couple of dollars for charity, or to buy ...

Boris Kagarlitsky: A very peaceful Russian revolt - Enough Campaign
enoughcampaign.org/.../boris-kagarlitsky-a-very-peaceful-russian-re...
23 Dec 2011 – By Boris Kagarlitsky. The calls by the “moderate left” for passively following behind the liberals are supposedly based on the need to “work ...

https://www.google.ie/webhp?source=search_app#hl=en&gs_...h=643

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jun 25, 2012 20:26

as in Arbeit Macht Frei

which of course it DOES.

It frees you from the need to THINK(painful exercise) about the state of the world and your society and the contradictions pumped through your air-conditioned hammock of pap muzak and beer and incessant programming with competitive template of corporatised 'sport'.

relieves you of the need to fully humanise..an evolutionary step requiring a tincture of effort....the rewards of this systemic retardation are dispensed to those lazy enough to strap themselves willingly into harness, rather than challenge the charioteers.

the 'dignity of work' is one of their great lies, up there with the original lie of the land, i.e. that it can BELONG to anyone.

Not that i am averse to work(I have a record of slipping into harness when necessary). But know your prisons. and that like Iron Curtainsof propaganda, their are two sides to prison walls. The judges and lawyers(wonderful homophone) inhabit their own.

by Ivanich Mon Jun 25, 2012 20:39

Boris is a socialist who was a dissident in the USSR and remains a dissident under the post USSR regimes. He was imprisoned by both. Here is an extract from an interview with him. The rest of the interview is at the link.

--------------------------------------------------

Global Crisis: A Russian Perspective
Boris Kagarlitsky

On the occassion of a seminal international conference in New Delhi on “The Global Crisis and Hegemonic Dilemmas”, addressed by some of the world’s leading analysts on the left, the an interview was conducted with Boris Kargarlitsky which not only gives a deep insight into what actually is happening in contemporary Russian society but also presents the analysis and perspectives of a Russian scholar and how he sums up the contemporary global crisis.

Deep-rooted changes have happened in Russia as a result of its embrace of neoliberalism. It seems to have affected the entire landscape of Russia, not only socio-political and economic but also all other facets of society. A very dramatic example is the forest fires that raged through much of the summer of 2010. It was reported that in August alone there were 554 fires in an area of more than 190,000 hectares (469,000 acres). Hopefully, in India it can serve as a dramatic lesson and warn people of the dangers of the state completely withdrawing itself and surrendering to market forces.

The forest fires of this summer were really in a way the moral and cultural turning point. They revealed the state of permanent disaster into which Russian society has moved in the past 17 to 20 years. It will be absolutely wrong to present these fires purely as a natural disaster, which, of course, the government tried to do. Interestingly, no one in Russia was prepared to accept it. Ultimately and ironically, even the government had to accept that it was a man-made disaster. The fires did not result from global warming or climatic change and higher temperatures. Forest fires are common and happen everywhere, but the fact that it spread on such a large scale and became uncontrollable was because of privatisation. Neoliberal legislation in the form of a new liberal forest code led to the privatisation of Russian’s forest resources. This also meant that the state or its agencies could not intervene in these forests.

As a result of the privatisation of forests, structures that existed to deal with such situations had been dismantled and the management structure, technology and equipment that existed earlier were no longer available. Worse, in the current privatised context the fire brigades and fire-fighting agencies under state control could not enter the forests unless invited by the private owners. So you had a situation where once the forest fires started they were not, and could not be, brought under control, a fact that was not at all highlighted in the international media coverage of the forest fires.

Whole villages were wiped out in the range of 2 or 3 km of the fires. People were simply running away and some of them crossed to the Belarus side of the border and discovered that on the Belarus side, where the climate was the same, the temperatures were the same, there were no forest fires and even if there were some incidents they were extinguished immediately, maybe even in minutes. This is because, people discovered, they had retained the old Soviet system of state control over forests, and this meant that the forests were being monitored regularly and managed by personnel from the state forest services, and a close watch was being kept on preventing any such disasters.

There was a famous satellite picture of the forest fires that showed on the western side fires everywhere and on the eastern side no fires; one could clearly see the frontier as the forest fires raged on the Russian side. That became very important in terms of revealing to the Russian public the total bankruptcy of the Russian elite-controlled state and the level of disorganisation of government at the local level. Even the Central government was shocked by the scale of corruption and insubordination at the local level. Putin then actually went to the villages that were destroyed and seeing the rampant corruption ordered that the reconstruction being done be recorded by video cameras and webcams to reduce the corruption and to ensure that the money given to the local authorities is actually used for the reconstruction of these villages. You know what happened next, most of the webcams and video cameras were stolen. So that was the end of the story. Both the forest fires and the attempts to control the situation became a huge scandal.

In your book “The Empire of the Periphery: Russia and the World System” you say that even before the collapse of the Soviet regime, under perestroika itself Russia was being reduced to a mere raw materials exporter and its economy was reduced to dependence on raw materials. This was because in the years leading up to the years of perestroika the Soviet Union had already been reduced to a very indebted country.

Actually, the huge debt was the turning point. Many people see perestroika as the turning point, but I am trying to show in my analysis that the turning point happened much earlier, in the second half of the 1960s and the early 1970s. In the 1960s it became very clear to society and to the leadership that the Soviet society was in a deep need of transformation, and my point of view is that, ironically, the Soviet system was facing challenges not because of its failures but because of its successes. The system was heading towards what seemed a collapse not only because of the lack of democracy and so on but actually because of its successes and achievements. This is the kind of dialectics of history.

The Soviet system was designed to develop the country rapidly into an industrialised society and economy. So, actually within less than two generations the Soviet society had been transformed from a rural, agricultural, backward and, in many ways, weak society into a tremendous industrial power. By the way, this achievement of becoming an important industrial power was also realised by investments in science and technology and important breakthroughs in this field, including, very interestingly, the successes of Soviet geological science, which was able to show how rich the country was in terms of minerals and raw materials. The latter happened precisely because under the conditions of the Cold War the former Soviet Union had to prioritise access to and supply of raw materials and mineral resources. In the period beginning with the 1930s and into the war period and especially in the 1950s, there was an enormous effort to turn the country into a rich country in terms of resources.

by Anti-CIA propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 01:18

You seem to be happy to support a dictator.

Putin was elected If you have any proof that he was not elected then do post it here. Otherwise you're just a mouthpiece reposting CIA(NED) -financed propaganda.

- only a dishonest person or a Western/CIA shill would claim otherwise - all claims of Election Malfeasance in Russia originate from US financed FAKE-opposition groups such as those mentioned above

You'll find that is the caee when or IF you bother to attempt to provide that proof I requested to back up your propagandistic statements

by Anti-CIA propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 01:47

"Boris is a socialist "

So What???
Socialists are just as capable of lying or distorting or completely ommitting inconvenient parts of the story when it suits them. Boris and you have proven that much quite coinclusively

For some reason the suppossed 'Socialist' has seen fit to ignore the FACT that the majority of the groups organising Anti-Putin protests in Russia are in fact in the pay of the US and therefore by any definition of the word, the are in fact Traitors and IMHO should be prosecuted to the full extent allowed by law of Russia regarding Traitors colluding with hostile foreign powers to damage Russia

Almost ALL claims of election stealing in Russia originate from these Pro-US or US-financed Traitors and are therefore about as reliable as an Anglo-Irish Bank Profit&Loss statement circa 2006

It is a FACT that immediately prior to the election in Russia, polls carried out by independant election polling companies indicated that Putins Party would win by approx 60% of the vote. In the end United Russia got 63% of the vote - Entirely consistant with the pre-election polls

The person posting oin this thread under 3 or 4 different names and the suppossed 'Socialist' Boris Kagarlitsky have deliberately failed to inform readers here of the FACT that almost ALL of the opposition groups claiming election fraud or holding protests in Russia are in reciept of money from the US, a country that has been an arch-enemy of Russia for approx the last 100 years

The fact that both of these individuals have deliberately chosen to hide this fact from readers here should cause any normal person to treat their words with the contempt they deserve - If 'Ivan' (or what ever he's calling himself now) and Boris Kargilitsky can't even manage to tell that much of the truth, why should anyone here listen to anything either of you two say?

by Anti-CIA propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 01:52

Independent polling companies predicted that United Russia would get approx 55-58% of the vote

in the end United Russia. polled barely over 50%

United Russia's share of the vote was less than all the independent polls predicted. If the party or the government it leads really manipulated the election why would that be the case?

Did they really give themselves less votes than the pre-election polls have led anyone to expect?

Would someone manipulating an election in the U.S., local or nationwide, organize for less votes to their cause than independent pre-election polls would suggest

by Anti-CIA propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 02:00

Since Putin was actually elected that claim or yours, like all your other claims, is of course absolute bullshit - the type of bullshit thrown around by someone with no other argument to make because all his arguments are shown to be CIA propaganda

All I'm doing pointing out that not only was Putin elected in a fair democratic election but also both you and the suppossed Socialist are deliberately hiding the fact that most of the Anti-Putin groups are in fact paid Agents of the US Gov't

Only someone deliberately setting out to decieve people would omit that FACT from any conversation on Russian elections

by Anti-CIA propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 05:01

For Example:

Lyudmila Alexeyeva, head of the Moscow Helsinki Group, Russia's oldest independent human rights organisation,

Describing Moscow Helsinki Group as "Russia's oldest independent human rights organisation, is a complete joke given that the Group is funded by host of Anti-Russian Organisations such as the previously mentiuoned NED, the Ford Foundation, George Soro's (very Anti-Russian) Open Society, and USAID (CIA-front Group )

Below is a list of donors found at the Moscow Helsinki Group (http://www.mhg.ru/english/190C97F) website:

Activity of the Moscow Helsinki Group in its contemporary scope would be impossible without great support of a number of grantors. Today MHG Projects are being financed by the following organizations:

• European Commission
• Ford Foundation (USA)
• MacArthur's Foundation (USA)
• MATRA (Netherlands)
• National Endowment for Democracy (USA)
• Open Society Institute/Budapest
• USAID

Almost all of the above 'donors' can be safely said to be 'Anti-Russian'

No Organisation operating in Russia with such a list of Donors could ever truthfully be described as 'independant'

In mid January of 2012 many of the so-called Russia 'opposition' were caught on camera filing into the US Embassy - probably to recieve instructions from their US pay masters
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.de/2012/05/unbelievable-r....html

"Russia's 'opposition', long accused by the Kremlin of being foreign-funded, and who have well documented ties to the US State Department, are caught filing into the US Embassy in Moscow in January of 2012, just days after agitator Michael McFaul began his stint as US Ambassador to Russia."

The point of all this is to demonstrate that the so-called 'Russian Opposition' is well known in Russia to be nothing but shills for Washington and it's country-raping ways.

the suppossed 'Socialist' Boris Kagarlitsky scould not possibly by unaware of any of this, given that ity's fairly common knowledge in Russia, but mysteriously he somehow forgot to mention ANY of this in his screed posted above by somenone who uses at least 3 different names when posting on this thread

by Anti-CIA propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 05:28

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...tNX20

This video captured outside the US Embassy in Moscow, Russia, shows prominent leaders of Russia's US-funded, backed, and directed opposition attending a confab with newly appointed US Ambassador Michael McFaul. Both the opposition leaders and McFaul himself are directly connected to the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Approached by journalists inquiring as to why they had all come to greet the US Ambassador, their responses ranged from silence to dismissive gibes.

Later, the group of opposition leaders emerged responding only with "Вы сурковская пропаганда," or "you’re Surkov’s propaganda," meaning the journalists represented government efforts to undermine their work and legitimacy.

It is a common response given by Russia's opposition members when media attempts to question them about their increasingly overt ties to Wall Street and London.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:54

A bit like here then...Putin was elected, but he's the wrong answer to our question, and appears to be doing what he claimed in his manifest. Only we can't make THEM vote twice.

But less of the strident(credit us with a title): not all of the opposition can be the usual contingent of NATO funded subversives.
After all, even if your original figure of 63%( which dont sit with the UR's 50%) were true it would leave 37% unenamoured.

Anyone who has studied the machineries of empire knows how the wheels grind. But ta for the background detail. Just dont go canonising Putin yet. He may prove to be another necessary Stalin, not a great forecast. I'd imagine the corporate Strangeloves have already done the calculus on robotic extraction of resources after the selective surgical nuclear strikes. Wargames are not Ludo.
If only the General Assembly had a speck of the leadership this island invested in it back in its infancy, before it was allowed lapse like the League was before it. I think we all read somewhere what that fed into.
Or even if some of the EU members remembered that the logic of its foundation(at least for some of its founders and their war-weary peoples)was not the re-erection of empire, but the then emerging concert of decolonised nations on a foundation based on the UN Charter.

Last week gave us the perfect image for the situation. Obama, Cameron, Merkel et al too busy in Mexico G-20 Operation Retoration Economic Obesity me-feinism mode to even visit the Rio Earth Summit trying to restore the planetary and human, rather than national-tribal-racial perspective, and arrest the slide to biocide.

by Ivan Tue Jun 26, 2012 13:16

Not everyone accepts the new Tsar.

_______________

New mood of opposition to Putin in Russia
by Ben Neal in Moscow

Some 100,000 people took part in an angry demonstration in Moscow on Sunday against the inauguration of President Vladimir Putin.

In a clear provocation by the state, marchers were barred from access to the officially agreed route and rally point by two lines of paramilitary riot police.

This angered protesters, who bravely fought to break through the lines and to exercise their rights to free assembly and expression.

Hundreds of people were arrested, and dozens hospitalised due to the brutality of the police. But this has made people more determined to oppose Putin’s corrupt and arrogant regime.

Putin won an election which is widely regarded to have been rigged. He received blatant support from the mass media, while opposition activists were harassed and intimidated.

Once the election of Putin as president was confirmed, the protests appeared to have died down somewhat. But the protest on Sunday showed that this mood is still here and, if anything, more militant than before.

**Demonstrators were not afraid to fight the police, and flags from the left wing parties predominated—compared to very few from the liberals and hardly any from the far right.

The Russian ruling class have an agenda of neoliberal reforms, such as the commercialisation of education and other essential services. But there is a new mood of opposition to this, as well as to the rampant corruption and arrogance shown by state functionaries at all levels.

Putin may be confirmed as president for a third term, but it is not going to be an easy ride for him.

by Ivan Tue Jun 26, 2012 13:27

Another Socialist analysis of the voting fraud.

Widespread fraud alleged as Putin wins presidential election

05/03/2012

Communist Party and neo-liberal opposition fail to win mass appeal

Rob Jones, CWI, Moscow

The election, last weekend, of Vladimir Putin to the office of president of Russia, is surrounded by allegations of widespread voter fraud. It sparked new opposition mass street protests on 5 March against the continuing rule of Putin and the rich elite around him. Tens of thousands took to the streets and hundreds of protesters were arrested in Moscow and St Petersburg.

According to the electoral commission in Russia, Putin won 64% of the vote in last weekend’s presidential elections, Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist Party leader, won 17%, the neo-liberal Mikhail Prokorov got 8%, the far-right Zhirinovskii won 6% and Just Russia’s Mironov got under 4%.

The Kremlin calculated that a vote somewhere between Putin’s 53% won in 2000 and 72% in 2004 would be the most ‘creditable’ vote. It assures Putin of victory in the first round, but it is widely recognized that the “administrative vote” (that is people who are forced to vote under the threat of sacking or other sanctions by employers, universities and the like) is worth 15-20%. On this measure alone, Putin probably “honestly” received around 40-45% of the vote. Significantly, Putin failed to win a majority of the vote in Moscow.

The Communist Party has nothing to celebrate with 17%. Their vote in the presidential elections ranged between 30% and 40% in the 1990’s and fell to 17.7% in 2008. In last December’s parliamentary election, they gained 19% of the vote but could not match or improve that vote last weekend. In the months since, Moscow and the rest of Russia were rocked by massive protests calling for the downfall of Putin. For the Communist Party to get its lowest vote in 20 years is a disaster that cannot be explained away completely as a result of fraud.

It is reported that the oligarch Prokorov, participating in his first election, won one of the most significant results. In Moscow and St Petersburg, he gained 17% of the vote, knocking Zyuganov into third place. However, it should be remembered that Prokorov, a representative of the Russian Union of Industrialists, renowned for demanding a 60 hour working week, is an ally of the Kremlin. He was unofficially delegated the task of establishing a right wing neo-liberal party by the Kremlin to cut across the support of the more independent Yabloko party and other opposition forces. Yabloko was refused the right to participate in the presidential election.

Sergei Mironov, from the Just Russia party, gained under 4%. This party was set up by the Kremlin, partly to help give the illusion of ‘pluralism’, but also to act as a “leftish” poll of attraction to undermine the vote for the Communist Party. The last time Mironov stood as candidate for president, he actually announced that he himself would be voting for “the best candidate” – Putin! This time, Mironov announced on post-election TV talk shows that “those voters who voted for my programme were actually voting for Vladimir Putin. I congratulate him on victory”.

How can results be explained?

How can these results be explained, given that there have been four major demonstrations mobilising hundreds of thousands of people in Moscow since December’s fraudulent Parliamentary election? According to opinion polls, up to 42% of the population supports the protests. One poll suggested that 15% of the population is prepared to participate actively in protests. This figure, incidentally, is many times higher than the “middle class” protesters, who according to much of the international media, are supposed to be the only supporters of the opposition protests. Yet the four “anti-Putin” presidential candidates only received 24 million votes, in total.

The votes “for” Putin are made up of three distinct elements. There is undoubtedly a layer of the population, probably between 20 and 30% of the electorate that currently do support Putin. Sections of big business, a large proportion of those who work in the state structures and “ordinary people” across the classes, credit Putin with restoring ‘order’ after the chaos of the 1990s and regard him as a “guarantor of stability”. During his presidential campaign, Putin stepped up the anti-Western, particularly anti-US rhetoric (his supporters equate “democracy” with “neo-liberalism” and “US interests”). At a victory rally in central Moscow on election night, with tears rolling down his cheeks, Putin celebrated his win against “those who want to ‘usurp’ power” and “split the country up”. This will have helped him maintain support of those who may otherwise vote for the far right or the “Communists”.

The second part of the “vote for” Putin is made up of manipulated and fraudulent votes. It is estimated that 15-20% of all votes cast result from the use of the so-called “administrative resource”. Throughout Russia, those who hold power in local and regional governments, and company managements, instruct their staff how to vote. In the run up to voting, instructions go out from the centre defining what percentage of the vote they have to provide. People are told that if they do not vote the right way they will lose their jobs. The widely publicised presence of video cameras in the polling stations, for the first time, probably strengthened this tendency. People who previously dared to defy their bosses in the privacy of the polling booth, may have been more wary in last week’s elections, as they were filmed casting their vote.

This is added to by outright fraud. Again the video cameras do little to prevent this, as the bulk of the manipulation (of the mass media, of candidates etc) takes place before the voting booths open and the fraud takes place after the polls close, during actual counting. A number of organisations have run schemes aimed at monitoring cases of fraud. One is the US-financed Golos organization. But there were also a huge number of volunteer observers who hoped they could ensure “honest elections”. The number of reported frauds (alleged, not proven) is around 6,000. The rate of reporting of alleged frauds increased dramatically as counting started. The implication that votes were being fraudulently added to Putin’s tally is borne out by the conflict between the “exit polls” and declared results. Although the two main exit polls, FOM and VTsIOM, managed to predict the votes for the other four presidential candidates quite accurately, they both underestimated the vote for Putin by 5%.

Outright fraud

The practice of “carouselling”, first used in last December’s election, also appears to have been widespread. This involves bussing people (who are paid) from one polling station to another to vote for Putin. To disguise this blatant fraud, it is claimed that they are workers on shifts, who have been brought by the employer during their work breaks to vote en-bloc, as part of electoral lists submitted in addition to the voting register. One such group was filmed assembling at a Moscow airport, where, after receiving about 30 euros, they were shuffled around a number of nearby polling stations.

These methods are in addition to the traditional vote fixing in the more authoritarian regions of the country. In Chechnya, according to the Chechen electoral commission, 99.7% of the electorate, on a 99.6% turnout, voted for Putin, with Zyuganov in second place. This obvious fraud in the North caucuses region alone will have added another 2-3% to Putin’s total vote. In other regions, the vote cast for Putin was between 70% and 90%.

A third element of the support for Putin, however, was the support he won from a layer of potential opposition voters. Comments, such as, “There is no-one I can vote for” and “The opposition will be even worse” were frequently heard from people explaining how they would vote. The Putin camp played successfully on the record of the neo-liberal leaders of the opposition. When they were in power in the 1990s, the neo-liberal politicians were not keen on democracy, to say the least, and oversaw capitalist ‘shock therapy’ that plunged millions into poverty and the enormous enrichment of a clique of oligarchs.

Recently, outgoing President Medvedev actually went so far as admitting that in 1996 Zyuganov actually won the presidential election, although the vote was fixed in Boris Yeltsin’s favour.

It appears that the Communist Party failed to win any extra support to add to the layer of elderly electors that normally vote for the party. This is partly due to the policies Zyuganov used to fight this election – a chauvinist appeal to bring the “Russians” (as opposed to all the other nationalities living in Russia) back to their “rightful place” in the world. Zyuganov also placed himself firmly at a distance from the opposition protests that have rocked Moscow in the past months. He warned outgoing President Medvedev not to allow “the orange leprosy” to take hold, referring to Western supported mass opposition protests in Ukraine in 2004/2005, which alienated a wide layer of protesters. Members of the Communist Party, apart from a few dissident elements, have been noticeable by their absence from the protests.

The leadership of the opposition protests is now going to find that people will question their tactics much more. The idea that Putin could be defeated by voting for any of the other candidates has clearly not worked. From advocating support for non-Putin candidates, Aleksei Navalny, a blogger and one of the opposition ‘leaders’, stated that the elections were “completely illegitimate” (Navalny is a neo-liberal with a strong leaning to the ultra right). The position of the majority of the Left - to vote for either Zyuganov or Mironov - has been shown to be even worse and a blind alley.

Boycott call

The CWI in Russia argued for a boycott of the elections but this was not a call for passivity. On the contrary, the CWI called for the opposition rank and file to mobilize working people and youth, campaigning in workplaces and amongst students, to build genuine committees of action in opposition to the election fraud.

Although this position is a minority view even amongst the Left, it is significant that other groups and campaigns, such as a health service campaign, echoed the CWI call for a boycott of the election in the days running up to the election. The Tatar Social Centre also issued a call to all the non-Russian peoples to boycott the election. They said that after Putin came to power Russia made a sharp turn towards totalitarianism and that political prisoners had again became a feature of life in Tatarstan and Bashkirostan and elsewhere.

The CWI believes the post of President should be abolished. The Duma (parliament) elected last year was also on the basis of fraud. The CWI calls for real democracy – for the convening of a genuinely democratic constituent assembly to which the working class and the oppressed can send their representatives to decide how society should be run. Socialists call for a majority workers’ government with socialist policies. A workers’ government would end poverty, joblessness, homelessness and low pay and carry out massive funding for decent housing, education and health etc.

To work towards this goal, the CWI calls for the creation of independent trade unions and to campaign towards building a mass workers’ party with a socialist programme that can challenge the rule of big business and its representatives in the Kremlin. This entails bringing the country’s vast wealth, including the oil and gas industries, into public ownership under democratic workers’ control and management, so that living standards can be transformed.

Opposition calls for new protests

New street protests started just hours after the election results were announced, with 20,000-30,000 gathering in central Moscow on Monday evening, 5 March. Attempts to set up a ‘tent city’ were broken up by riot police, who arrested several hundred mainly young people. But plans are being made for protests this coming weekend.

The CWI will play an active part in opposition demonstrations, advocating that the protest movement appeals to the working class in urban and rural areas to join it. The opposition movement needs to be democratically organized, through the convening of mass assemblies, linked at local, regional and national levels. It must struggle against Putin’s monopoly of power and the mass media and his undemocratic regime, and for real democratic rights and for a free and independent media that is nationalized and democratically-run, so that it is representative of all views in society.

It is still an open question if the planned protests will develop and expand greatly, or whether they will temporarily peter out. But Russia has entered a new phase. Putin will be a much more vulnerable president, this time. For many Russians, he only promises a Brezhnev-style era of stagnation and huge social inequality. The ongoing crisis in the world economy will have big impact on Russia’s oil and gas-dependent economy, which can lead to a fast decline in living standards. Putin’s election win will be seen as a pyrrhic victory. The developing situation in Russia is highly volatile and increasingly will see collisions between the working class and poor and the ruling elite.

by Anti-Spammers Tue Jun 26, 2012 13:46

any chance you could calm down a little on the copy&pasting of WHOLE articles?

Surely it should be enough to highlight relevant sections and provide a link.

That way it won't look like you're selfishly jamming the page with long boring articles from the socialist workers that no one wants to read anyway?

generally the c&p of whole long articles is frowned upon as it often indicates that the poster couldn't actually be bothered to read the article in question but just grabbed the first thinhg they found on the net that appears to support their pov

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 14:26

The widely publicised presence of video cameras in the polling stations, for the first time, probably strengthened this tendency. People who previously dared to defy their bosses in the privacy of the polling booth, may have been more wary in last week’s elections, as they were filmed casting their vote.

Wow - that partagraph is a masterclass in deception - The Russians put Webcams in their election stations to help with investigating any allegations of Electoral Fraud that will inevetibaly be made by US financed traitors and the Socialist Worker (or which ever bunch of Socialists you are c&p whole articles from this time) then has the gall to attack them for it and claim that the Webcams were actually installed to facilitate fraud - seriously, I don't know who or what 'Socialit Word.Net' is, or who finances them (hopefully not the CIA, eh?) but they appear to be living in a bizzare upside-down world where attempts to fight electoral fraud suddenly become the mechanism to facilitate fraud

"According to the electoral commission in Russia, Putin won 64% of the vote in last weekend’s presidential elections, Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist Party leader, won 17%, the neo-liberal Mikhail Prokorov got 8%, the far-right Zhirinovskii won 6% and Just Russia’s Mironov got under 4%."

yes - in the Prezidential election Putin won 64% of the vote which was completely expected given that the pre-election polling was predicting a 61.5% vote for Putin in that election.

Even the US financed 'oppositin' admitted this - The Levada Center which is financed in part by the NED polled 1,600 Russians and on March 2and published the result (Google translation): http://www.google.com/search?q=levada+center&ie=utf-8&o...h=715

Forecast the results of voting in the presidential elections in 2012, filed with the CEC March 2, 2012 to participate in the contest forecasts prepared on the basis of a series of surveys conducted from February 24 to March 1, 2012 on representative samples of urban and rural population of the Russian Federation, 1600 at the age of 18 years and older in 130 localities 45 regions of the country. The statistical error of the survey data does not exceed 3.4%

These are translated to the number of intending to vote and decide on their choice. Projections free from systematic sampling error, defined according to the prediction of voting in elections to the Duma in 2011

They polling result is an expected turnout of 60.3% and a vote for Putin of 61.5%

In the end Putin polled 63/64 % - which is well within the 3.4 % error rate stated by the US financed Levada Center

Irrespective of whatever statistical sleight of hand is indulged in by these so-called 'Scoialist Workers' that you keep copy&pasting whole articles from , the FACT remains that Putin's election results are completely consistant with pre-election polling carried out by Pollsters in the pay of his enemies.

Kinda of hard to complain about election stealing when even your enemies produce figures consistant with the post election results



These methods are in addition to the traditional vote fixing in the more authoritarian regions of the country. In Chechnya, according to the Chechen electoral commission, 99.7% of the electorate, on a 99.6% turnout, voted for Putin, with Zyuganov in second place. This obvious fraud in the North caucuses region alone will have added another 2-3% to Putin’s total vote. In other regions, the vote cast for Putin was between 70% and 90%.


Chechnya has 1.2 million inhabitants, Russia in total 144 million -any electoral fraud in Chechnya - something I'm not denying at all given that Chechnya is effectively a Tribal Mafia statelet (and would be so irrespective of who holds power in Russia) - had little if any effect on the overall election results.

The number of reported frauds (alleged, not proven) is around 6,000.

yeah 6000 sounds impressive And sure, the U.S. financed GOLOS Center tried to make as much noise as they could about these allegations - Actually the figure was much closer to 5000 but the Socialist Worker obviously thinks 6000 sounds more impressive

6000 sounds like a lot until you notice that there were over 96,000 polling places in Russia with webcams installed in 91,000 of them and over 300,000 election monitors watching for the various candidates.

Funny how the figure of 5000/6000 (depending on whether one believes the Socialist Worker or not - I don't) gells quite nicely (from a liars perspective) with the figure of polling station without webcam monitoring eh?

The number of reported frauds (alleged, not proven)

yes - there is the point - ALLEGED not PROVEN - in fact little or no evidence has been pout forward to support these allegations - and since the ALLEGATIONS are being made, in the main, by people in the pay of the US and since there has been little to no evidence to back them up, only a fool would put any weight upon them - you're welcome to do so if you think it helps the very weak case you have made so far.

Anyone claiming election fraud in Russia that refuses to mention that the majority of the allegations come from US financed Traitors, as both you and the other so-called 'socialist' did earlier is not to be taken seriously imho

Essentially the only REAL opposition in Russia are the Communists.

The vast majority of all other 'opposition' is FAKE US financed opposition

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 14:32

After all, even if your original figure of 63%( which dont sit with the UR's 50%) were true it would leave 37% unenamoured."

Mea culpa - I got a little confused with election figures - there are actually 2 elections in question here - One for the Duma and one for the Presidency

In the duma election UR recieved over 50% of the vote - far better than any Gov't party in Ireland for instance

In the Prez election Putin got just over 63% - well within the margin of error of pre-election poilling forecast of 61.5% -

and as for your mention of 37% unenamoured." I'm surprised I have to explain this but THAT is how it works in a 'democracy' Opus - the person that gets 63% of the vorte WINS while the person that gets 37% LOSES.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 14:39

that ALL the allegations of fraud can be traced back to the US financed FAKE opposition. - just like I told you earlier.

And as I said earlier Allegations (for that is all that has been offered up here) that come from US financed FAKE opposition are about as reliable as an Anglo-Irish Bank Balance sheet circa 2006

You are welcome to rely on allegations from US financed FAKE opposition if you wish, to bolster your weak argument - but me I'd not give much credence to the unproven allegations of paid TRAITORS

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Jun 26, 2012 14:42

ta for the clarification.

My point was that not all Vlad's opposition are al CIAda...I think I have the bones of vote-count sketched. A wee tittle of credit??

I dont have an agenda, other than information and retention of balance as the ship tilts for the final plunge.

by Ivan Tue Jun 26, 2012 14:47

Putin cracks down on democratic rights. The rest is at the link.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/russ-m26.shtml

Russian government cracks down on opposition
By Andrea Peters and Clara Weiss
26 May 2012
Since reoccupying the office of the presidency on May 7, Vladimir Putin has initiated a crackdown on political opposition as his government prepares to implement a right-wing agenda.
In a shift from the pre-election period, the Russian state has responded to anti-Kremlin demonstrations in recent weeks with brute force. A May 6 protest of 20,000 people on the eve of Putin’s inauguration ended with violent clashes between security forces and the crowds, with upwards of 400 people arrested.
Subsequent smaller-scale rallies have also been met with repression, including the clearing of Occupy-style camps at locations in Moscow. Opposition leaders, including the right-wing nationalist Alexei Navalny and the leftist Sergei Udaltsov, have been detained and made to serve 15-day jail sentences.
A bill has been introduced in the Duma, Russia’s parliament, that would dramatically increase fines for those participating in illegal demonstrations, with penalties rising to $9,600 (or even as much as $29,000) from their current level of $160. If the law is passed, organizers of such events could face fines of $48,000, up from $1,160. Earlier this week, Putin signaled his support for the measure, noting that similar sanctions exist in Western countries and stating, “We must shield people from radical actions.”
In a further sign of what is in store, the architect of the recent state violence in Moscow, Chief of Police Vladimir Kolokoltsev, was appointed minister of the interior in the newly formed government. Putin also named Igor Kholmanskikh, a tank factory foreman from the Urals, as a regional representative for the Kremlin. During the recent wave of anti-government protests, Kholmanskikh offered on national television to rally his “boys” to come to Moscow to “defend stability” if the police couldn’t “handle it.”

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 14:55

ta for the clarification.

My point was that not all Vlad's opposition are al CIAda

No not all of them are - but the ones being relied upon to make the case for electoral fraud are, in the main, ALL Traitors in the pay of the US

I dont have an agenda, other than information and retention of balance as the ship tilts for the final plunge.

Nor did I ever claim you did have one Opus - but the person posting under 4 different names in this thread obviously DOES have an agenda - one that involves trying to hide the FACT that the those being quoted in the Western Corporate media claiming fraud are in fact in the main paid Traitors in the service of Russia's arch enemy the US

Quoting these traitors as if their words were anything but the completely predictable utterances of paid traitors, as Ivan (or whatever he's calling himself today) has done, is just plain dishonest.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 15:03

"Since reoccupying the office of the presidency on May 7"

What they really mean is

Since winning the election for the presidency on May 7

but of course writing 'reocuppying' sounds much more nefarious and helps further the CIA-sponsored agenda of demonising the Russian Gov't/Presidency, which 'Ivan' and all the other so-called 'socialists' seem hell-bent on promoting here.

I was not aware that helping to further CIA-sponsored agendas was a socialist principle, but 'Ivan' (or whatever he's calling himself today) and all the other so-called 'socialists' that he keeps copy&pasting whole articles from, seem to think otherwise.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 15:14

If they had a Supreme Court like the do in the US that court could just have installed Putin in the presidency, just like the US Supreme Court did with George Bush in 2000 ;-)

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jun 26, 2012 15:20

What would Americans or any other Western country say if they found their polling stations and certain political parties entirely infiltrated by Chinese (or Japanese or Iranian) money, Chinese (or Japanese or Iranian) observers, and Chinese-backed or Japanese-backed or Iranian-backed) candidates promoting China's (or Japan's or Iran's) interests in an AMERICAN (or other western nations) election?

The answer ranges from incarceration, to trials featuring charges ranging from fraud, to sedition and even treason with sentences ranging from decades to life in prison, perhaps even death, as well as possible military action for what could easily be considered an act of war.

In the main Putin has done none of this.

In fact he has been quite constrained from what I can see.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Jun 26, 2012 15:42

..watching the shit accumulate, but the surprise expressed surprises me.

Anyone who has followed the trail since 9/11(never mind Korea and Viet Nam) should have the Pentagonian runaway express measured by now. Anyone who watched the dirty-tricks brigade up north since the sixties, and was interested enough to look into the origins of its origins in US civil rights should be acquainted with the methodologies in operation. Seeing the narcissistic sectarianism of Dublin's 'Left' in the sixties/seventies helped the education too. It is, after all, all about shedding the illusions.

If not, once again, I suggest reading Eduardo Galeano's 'Open Veins of Latin America', and Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' for primers.

Then factor in your PNAC and the rest falls into place. Its globalised totalitarian dictatorship of the corporatariat, and it will wear a Muslim Brotherhood face in Egypt, or social-democratic mask as required. They OWN the mask and myth-making media. They either set up or infiltrate every opposition movement. Hence my own non-stick brands. Labour was already in their tent when the RHP left the damp-squib factory in the late '80s. About nine people realised I wasn't actually just cracking a smart-arsed joke at the PDs, but pointing at the point of the spearhead of Reagan/Thatcherite asset-stripping concentrated, cadred, and funded(instantaneously). The mediacrats were likewise incorporated, as I soon learned as the cats headed for tree canopy at the sight of my carrier pigeon.

The only way i see to tackle it is to keep it global. Chavez and Latin America are coming soon as the fresh batch of terrorists 'instigators'...no doubt they'll get to us when they are ready. Predictions are Iran for the Halloween Party.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Thu Jun 28, 2012 00:18

http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/2012-06-26%20Eric%20Dr...r.mp3

Eric Draitser of StopImperialism.com. jinterviewed by James Corbett of the Corbett Report. discusses Putin’s re-election as Russian President last month and what this means on the global stage

We talk about the threat that Putin poses to the Western power bloc’s imperial ambitions, the destabilization campaign in Russia and its ties to Western NGOs, Russia-Sino relations, and the latest developments in Syria.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:01

those links aint opening for me.

by ACP Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:56

. . . "Save As . . "

by Ivano Fri Jun 29, 2012 18:46

From the Russian State Television Site.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

United Russia borrows Soviet idea, plans opening party schools
http://rt.com/politics/party-political-ideology-schools...-032/
Published: 29 June, 2012, 12:55

RIA Novosti/Aleksey Filippov

TAGS: Election, Russia, Politics, Education
In a throwback to Soviet times, the majority United Russia party is considering opening party schools to train new personnel and activists to meet the challenge of increased political competition across the country.

United Russia opened a discussion with political analysts and education experts this week on the principles of organizing such schools: who should be taught, what, and how.

The majority of those participating in the round table meeting agreed that party schools should be opened not only for United Russia members, but also for its supporters. Ideology should become the cornerstone of any such training course.
“A party school must have a mission of political education – it should not only train a party member, but, first of all, it should raise a civil activist,” senior party member Aleksey Chesnakov said, as cited by Rossiyskaya Gazeta daily.
Experts thus far agree that there is no need for the creation of a new college or university. Rather there should be two levels of training: one for ordinary party activists and, also, a kind of a magistrate for political managers, PR specialists and political technologists, writes Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
The idea of political schools had previously been supported by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev – the chairman of United Russia. Speaking at a party meeting earlier in June, he noted that party schools existed in the Soviet Union. However, teaching there was very formal.
“Our party needs training aimed at a normal dialogue with the whole of civil society,” Medvedev said.
Meanwhile, the Communist party (KPRF) as well as the right-wing opposition are also mulling over the idea of political education.
Experts link the new trend to increased electoral competition between parties.

by Ivana Fri Jun 29, 2012 18:51

From the Russian State Television Site.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Russian HR watchdog to check ban on gay propaganda
http://rt.com/politics/homosexuality-matter-national-se...-034/
Published: 29 June, 2012, 13:25
Edited: 29 June, 2012, 18:01

One of the gay rights activists takes part in their rally in Saint-Petersburg on May 17, 2012 (AFP Photo/Olga Maltseva)

TAGS: Russia, Protest, Politics, Human rights, Law
Russia’s top Human Rights watchdog, The Public Chamber is planning to check if recently introduced laws banning gay propaganda are constitutional.
Public Chamber member Yelena Lukyanova is a professor of constitutional law, and said in a newspaper interview that some of the chamber members think the laws targeting gay propaganda are limiting freedom of expression. The Public Chamber suggests if the laws are not repealed as being anti-constitutional, a precise formula on what can be considered propaganda should be introduced.

Lukyanova said the Public Chamber will have hearings and pass a resolution on the subject in the near future.

“We should thoroughly check into these laws’ conformity with the Constitution. It says that the rights can only be limited if there is a threat to national security. But is homosexuality a threat to national security? Is not is an artificial limitation, just as it was with the law on rallies?” the activist told the Izvestia newspaper, adding that it was necessary to start a broad public discussion regarding such initiatives.

Another member of the Public Chamber, Yelena Toppoleva-Soldunova, saysin her view it was completely unnecessary to introduce separate laws banning gay propaganda as it was possible to make exactly the same limitation in already existing legal acts.

“We should distinguish between what is admissible and what is not. If someone is announcing his or her sexual orientation, this cannot be banned, but it is completely inadmissible to make children’s television programs that promote homosexuality,” Topoleva-Soldunova said.

One of the leaders of the Russian gay rights movement, Nikolai Alekseyev, has welcomed the Public Chamber’s initiative and that the existing laws should be probed by lawyers, experts and psychologists. “In reality we are about 30 years behind in this process. They introduced anti-gay laws in Britain in the 80s under Margaret Thatcher, but later they cancelled them all in the 2000s. The same will happen in our country,” Alekseyev said.

This year some Russian politicians started an active campaign against so-called gay propaganda – a special law was approved and signed into force in St. Petersburg, prompting legislatures in the cities of Samara, Ryazan, Arkhangelsk, Novosibirsk and Kostroma to introduce administrative fines for propaganda of homosexuality. A group of parliamentarians have suggested approving a similar law on a nationwide scale.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 03, 2012 08:19

"Russia targets foreign funded [Traitors]" - (my edit) http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0703/122....html

The law could see 1,000 organisations, including anti-corruption group Transparency International and Russia’s only independent vote-monitoring group, Golos, required to sign on to the register, an unnamed Kremlin source told Ria Novosti news agency.

Transparency International is a dogged critic of graft and bribes in Russia, while Golos logged thousands of alleged (little-to-no evidence ever provided) vote-rigging complaints in recent parliamentary and presidential elections.

Aleksandr Sidyakin, a deputy for the ruling United Russia party and co-author of the Bill, said it would force foreign-funded NGOs to “reveal the true nature of their activities”.

Mr Sidyakin’s draft, due to have its first reading in the State Duma (parliament) on Friday, would require all NGOs funded by foreign doners and involved in “political activity” to submit to tougher financial audits and put the label “foreign agents” on their websites and publications.

“This is done with one sole objective – to discredit our organisations in the eyes of citizens,” said Ludmilla Alekseeva, a former Soviet dissident who leads the Moscow Helsinki human rights group.

As mentioned earlier:

Russia’s only independent vote-monitoring group, Golos

is nothing of the sort - there is nothiung "independent" about Golos. As stated on the NED (US State Dept front group) website (and therefore easily accesible to the socalled 'journalist' that wrote this drivel - - Golos is funded by the United States government.

And once again the IT is simply lying-by-ommision when it mentions the Moscow Helsinki group

“This is done with one sole objective – to discredit our organisations in the eyes of citizens,” said Ludmilla Alekseeva, a former Soviet dissident who leads the Moscow Helsinki human rights group

Well Ludmilla your organisation is funded by

• European Commission (generally Anti-Russian)
  
• Ford Foundation (USA - presumably Anti-Russian)
  
• MacArthur's Foundation (USA - presumably Anti-Russian)
  
• National Endowment for Democracy (USA State Dept - DEFIN ITELY Anti-Russian)
  
• Open Society Institute/Budapest (George Soros, billionaire raper-of-Soverign economies - Well known to be Anti-Russian)
  
• USAID (CIA front-Group - Do I even need to list them as Anti-Russian?)

SO it appears Ludmilla that you yourselves are well capable of discrediting your own organisation in the eyes of Russian citizens, and to be honest it doesn't really look like you need much help from the Kremlin in that regard.

by Barry Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:58

Antti Rautiainen lived in Moscow for 13 years, participating in anarchist activities. His residence permit was revoked in March of this year, allegedly because he "called for a violent overthrow of constitutional order, or otherwise endangered the safety of Russian Federation or its citizens". He is member of Autonomous Action and the Anarchist Black Cross of Moscow.

The anarchist movement in Moscow has faced huge challenges in this period, we strongly encourage you to come along and hear Antti's first hand account of these experiences.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/102070

Saturday July 7th, at 5pm Solidarity Books Cork.

by Anti-CIa Propaganda Tue Jul 03, 2012 14:34

Some Finnish guy travels to a foreign country, one which his own country has been at war with in the last 70 years or so, and one which his own country has helped other foreign powers wage a 'cold war' with during most of those 70 years, and one in which he has no recognised 'right' to reside: moral, legal or otherwise

He presumably takes part in political actions, possibly designed to stir up trouble in this state of which he is not a citizen, certainly he is accused of "call[ing] for a violent overthrow of constitutional order, or otherwise endangered the safety of Russian Federation or its citizens".

Then, when the authorities there finally tire of his antics all they do is boot him out rather than, say, incarcerate him, as might happen in many 'Western' States.

Certainly far worse things have happened quite recently to totally innocent 'foreigners' in the UK, the US & Canda to name but 3 'Western' so-called 'Democratic' War-mongering NATO countries

And you come here and present all this as a 'BAD' thing, yes?

Me personally I can't see the problem - perhaps he should have concentrated on Finland rather than travelling to a foreign country, Russia, to stir up political unrest, no?

After all the Russian authorities have no obligation to allow outside agitators to enter their State and stir up trouble, do they?

Seems to me they treated him fairly decently by allowing him in there in the first place and allowing him to engage in political action for so long, and in return he appears to have done nothing but cause trouble.

At the end of the day all they did was prevent him causing futher trouble in a State he is not a citizen of, and kindy sent him back to the land of his birth

So where exactly is the problem here?

Was he tortured?

Was he unessecarily incarceated for a lenghty period of time?

Was he mentally or physically abused?

by Anti-CIa Propaganda Tue Jul 03, 2012 14:54

According to the linked info - http://avtonom.org/en/news/antti-rautiainen-denied-russ...quest

In Helsinki, Rautiainen applied for a tourist visa for the month of August through a tourist agency. However, this visa request was denied. No explanations were given, but one may assume, that the reasons are political - that is, Rautiainen's anarchist activity in the ranks of Autonomous Action.

Personally I would presume that the reason he was denied a TOURIST Visa is because he was not a 'tourist' - by his own admission he was involved in Political action, not tourism such as visiting Russia's many beautfiul forests or it's many museums and Art Galleries.

As such it certainly appears that he applied for a TOURIST Visa under blatantly Flase pretences - since it's pretty obvious that he had no intention of visiting Russia for the purpose of 'TOURISM', no?

So one may assume, that he is either blacklisted by Russian secret services, or embassy denied him a visa on an individual basis.

Again, personally I would assume that "the embassy denied him a visa on an individual basis" due to the FACT that he applied for such a visa under blatantly false pretences.

THAT would appear to be a far more reasonable interpretation of his being refused entry into Russia, IMHO.

Like I said earlier - at no point does it appear that he was abused in anyway, nor was he incarcerated, nor was he threatened in any way.

"However, Rautiainen does not expect to be able to enter the Russian Federation anytime soon."

So why exactly should anyone care about this?

I too don't expect to be able to enter the Russian Federation anytime soon, either - will the WSM produce black and red posters highlighting this and hold a meeting for me anytime soon?

by Bakunin Tue Jul 03, 2012 19:47

"After all the Russian authorities have no obligation to allow outside agitators to enter their State and stir up trouble, do they?"

Going on that logic then the Irish government should also ban "outside agitators". International activists are involved in many campaigns in Ireland from Shell2Sea, Seomra Spraoi, Campaign Against Household charges, Latin American Solidarity Centre. Should they be deported?

"Again, personally I would assume that "the embassy denied him a visa on an individual basis" due to the FACT that he applied for such a visa under blatantly false pretences"

Many asylum seekers apply for a visa/refugee status using "false pretences". Should they be deported for this?

You are adopting reactionary positions because you will not accept any criticism of how Putin runs Russia.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 03, 2012 22:55

Personally I couldn't give a damn whether or not I fit your ridiculous definition of what 'progressive' is or is not

What I do know is that certain people around here seem to be hell-bent on joining in the current NATO/CIA/Western-Media campaign to demonise all things Russian.

That these people call themselves Socialist is an utter joke - the so-called 'Socialist' posting here and the other so-called 'Socialists' whose words have been quoted here, deliberately neglected to inform readers here that the people that were quoted in the articles they were linking to were actually being paid by the US Gov't.

That is quite simply a deliberate hiding of these easily discovered facts - and that is nothing but engaging in a propaganda campaign - but for some reason, despite your faux 'progressive' stance, you somehow neglected to address ANY of that.

there is NOTHING Socialist about the NATO/CIA demonisation campaign these so-called 'Socialists' are engaged in. For them to call themselves 'Socialists' while happily partaking in a demonistaion campaign of the only nation actually standing up to the NATO-CIA psychopaths is nothing short of a fraud

when I hear the phrase 'progressive', when applied to politics, it usually makes me puke - and here's why - usually someone is trying to justify something pretty unjustifiable (in most peoples viewpoint), so they wrap their bullshit up in a veneer of 'progressive politics' because all their other arguments are just nonsense, and provably so, and your reply fits that description to a 'T'.

Lets deal with a little very relevant history -something you neglected to address in your attack on me posted above - About 100 yrs ago Russia had a history of very violent Anarchists bombing the place regularly - and many of these Anarchists WERE suspected of being financed by outside forces.

One thing we CAN be pretty sure of is that the Bolsheviks were financed by outside forces - so Russia has a well-founded suspicion of foreigners coming in from outside and engaging in Politicial agitation - many of the early Bolsheviks actually were outsiders, many of them from the US, and were financed partly by Wall Street bankers, intent on destroying Russia - and they managed it too once the Bolsheviks got into power they destroyed Russian society and it's intelligensia

If you'd bother to read any of the linked material about this Finnish guy (something I seriously doubt you bothered to do) you might have noticed that the guy himself at least had the honesty to acknowledge that - which is not something I can say for you or the person that posted the link to the article on him and his inability to secure a Tourist visa.

"Going on that logic then the Irish government should also ban "outside agitators". International activists are involved in many campaigns in Ireland from Shell2Sea, Seomra Spraoi, Campaign Against Household charges, Latin American Solidarity Centre. Should they be deported?"

So IMHO your ridiculous and rather pathetic comparison above is a woefully inadequate one -

For example :

• is the Irish Gov't currently going against the whole of the Western World and all it's Nuclear armed Gangster NATO states in trying to prevent yet another NATO/CIA slaughter in an Arab country? No
  
• As a result of their attempts to prevent yet another NATO/CIA slaughter in the Middle East is the Irish Gov't currently the target of a demonisation campaign co-ordinated between NATO/CIA and the so-called 'Western' media? No
  
• Are any of these International Activists that you refer to currently in the pay of nuclear-armed, and already twice proven deadly, sworn enemies of the Irish people? Not that I know of - and if I found out that any of them were I'd be first in line to help deport the fuckers, and I'd expect any Irish person would be too, otherwise I'd happily label them TRAITOR too.
  
• Are Irish opposition political parties currently being almost solely financed by these destructive Nuclear armed outside forces, which appear hell-bent on destroying Irish society? Not that I know of - the Irish Political parties seem hell-bent on destroying Irsih society all by themselves.
  PS: I'd be delighted if the Irish gov't had shown even one tenth of the backbone Putin has shown, and immediately deported any and all representatives of the ECB/IMF/EU that it found on Irish soil.
  

Many asylum seekers apply for a visa/refugee status using "false pretences". Should they be deported for this?

THAT Possibly the most ridiculous part of your whole screed
the Finnish Guy IS NOT an Asylum Seeker though is he?

By his own admission he is nothing but an outside agitator and can quite happily return to his home nation any time he wants to- he is under no threat of ANY kind there whatsoever so to be honest your attempt to link Asylum seekers and this Finnish Guy is patently ridiculous

AND applying for a visa and applying for refugee status are two completely different things, despite your rather dishonest attempt to make it look as if they are one and the same.

AND YES I do believe that if someone applies for a VISA under false pretense they SHOULD be deported - and I care not whether faux-Socialists and 'Anarchists' such as yourself agree with that or not - -

but this Finnish guy wasn't DEPORTED - again if you had read ANY of the linked material or even properly read my previous post you would know that since I mentioned it there,

AND the IRISH Gov't currently does deport people that apply for TOURIST Visas under false pretenses (something I support) and also has deported many Asylum Seekers (NOT something I support)

ALSO the Irish Gov't incarcerates large amounts of Asylum Seekers in PRISON (NOT something I support)
- The Russian Gov't however did NONE of these things to the Finnish Guy.

So essentially YOUR OWN Gov't behaves far far worse, in circumstances far far less threatening to Irish Society, than does the Russian Gov't - you lot are total hypocrites.

If you so-called 'Socialists' and so-called 'Anarchists' were to deal with the problems or YOUR OWN GOV't first before you run around pointing fingers at the Russian Gov't which in this instance has behaved far better than does your own Gov't, you would appear a tad less hypocritical and a tad less in lock-step with the NATO-CIA-backed demonisation/propaganda campaign currently being waged against Russia.

You are adopting reactionary positions because you will not accept any criticism of how Putin runs Russia.

Actually I'm inclined to the belief that "how Putin runs Russia" is something for the Russians to be concerned with, and not something a bunch of so-called Socialists and anarchists who can't even get their own Gov't to behave as well as the Russian Gov't has in this instance, should be attacking them for. If you lot were able to get the Irish gov't to behave as well as the Russians have in this instance THEN you might have a case, but Irish Socialists and Anarchist have been particularly ineffective (nothing new there then) in this regard and really don't have a leg to stand on in this instance.

The Russians certainly should not have to deal with US Financed fake opposition and outside infiltrating Political Agitators, given their history with foreign financed 'revolutions' and Anarchist bombers

And I really can think of few things more 'reactionary' than so-called 'Socialists' refusing to inform readers here that the opposition figures that they are quoting from are in fact paid operatives of the US Gov't

So-called Socialists joining in a NATO/CIA inspired demonisation campaign, by deliberately hiding the fact that much of the so-called 'opposition' in in fact US financed FAKE opposition, is rather 'Reactionary' imho - and I notice that YOU had precisely ZERO words to say about any of that

So you can take your 'reactionary' and your faux 'progressive' and try and fool someone else with that nonsense, cos it ain't gonna fly here mate

by Bakunin Tue Jul 03, 2012 23:21

"One thing we CAN be pretty sure of is that the Bolsheviks were financed by outside forces - so Russia has a well-founded suspicion of foreigners coming in from outside and engaging in Politicial agitation - many of the early Bolsheviks actually were outsiders, many of them from the US, and were financed partly by Wall Street bankers, intent on destroying Russia - and they managed it too once the Bolsheviks got into power they destroyed Russian society and it's intelligensia "

I am very much a critic of the way the Bolsheviks degenerated but this is tin foil hat stuff. What are your sources and references for these assertions?

This is very much like those conspiracy theories that claim the Rothschild family are behind everything that happens. There are even claims that the Rothschild family financed and founded both the Nazis and the Bolsheviks.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 03, 2012 23:39

at the end of the day you are just latching onto that to avoid dealing with the accusation that your earlier reply to me is ridiculously hypocritical

I never said anything about the Rothschilds - that's just stuff you made up. That you have to stoop to ranting on about 'tinfoil hats' in an effort to distract from ALL the other issues raised in the rest of my post is a little pathetic to be honest

But if you must know Wall Street Banker Jacob Schiff
, amongst many others, helped financed Bolshevism - This is well known so why you pretend that it is a conspircay theory is surprising - unless of course you are just attempting to feing ignorance so as to avoid dealing wihth the fact the your ridiculous comparisons have beeen shown to be ridiculous

Now instead of trying to distract from the fact that you are avoiding dealing with the many issues raised in my last reply to you, would you attempt to address the core issues here, rather than attempting to derail the conversation into something you THOUGHT was 'safe-ground' for you?

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Tue Jul 03, 2012 23:42

rather than just another lame attempt to divert the topic of converation into silly little attempts by you at labeling others as 'conspiracy theorists'

by Bakunin Tue Jul 03, 2012 23:58

What are your sources for this assertion of Wall Street backing the Bolsheviks? Hopefully it will be a non-conspiracy theory book or website.

If outsiders should stop interfering in Russia then why are you defending the present Russian Government? Surely you are interfering by doing so.?

Or is it a case of do as I say, not as I do?

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 00:12

What are your sources for this assertion of Wall Street backing the Bolsheviks? Hopefully it will be a non-conspiracy theory book or website.

as predicted you are still attempting to distract from the fact that you are avoiding the core issues

I'm not going to play your little game .

Jacob Schiff IS NOT the core issue here, so your attempt to take us down that alley-way is quite laughable and is an utterly transarent attempt tio avoid the actual issues raised by me earlier

there's plenty of info, well sourced, written by many well known historians that detail Schiff's financing of the Bolsheviks - you're a grown up (suppossedly) so you can find it for yourself.

So I have no intention of playing along with to your little attempt at distracting from the fact that you are avoiding dealing with vitrually ALL the issues raised in my comment posted @ Jul 03, 2012 22:55

If outsiders should stop interfering in Russia then why are you defending the present Russian Government? Surely you are interfering by doing so.?

That reply is remarkably nonsensical, even by the woeful standards already set by the faux-Socialists postiung here - and oif course is yet another lame attempt by you to avoid address virtually ALL the issues raised by me in in my comment posted @ Jul 03, 2012 22:55

Your continued refusal to talk about ANYTHING other than the core issues is very obvious, and hilariously inept as well

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 00:30

the sentence
"Your continued refusal to talk about ANYTHING other than the core issues is very obvious, and hilariously inept as well"

should of course read:

Your continued attempts to talk about ANYTHING other than the core issues is very obvious, and hilariously inept as well

by Bakunin Wed Jul 04, 2012 00:30

You utterly lack credibility, you can give no references for your bizarre assertions regarding the Bolsheviks. Putin has cracked down on all democratic rights yet you support him. Anyone who stands up for human rights is smeared by you.

Are you a paid propaganda agent or just a sad little man who hero-worships dictators?

by Bakunin Wed Jul 04, 2012 00:41

Film about Vladimir Putin, directed by Jean Michel Carré.

Caption: Video Id: zA-1qQF5UpY Type: Youtube Video
From KGB Agent To President.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 00:51

Resorting to childish name calling is a clear sign that you rreally have no rational reply to my comment posted @ Jul 03, 2012 22:55 and are trying to distract from that

whether you like it or not Putin was elected in a democratic election.

That is a fact you cannot change - all you have as evidence to the contrary is the very unreliable allegations of people in the pay of the US Gov;'t - sworn enemies of the Russians

anyone that would rely on the claims of paid traitors is quite obviously on very dodgy ground.

So far these Traiotrs in the pay of the US Gov't have proovided little or no evidence to back up their claims - you're welcome to base your whole argument on the very dubious claims, backed up by no evidence, of a bunch of traitors in the pay of the US Gov't - just don't act all surprised when you get laughed at for doing so, cos THAT will just make you look very silly indeed

Calling Putin a dictator is childish, and of course perfectly in lock-step with the current CIA/NATO demonisation campaign against ALL things Russian, since it should be fairly clear to any rational person that he WAS elected in an open and democratic election

"You utterly lack credibility, you can give no references for your bizarre assertions regarding the Bolsheviks. "

You keep banging that drum, kiddo - hopefully at least one person will be fooled by your attempt to distract from the FACT that you have avoided dealing with ALL the core issues addressed by me earlier - that way your efforts at distraction won't be a TOTAL FAILURE, eh?

"Are you a paid propaganda agent or just a sad little man who hero-worships dictators?"

Neither - you simply shouting repeatedly that 'Putin is a Dictaor!' just won't make it so, Mr 'Bakunin'

One thing is obvious: YOU are avoiding-like-the-plague discussing the core issues while trying your damndest to help futher the current NATO/CIA propaganda campaign against Russia - pretending to be a socialist or an anarchist while obviously spreading NATO/CIA propaganda is a rather transparent tactic at this stage though

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 01:04

You utterly lack credibility, you can give no references for your bizarre assertions regarding the Bolsheviks.

ok here's some references for you - maybe it'll shut you up on the 'conspiracy theorist' nonsense you keep banging on about, and that way you can no longer have an excuse for AVOIDING dealing with the many issues raised in my comment posted @ Jul 03, 2012 22:55
- http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101738?author_name=Anti...90654

1) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F15FA...DF1D3
2 ) Jewish Communal Register of New York City, 1917-1918, Second Edition, Kehillah, New York, (1919), p. 1019
3) Steed, Henry Wickham. Through thirty years, 1892-1922: a personal narrative, Volume 2. Doubleday, Page & Company, 1924. p. 302
4) Sutton, Antony. Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, Vol. II. Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, 1973. p. 340n

Now that you have those you can cease with the pretence and continue to avoid the core issues

Only this time it will be very obvious to anyone reading this just exactly what you are doing

And to be honest - whens omeone I consider to be a fake-socialist accuses me of 'lacking credibility' I personally take THAT as a compliment -

If it were ever to be said of me that I have any credibility with faux(and Fake) 'Socialists', I can assure you that that would be something that would haunt and shame me to my dying day

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 01:18

Note: The So-called Socialist/Anarchist/Whatever, 'Bakunin' has avoided acknowledging that most of the Russian 'Opposition' is bought and paid for by the US Gov't

Which to be honest is rather strange behaviour for a REAL socilaist - but not so strange for a Fake Socialist I suppose

That fact the Bakunin (IMHO a FAKE Socialist/Anarchist) has point-blank refused so far to even acknowledge the scope and depth of US Gov't infiltration into the Russian Political system is all the proof needed that he's really only interested in demonising Russia.

And in that he is marching arm in arm with the NATO/CIA propaganda campaign against Russia

Which is again rather curious behaviour for a so-called Socialist/Anarchist/Whatever.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 01:53

From the book "Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership" By Naomi Wiener Cohen
http://books.google.ie/books?id=fpIOia8QxyYC&pg=PA137&l...hl=en

Screen shot via Google Books - Jacob Schiff helped finance the Bolsheviks, years before the Revolution

by Bakunin Wed Jul 04, 2012 02:26

So claims by warmongers at a pro war rally are evidence!

And a biography by a rabid zionist is supposed to convince us?

Interesting, behind it all lies (of course) the zionists.

Putin looks after their interests.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 02:41

William Boyce Thompson, was an American mining engineer, financier, promoter of Western support for the revolutionary Alexander Kerensky and Bolshevik governments of Russia, philanthropist, and founder of Newmont Mining.

In the book "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" By Antony C. Sutton - Chapter V - http://www.scribd.com/doc/83087104/Antony-C-Sutton-Wall...ution

it states :

Acting as head of an American Red Cross mission to Russia, W.B. Thompson's contribution of $1Million to the Bolshevik cause was recorded in the contemporary American press.

The Washington Post of February 2, 1918, carried the following paragraphs:

GIVES BOLSHEVIKI A MILLION

W. B. Thompson, Red Cross Donor, Believes Party Misrepresented. New York, Feb. 2 (1918).

William B. Thompson, who was in Petrograd from July until November last, has made a personal contribution of $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviki for the purpose of spreading their doctrine in Germany and Austria.

Mr. Thompson had an opportunity to study Russian conditions as head of the American Red Cross Mission, expenses of which also were largely defrayed by his personal contributions. He believes that the Bolsheviki constitute the greatest power against Pro-Germanism in Russia and that their propaganda has been undermining the militarist regimes of the General Empires.

Mr. Thompson deprecates American criticism of the Bolsheviki. He believes they have been misrepresented and has made the financial contribution to the cause in the belief that it will be money well spent for the future of Russia as well as for the Allied cause.

Hermann Hagedorn's biography The Magnate: William Boyce Thompson and His Time (1869-1930) reproduces a photograph of a cablegram from J.P. Morgan in New York to W. B. Thompson, "Care American Red Cross, Hotel Europe, Petrograd." The cable is date-stamped, showing it was received at Petrograd "8-Dek 1917" (8 December 1917), and reads:

New York Y757/5 24W5 Nil — Your cable second received. We have paid National City Bank one million dollars as instructed — Morgan.

The National City Bank branch in Petrograd had been exempted from the Bolshevik nationalization decree — the only foreign or domestic Russian bank to have been so exempted.

Hagedorn says that this million dollars paid into Thompson's NCB account was used for "political purposes."

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 02:52

So claims by warmongers at a pro war rally are evidence!

And a biography by a rabid zionist is supposed to convince us?

Interesting, behind it all lies (of course) the zionists.

Putin looks after their interests.

No - I doubt anytrhing would convince YOU -

but you asked for references and were given them - and now you are using them to try and disguise THE FACT that you are STILL refusing to discuss the many issues addressed by me in my comment posted @ Jul 03, 2012 22:55

Just as I earlier said you would - typical of obfuscators the world over you just simply dismiss all that is inconvenient to your narrative as 'LIES!!' -

This despite the fact that the references provided come from diverse sources -

Typical of the dishonesty you have displayed thus far, you seek to dishoonestly , and a little hysterically, dismiss them all as 'The Lies of Zionsts!!'

Tthis despite the fact that you were given at least FIVE sopurces so far - and few of them could be truthfully described as 'Zionists' -

seriously, could you be ANY more ridiculous?

Now that you've been provided with the sources that you shrilly demanded, you will of course continue to ignore the the many issues addressed by me in my comment posted @ Jul 03, 2012 22:55

Just as I predicted you would earlier ;-)

You're nothing if not totally transparent in your attempts to distract. And rather inept at it too ;-)

by Bakunin Wed Jul 04, 2012 02:56

Putin was recruited by MOSSAD while he was still in the KGB, shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall. While he clawed his way up the political ladder in St Petersburg, Putin was very much a creature of the Zionists. As he advanced and finally became president he also became more of his own man but owes a debt to the Zionists, not just MOSSAD but also the Zionist Oligarchs who funded his rise. He has partially repaid this debt with his war of extermination against Chechen people.

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 03:01

Note: The So-called Socialist is STILL avoiding acknowledging that most of the Russian 'Opposition' is bought and paid for by the US Gov't

Which is pretty silly since even the US Gov't acknowledges it on the N.E.D. website

Is it a 'Socialist Principle' to deny the, (obvious and failry undeniable at this stage,) fact the the Russia Opposition is financed by the US Gov't?

Mr 'Bakunin' obviously seems to think that it is

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 03:07

Putin was recruited by MOSSAD while he was still in the KGB, shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall. While he clawed his way up the political ladder in St Petersburg, Putin was very much a creature of the Zionists. As he advanced and finally became president he also became more of his own man but owes a debt to the Zionists, not just MOSSAD but also the Zionist Oligarchs who funded his rise. He has partially repaid this debt with his war of extermination against Chechen people.

Wow - you REALLY are a piece of work, eh?

After trying to smear others as 'tin foil hat' merchants here you are diving head-first into the deep end of the Conspiraloon swimming pool, and sporting your finest Tin Foil Hat too!!

Well done - you've surpassed yourself in ridiculousness - not to mention hypocrisy

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 03:10

So screaming 'Zionist!!' at everyone is your latest new-fangled ruse to distract everyone from the FACt that you are STILL avoiding addressing virtually ALL the issues raised by me in in my comment posted @ Jul 03, 2012 22:55, is it?

Well good luck with that - but I don't think you'll fool too many people with that mularkey

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Wed Jul 04, 2012 03:37

That fact the Bakunin (IMHO a FAKE Socialist/Anarchist) has point-blank refused so far to even acknowledge the scope and depth of US Gov't infiltration into the Russian Political system is all the proof needed that he's really only interested in demonising Russia.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:34

..find this new comment format messy?

Its also troll friendly, in that instead of each topic being prominently listed a couple of co-ordinated megaphonic blasters can demote everything but the footy with a deluge of noise.

Ideal for burial parties who don't want certain topics highlighted.

I hope I will be allowed this editorial comment as the direct 'contact us' line seems to be out.

Feedback please.

by Turing Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:25

Click on 'show comments per story' it brings it back to one comment per story. Its on the right hand side above the comments.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Wed Jul 04, 2012 15:48

But when I hit 'save preferences' it don't lock it...keeps reverting and needing reset...What am I missing..besides the requisite neurons?

by Anti-CIA Propaganda Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:47

Because they have suddenly stopped referring to 'GOLOS' as "Independent"

and even managed to FINALLY get around to mentioning that GOLOS is financed by the US State Dept (and the EU) - but of course they neglected to mention that both the EU and the US are considered by any sane person to be Anti-Russian

Russian lawmakers to vote on bill targeting NGOs [in reciept of Funding from hostile foreign Gov'ts] [my edit] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10323373

AP foreign, Friday July 6 2012

LAURA MILLS

Associated Press= A Kremlin-backed law being considered would impose harsh regulations on all of Russia's foreign-funded non-governmental organizations involved in political activity...........;...

............ Grigory Melkonyants, deputy director of Golos, a group that compiled evidence of thousands of electoral violations [No they did not - they mostly compilied ALLEGATIONS, and little else ] in Russia's recent elections, says authorities would now have "a hundred different ways to render us ineffective."

The pro-democracy group depends on grants from European nations and the United States.

If GOLOS were providing a service deemed useful by the majority of Russian citizens, would tthey really need to be financed by Gov'ts known to be hostile to Russia?

by pat c Fri Jul 06, 2012 14:17

I posted this article on 20 April specifically about Pussy Riot, in defence of a punk band. If an Irish punk band played in a church then maybe some here would be more supportive.

I even asked people to contact Putin:

Putin does have a sense of humour and is unlikely to be upset at being lampooned in a punk song. Whats more worrying here is the Orthodox Church saying that the event should be treated more seriously because it took place inside a church. Normally this sort of incident would attract a maximum six month sentence.

Freedom of expression should be defended and more importantly the Orthodox Church should not be above criticism.

Please go to the following link and send a (polite) message to President Putin asking him to intervene in this case to secure the release of the women and to pardon them if they are convicted.

The thread degenerated on both sides.

I'd like to bring this back to Pussy Riot and defend them against the charges of blasphemy. As I wrote, Putin does have a sense of humour and despite actions for public consumption hes not a holy joe.

You could still send a polite message to Putin asking him to intervene on behalf of Pussy Riot.

For the record I think Putin is a capitalist and is of an anti-democratic disposition but at least he to some extent tamed the oligarchs and the neo-liberals. The current opposition includes neo-liberals who would worsen workers conditions. The left should distance themselves from these elements.

Putins foreign policy is to be admired even if it does serve Russuas own interests to some extent. However it is not exploitative as Chinas foreign policy tends to be.

by ACP Thu Jul 12, 2012 08:28

"Putins foreign policy is to be admired even if it does serve Russuas own interests to some extent"

Everyone's Foreign Policy serves their own ends - those ends vary from country to country, but unless your foreign policy helps serve your own ends then there's not much point in having one

Also Putin's domestic policy, which some are complaining about here, seems also to serve Russia's own interests - which is far more than can be said for IRISH Gov't domestic policies at the moment - The Irish leaders seem hell-bent on handing us over the the exact same sort of people that deliberately destroyed Russian society 20 yrs ago.

Perhaps those complaining about others domestic policies might be better served concentrating on their own Gov'ts domestic policies rather than on the domestic policies of Russians.

Here's Putin's thoughts on what happened to Russia when they let western backed traitors such as Yeltsin into Power - http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1058688.html

Speaking to the nation in his annual address, Putin used some of his strongest language to describe his country's fate over the past 14 years.


"The collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," Putin said. "For the Russian people, it became a real drama. Tens of millions of our citizens and countrymen found themselves outside Russian territory. The epidemic of disintegration also spread to Russia itself."

Now for some strange reason some people want the Russians to do that again. well they're not THAT stupid, hopefully

by pat c Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:41

"The collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," Putin said. "For the Russian people, it became a real drama. Tens of millions of our citizens and countrymen found themselves outside Russian territory. The epidemic of disintegration also spread to Russia itself."

Agree with that. Putin has also moved against some of the oligarchs, but he is still a capitalist. But then Russia has also announced that it will continue to supply arms to Russia. No problems there.

But his domestic policies also include repressive legislation against his opponents who include the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. I also doubt if anyone here would support the anti-gay legislation introduced.

I doubt if Putin himself supports the anti-gay laws, its just something he allowed to happen. But now the Orthodox Church are becoming more emboldened and want Facebook banned on the basis that it encourages homosexuality. They are even calling for homosexual acts to be outlawed.

This is something that Putin should be lobbied about. If its ok for people outside of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia to raise concern about whats happening there, then only a hypocrite would suggest that its wrong to lobby about Russias internal politics.

Which brings me back to the story that started off this thread: a request that people politely lobby President Putin on behalf of Pussy Riot.

by W. Finnerty Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:39

Reply to pat c at Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:41

RE: "a request that people politely lobby President Putin on behalf of Pussy Riot"

Perhaps they should.

Perhaps people in the Republic of Ireland -- in the interests of balance -- should also politely lobby President Michael D. Higgins, who is the Principal Guardian of the Republic of Ireland's Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Republic of Ireland), for the purpose of ensuring our Government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) stop their seriously criminal and treasonous abuses of our Constitution?

Related Link ("The Constitution has been hijacked") :
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/PrimeMinisterCowen/9M...l.htm

by pat c Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:52

A very good point.

I'm only aware of the Presidents right to refer legislation to the Supreme Court but you suggest he has other powers and indeed obligations.

Would you start a new thread regarding this outlining the Presidents powers and duties?

by W. Finnerty Thu Jul 12, 2012 14:48

Reply to pat c at Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:52:

"Would you start a new thread regarding this outlining the Presidents powers and duties?"

I will. However, it might be some time before I can get around to doing so.

In the meantime ...

Article 13. 3. 1° of Bunreacht na hEireann (Supreme Law of the Republic of Ireland):

"Every Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas shall require the signature of the President for its enactment into law."

If any of our Presidents feels there's something not right about any new Bill that appears before them for signing, they can refuse to sign it.

No President's signature, no law: it's as simple as that.

I'm not sure what the situation is in Russia, under their Constitution.

However, if it's the same as in the Republic of Ireland, I believe it's a lot more likely that Mr Putin would refuse to sign unconstitutional legislation into law, than would any of our recent Republic of Ireland Presidents (including our present one).

Related Link:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/HermanVanRompuy/17Mar...l.htm

by Contrarian Thu Jul 12, 2012 16:12

Hi William,

It's not that simple. You also have to consider Article 25 of Bunreacht na hEireann which states:

Article 25
1. As soon as any Bill, other than a Bill expressed to be a Bill containing a proposal for the amendment of this Constitution, shall have been passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Taoiseach shall present it to the President for his signature and for promulgation by him as a law in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
2. 1° Save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, every Bill so presented to the President for his signature and for promulgation by him as a law shall be signed by the President not earlier than the fifth and not later than the seventh day after the date on which the Bill shall have been presented to him.
2° At the request of the Government, with the prior concurrence of Seanad Éireann, the President may sign any Bill the subject of such request on a date which is earlier than the fifth day after such date as aforesaid.

As you can see, Article 25.2.1 by using the phrase "shall be signed..." makes it mandatory on the President to sign a Bill passed by both Houses and s/he has no discretion in the matter. (The phrase "save as otherwise provided.." refers to procedures such as reference of Bills to the Supreme Court, and in certain circumstances, to the People by way of referendum. ) This distinguished the Irish Presidency from the US model where the President can and does veto legislation passed by Congress.

As a general rule Bunreacht na hEireann, and indeed most constitutions, is full of provisions that conflict with, qualify or even outrightly contradict each other. For example the Constiution simultaneously guarantees my freedom of expression and your right to your good name. (And vice versa.) What happens when I use my freedom of expression to utter something that damages your good name? In practice, if the matter is litigated, the Courts decide. And the Courts have over time developed a jurisprudence that focus on a harmonious interpretation of the totality of the Constitution rather than cherry-picking one particular Article or sub-article. In that sense, it is the High and Supreme Courts that are, for all practical purposes, equipped with the powers to act as the "Guardians of the Constitution" not that that phrase is actually written down in the Constitution itself. Nowhere is that title or the powers to give it effect conferred on the President. (Technically, the AG also has a role but its limited in powers.)

Digressing a little, I think a thread on the powers of the President could indeed be useful and enlightening. Any such thread, to be really useful, should clearly distinguish between the powers the President has (which are very limited, and deliberately designed by the framers of the Constitution to be so) and the powers one might WISH the President to have. Personally, I think the Executive has too much power and Parliament/President too little. Some rebalancing would be healthy.

Digressing even further, I have often wondered , William, why you refer to this country as the "Republic of Ireland" and use expressions such as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ireland. Article 4 of the Constitution states clearly that: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." Thus Ireland, President of Ireland, Chief Justice of Ireland etc are the correct titles. Without taking any position on the merits of your correspondence with such parties, I would imagine that using their incorrect titles is an irritation which is not conducive to a positive reception of your arguments.

by W. Finnerty Thu Jul 12, 2012 18:09

Reply to Contrarian at Thu Jul 12, 2012 16:12

I'm really not happy about discussing this subject on this thread (for obvious "off-topic" reasons).

Nevertheless, and as briefly as I can, I would like to put the question as what would happen if one of our Presidents absolutely refused to sign a new Bill into law: because they genuinely believed the law in question violated our Constitution in some major way?

How, in such circumstances, could such a new Bill become law: allowing for the contents of Article 13. 3. 1° of Bunreacht na hEireann?

Personally, I don't see how it could.

=================

RE: "Republic of Ireland" and Republic of Ireland Act 1948:

"The Constitution of Ireland provides that 'the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland'. Under Irish statute law, Republic of Ireland (or Poblacht na hÉireann in Irish) is 'the description of the State' but is not its official name. This official description was provided for in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which transferred the remaining duties of monarch to an elected president. However, the name of the State in English remained Ireland. A change to the name of the state would require a constitutional amendment. In the UK however, the Ireland Act 1949 provided that Republic of Ireland may be used as a name for the Irish state (although it did not make use of that term mandatory)." (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland )

Also, and by virtue of the fact that Article 6.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann (our 26 Counties Constitution) contains the most important of all the hallmarks of a "republic", of the kind the name "republic" originates from in Ancient Greece: that is the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" core-issue principle.

On the other hand, the UNWRITTEN Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britton and Northern Ireland does not, as far as I know, contain any clear commitment whatsoever to the extremely important "government of the people, by the people, for the people" type of rule. In reality, the UK (including Northern Ireland) style of rule might be described as "government of the ruling elites, by the ruling elites, for the ruling elites": which is a very different kettle-of-fish to "government of the people, by the people, for the people": particularly if many of the ruling elites in question happens to be red-rotten with corruption of every conceivable kind.

It is for these reasons, I use the term "Republic" whenever I wish to distinguish between the two very different types of constitutions which are operating simultaneously on the Island of Ireland at the present time.

Related Link:
http://tinyurl.com/c7c8maq

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Jul 12, 2012 23:24

..worth would incline me to avoid the legalese and pedantics and look to what it says in the title.
I figure the constitution should be open to any citizen to interpret and argue.

President; as in preside.
I would see his role as presiding over the integrity of the spirit of the constitution; which is often elided by dropping the many qualifiers re the general welfare/public good(res publica, Latin actually, W, of Roman ethymology, democracy being the Greek from demos, the people and kratia, rule..if I recall right)and allowing private interests to dominate increasingly: ye olde counter-revolution's roll-back never sleeps.

Thats why he is supposed to summon his council of state if any dubious legislation hits his desk.

MDH should be at least technically well qualified for the role, though whether he retains the cojones to rock the ship of corporate state....no calling it.

by W. Finnerty Fri Jul 13, 2012 09:02

Reply to opus diablos at Thu Jul 12, 2012 23:24

I see what I believe is a MAJOR problem with that approach of yours: for the simple reason that the "Money Power Psychopaths" (as I see them) don't "avoid the legalese and pedantics".

It's the exact opposite with "Money Power Psychopaths". They exploit the "legalese and pedantics" to the hilt -- as and when it suits them, and they do so with the overwhelming help of our legal profession -- once the ink from the President's pen is dry: and as many a "Tara" and "Rossport" protestor has found out (in very direct ways) to their cost.

Less obvious (to many perhaps) are problems with constitutional issues such as the bank bailouts (somewhere in the region of 85 billion Euros to date I think?). Allowing for the contents of Article 6.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann, and the fact that the citizens of the Republic of Ireland were NEVER EVEN CONSULTED on the matter of these huge payments (using a constitutional referendum so that they could have the "final" say on the matter), how can the Republic of Ireland legislation used for this particularly important piece of "national policy" be constitutional?

"All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good." (Article 6.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann)

Related Link:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/CollegeOfPsychiatryOf...l.htm

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jul 13, 2012 16:09

Their verbose jargon is the liturgical sanctification of their role as interpreters of the instrument....its priestcraft, just as the established churches insist they have the hot-line to the oracle in the sky and exclude any input from those not initiated in their theological codes. Which mostly contradicts the intentions of the pre-scientific efforts of wise men to communicate higher modes of behaviour in comprehensible language.
But power often resides in obfuscation(observe the economic cardinals of our age..in their electric pulpits). Why else is ALL government communication swaddled in the muffler of PR obscurantist babble. Newspeak, as Mr O nailed it.

The task remains, to crack their jargon/codes and deconstruct for the liberation of the intimidated. Many leftists do the same thing with Marx, though I notice a current run of excellent demystification from Keiran Allen and Terry Eagleton and others..

Why were we never expected to read the constitution text in primary school?It is less impenetrable than the religious shite they pumped into us, again to intimidate us into a sense of inferiority and obedience(always the first commandment).

As I said, the common good has been airbrushed away so the corporate juggernaut has free run to add its qualifying amendments ensuring that BIG moolah is more commonly good than average moolah(thats why it buys better legal results).

But I doubt MDH has the appetite do what it says on his brass plate.

Fine Gaelmore would be upset.

by W. Finnerty Sat Jul 14, 2012 07:06

Reply to opus diablos at Fri Jul 13, 2012 16:09:

It's worth keeping "pathocracy" in mind as well.

Definition: pathocracy (n):

"A system of government created by a small pathological (mentally diseased) minority that takes control over a society of normal people."

"A totalitarian form of government in which absolute political power is held by a psychopathic elite, and their effect on the people is such that the entire society is ruled and motivated by purely pathological values."

"A pathocracy can take many forms and can insinuate itself covertly into any seemingly just system or ideology. As such it can masquerade under the guise of a democracy or theocracy as well as more openly oppressive regimes."

The above excerpts have been copied from: http://pathocracy.wordpress.com/definition/

Related Link:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/BritishMonarchy/13Jul...l.htm

by W. Finnerty Sat Jul 14, 2012 07:55

"Ignota nulla curatio morbid" (Do not attempt to cure what you do not understand).

"Today, many throughout the world are attempting to 'cure' political, economic, and social evils without understanding at all what it is they're trying to rectify. They assume that certain leaders and controlling forces are merely slight aberrations in an otherwise sound and "normal" society. Only if we change our mental perspective so that we understand that America and most of the world have been taken over wholesale by insane, demonic evildoers will we be able to "cure" our societies of this lethal plague. This essay provides the means whereby you will have the opportunity, if you are able and willing, to make a complete change in your mind-set."

"The essay presents psychologically transformative material in the form of exercises: elements which require your entering into them with full awareness and taking the time and effort to meditate thoughtfully on their meaning."

The above excerpts have been copied from:
http://www.hermes-press.com/pathocracy_index.htm

Related Link:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/BritishMonarchy/19Jun...l.htm

by W. Finnerty Sun Jul 15, 2012 09:26

Ponerology: the study of evil, from the Greek “poneros” ...

"With very few exceptions down the ages, discussions in moral philosophy - the study of right conduct - have failed to systematically investigate the origin, nature, and course of evil in a manner free from supernatural imaginings. Evil was often considered something to be endured rather than something that could be understood and eliminated by rational measures. And - as Lobaczewski demonstrates - the origin of evil actually lies outside the boundaries of the conventional worldview within which the earlier moral inquiries and literary explorations were conducted. Evil requires a truly modern and scientific approach to lay bare its secrets. This approach is called “ponerology”, the study of evil, from the Greek “poneros” = evil."

The above excerpt is from the following www location: http://ponerology.com/

Related Link:
http://tinyurl.com/cp8xzek

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:01

..about that.

Marx made a fair effort, among others...and Greek philosophy, Marcus Auralius for instance, certainly takes ethical behaviour outside of 'supernatural imaginings'. Many claim that Buddhism is a non-theological system of self-liberation. Chinese thought as expressed through the I Ching uses no theological 'imaginings' in its treatment of human behaviour on individual and collective levels.

Much historical writing does the same thing.

Evil is a subjective call...the perpetrators often sincerely believe they are a force for civilisation. I prefer to see it in evolutionary terms..hominid unthinking self-infatuated and pre-human own-group collective exclusionary behaviours...and fully human, species aware, inclusive attempts to break out of these atavistic circular and ultimately self-defeating cycles.

And I can't find pathocracy or ponerology in my Oxford dictionary.
Not sure pleonasms and neological coining of fresh jargon will clarify the issues under discussion, though they can give a false sense of understanding to their adherents...but is that not just what theological obscurantism and pseudo-science do?

I do think these issues can be framed in mental health terms(I do so myself to some extent) but the academic and clinical psychology methodology of polysyllabic diagnistics of symptoms often confuses issues as much as it elucidates. And to see it in terms of mental health returns us to the examination of behaviour as delusional rather than fact and rationality based...which would seem our best option, if we have any.
But I suspect we stray from the original topic.

by W. Finnerty Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:57

Reply to opus diablos at Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:01:

RE: "And I can't find pathocracy or ponerology in my Oxford dictionary."

I'm not sure why this is.

Both of the two words in question certainly seem to be widely recognised by the larger Internet search engines.

Examples of this can be seen by clicking on http://tinyurl.com/c3dh983 (for pathocracy)
and
on http://tinyurl.com/ca3lzej (for ponerology).

Related Link:
http://ponerology.com/

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jul 15, 2012 13:14

...you miss my point.

Putting a fresh nominative term on our exclusive elites and their sociopathic gluttony, or labelling sociopathic behaviour as 'evil' contributes little by way of fresh and useful analysis or information..it merely shuffles the already well-marked deck.

Here is a slightly more useful example of explicatory analysis, which deals with the social realities rather than moralistic abstractions.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31885

by W. Finnerty Sun Jul 15, 2012 14:05

Reply to opus diablos at Sun Jul 15, 2012 13:14

Re: "it merely shuffles the already well-marked deck"

Brain scans using rapidly improving new electronic technologies can't sensibly (in my opinion) be viewed as merely shuffling the "already well-marked deck".

"Ever wonder what leads a lavishly compensated C.E.O. to cheat, steal and lie? Perhaps he's a psychopath, and now there is a test, the B-Scan 360, that can help make that determination. The B-Scan was conceived by Paul Babiak, an industrial psychologist, and Robert Hare, the creator of the standard tool for diagnosing psychopathic features in prison inmates. The B-Scan is the first formalized attempt to uncover similar tendencies in captains of industry, and it speaks to a growing suspicion that psychopaths may be especially adept at scaling the corporate ladder."

"According to Babiak and Hare, white-collar psychopaths are not apt to become serial rapists or murderers. Rather, they are prone to being ''subcriminal'' psychopaths: smooth-talking, energetic individuals who easily charm their way into jobs and promotions but who are also exceedingly manipulative, narcissistic and ruthless. The purpose of the B-Scan is to smoke out these ''snakes in suits.''

The two excerpts above are from:
http://bowman.typepad.com/cubowman/2004/12/swimming_wit....html

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jul 15, 2012 14:51

You dont need some technological printout to recognise sociopathological behaviours.

This will simply be used by the psychopaths to label their enemies as the aberrant evil threats to their dictation of their agendas. The soviet gulags provide a template.

You underestimate the devious manipulative capabilties of psychotics...the moral rot of institutional Roman Catholicism should alert us to both the capabilities of these power-addicts...and the commonness of the collective self-delusions that support the pyramidic heirarchies.

Shakespeare didn't need your B-Scan 360 to identify Iago's characteristics, any more than Swift did to outline the compartmentalised thinking inherent in such behaviours..literature is awash with portrayals. The much-neglected Shaw provides numerous examples.

The mechanisation of measurement, as Nazism proved, just facilitates its activities under a cloud of obscurantist scientification. It is our social and political and economic cultures and paradigms need addressing, not a spurious medicalisation of the problem, however sick the perpetrators.

How long do you think it will take your sociopath to get its hands on the controls of your B-Scan 360 and focus it on the 'evil' enemy?

by W. Finnerty Sun Jul 15, 2012 16:29

Reply to opus diablos at Sun Jul 15, 2012 14:51

"You dont need some technological printout to recognise sociopathological behaviours."

That's similar to arguing that you don't need x-ray machines and other types of body scanners to identify the presence of cancerous tumours which are undetectable by any other means.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jul 15, 2012 18:31

..but I think you are confusing similarity with identicality..
You are presuming that the equation of associated electronic measurement of physiological states accurately represent psychological predispositions.
You omit that the associated paradigms of disposition are subjectively decided, as usual by technocratic 'experts'.

That is an equation I would not be prepared to buy into.
Again, you are considering subjective assessments as objective reality. A common false association leading to erroneous conclusions. Numerical data, no matter how graphic and convincing, cannot represent individual subjective psychological intention. A physiological tumour is not identical to a psychological inclination.

To presume so is dangerous. It is the confusion of the possibly circumstantial and secondary with factuality, and can lead to conviction by suspicion..a large part of our current imperial execution by association and drone-trigger reaction behaviours. Any thing that terrifies us becomes by definition terrorist. Despite the fact it may actually be a phantom of overheated imagination, or a creation of ulterior motives of unseen and unsuspected actors.

Psychological and physiological are not synonymous. These judgements will be made by fallible human agents. As such they can be dictated by vested interests in pre-ordained outcomes. The numerous abuses of lie-detectors shows the fallibility of such trust.

Your faith in technocratic solutions to human social and political problems is ultimately unfounded..in anything other than faith in the infallibilty of humanly managed technologies. You mistake possible tools for infallible solutions.

by W. Finnerty Sun Jul 15, 2012 18:50

Reply to opus diablos at Sun Jul 15, 2012 18:31

RE: "That is an equation I would not be prepared to buy into."

It's entirely your choice, and I fully respect your right to make your own personal choices on these and all other matters.

Many thanks for the interest you have shown in what I have written.

Related Link:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/BullyOnLine/15July201...l.htm

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jul 15, 2012 19:00

..while I disagree with quite a few of your ideas, I think you argue honestly....the beginnings of democracy.

None of us has the full picture. But we are way off topic.

gratias to wageslave the tolerance.

by W. Finnerty Sun Jul 15, 2012 20:03

Reply to opus diablos at Sun Jul 15, 2012 19:00 ...

Thanks for your additional comment.

I too am grateful for the moderator's tolerance regarding the drift in topic.

Related Link:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/DrJamesReilly/15July2...l.htm