In Defense of the Upcoming Multipolar World Order

Amerikkka is often presented as the global peacemaker in sympathetic circles. If we take a cursory look around the globe today, however, we can see that every single conflict has the fingerprint of the United $tates in some capacity. This imperial strategy has not brought about the solution to conflict, but rather intended to proceed with conflict until achieving absolute control.

Even minor states – North Korea, Cuba, Syria, and Iran are continuously punished for merely existing outside of the unipolar order. Amerikkka demands total subservience to its geopolitical institutions.

The strategic parity between different states could decrease the occurrence of U.S. imperial wars, if the U.S. understands that it faces the threat of potentially losing such a conflict (Amerikkkans have not yet forgotten Vietnam and Iraq).

Russia and China (along with the other BRICS states) present a counterbalance to U.S. hegemonic goals around the world.

In fact, considering the recent decision by Mr. Orange-White-Supremacist-Clown to pull out of the JCPOA with Iran, we may also begin to see the E.U. establishing a more independent geopolitical pole as well.

New contours of global power present us with new options. Instead of repeating the Cold War, we shall soon find ourselves in totally new circumstances. The new global powers – the E.U., Russia, China are catching up to the U.$.

This power is no longer substantially ideological, as all of these countries (in one form or another) subscribe to neoliberal capitalism.

As others have written, “And Russia and China are part of this imperialist camp as well; the problem is that, because they are still developing as imperialist powers, they are beginning to represent a pole that might determine the global contradiction between imperialisms in the next decade.”

Where I disagree with MLM Mayhem is on how we should delineate our support for these competing powers. By encouraging competition, we encourage ruptures in hegemony and open the space for counter-movements. We should not say Russian and Chinese imperialisms are “better” than U$ imperialism, but rather, in order to bring down Amerikkkan global domination, we must critically support its nascent challengers.

This isn’t some moralistic argument about imperialism. Rather, this is a strategic argument about how we can move to socialism: through revolutions in the Third World.

Revolutions can only occur when political and economic systems reach the limits of their contradictions. As long as capital is able to flow freely, then Amerikkka (or another country) is able to prop up puppet regimes indefinitely.

By pushing for global ruptures, we inevitably force these contradictions to reveal themselves bare. This, of course, is no guarantee of Third World revolutions, but the chances increase dramatically.

Picture1

Additionally, it is inherently advantageous for smaller countries that there is competition among the superpowers. Smaller countries throughout the Cold War skillfully embraced one or another side in order to gain favor and receive beneficial (or not-so-beneficial) aid packages, military assistance, or increased sovereignty and independence.

The very establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement solidified the strength of the Third World against the First World.

Following the dismantling of the Soviet Union by three men in a forest, the global order fragmented, ruptured, and tore itself asunder. The U.$. crowned itself the sole Empire and ensured that the Third World bent to its will.

Financial institutions like the WTO and IMF grabbed the Third World by the throat and smashed their skulls against the ground. Mimicking the old colonial days, white people continue to strip the wealth from black and brown people around the globe.

Why should Amerikkkans have hegemony?

Why does everyone in the world need to think about the fascists in Washington?

Why should the racist naked mole rat in the white house have so much power?

Advertisements

Drugs, Propaganda, and the Party of God

The news is abuzz with Politico’s new article that claims that Obama derailed an investigation in alleged drug trafficking and money laundering done by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Politico article linked above charges Obama with dismantling “Project Cassandra” in order to make the “Iran Deal” possible.

I would, from the outset, question the veracity of these claims, considering a lot of the content of the article is regurgitated from allegations made back in 2011 (when Obama was president).

Of course, as usual, a little bit of reasoning ought to put the official Politico story into question. Whether or not Obama put up roadblocks against investigations is something that I do not and cannot know, beyond what the media reports (even at the end of the Politico article, they seem to call everything they’ve just said into question).

However, I do have three points that show something is very wrong with the propagandists’ rendering of Hezbollah and the fundamentals of the organization.

hezbollah

Hope and Change

1.) Hezbollah is, at least partially, a religious-confessional organization. Hezb-Allah (the Party of God) is an organization that was established in the draw-down of Lebanon’s bloody civil war, fought mostly along sectarian lines.

Hezbollah emerged as the primary representative of Lebanon’s Shi’a (although slowly, due to the competition from the Amal Movement).

The Politico article seems to suggest that Hezbollah is receiving money from both drug trafficking and Iran, or, alternatively, both Hezbollah and Iran are receiving funds from drug trafficking. The article leaves the reader guessing.

On the face of it, that would seem a bit odd, considering mainstream Islam’s pretty tight restrictions on drug use. Indeed, both Hassan Nasrallah (the leader of Hezbollah) and Ali Khamenei (the Supreme Leader of Iran) have explicitly forbade the use of drugs.

Aren’t these people supposed to be so incredibly religious that they’re unreasonable and impossible to negotiate with? Isn’t that the main line of the propaganda against them: Amerikkka can’t “trust” Iran, because they’re insane religious extremists?

Like Iran could ever trust Amerikkka!

Someone has their propaganda mixed up. It’s a jumbled policy of “throw everything at them and see what sticks”.

If you want to say that the leaders are lying and that they’ll take money from drug trafficking, then clearly they’re pragmatists and can negotiate. If you want to say they’re religious fundamentalists, then there is no way that they’re getting money from the drug trade.

2.) The Politico article centers around the drug trade in Latin American and Africa, apparently through some key business traders who have been able to secretly fund some transnational anti-Amerikkkan network.

In the past, Hezbollah’s alleged drug trafficking enterprise has been linked to the so-called Tri-Border Area. The Tri-Border Area is along the borders of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. Supposedly accounting for a significant portion of weapon, drug, and human trafficking, the Tri-Border Area is notoriously mysterious, with very little reliable information regarding the market there.

TBA

It’s sort of a similar situation to North Korea, right? We don’t know anything, but everything we do know is bad and, therefore, we can extrapolate a lot of nonsense from that.

Apparently, every “terrorist” organization gets funding from the Tri-Border Area, if we’re to believe the reports. According the U.$. media and the U.$. government, both Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda receive funds from illicit trading through South America.

That seems a little strange, considering the war in Syria, where Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda are killing each other.

The Politico article does not directly mention the Tri-Border Area. It does, however, bring up the supposed “cocaine corridor” from South America up through Mexico, where the funds are not only apparently used to support Hezbollah, but also governments in Latin America that stand up against imperialism – Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador.

CocaineTrafficking

What’s the connection? Well, according to Politico, we can find it in the relationship between Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Screen Shot 2018-01-02 at 10.14.56 AM

Another claim with absolutely no evidence!

Isn’t it interesting that according to “interviews and documents”, Hugo Chavez is also responsible for everything bad in the world. After all, Politico says that Hezbollah has “for decades” been engaging in “narcoterrorism”?

Why is it that all of the evidence that comes up in the article is from simple testimonies and anonymous sources if this is an unquestionable fact?

If Hezbollah gets all its funding from illicit sources, then why does it even need funding from Iran?

If Hezbollah is so ubiquitous on the black market, then why isn’t there hard evidence of such trading?

Why is everything just hearsay and word-of-mouth?

This brings us to my third point.

3.) All of the supposed linchpins in the Hezbollah-drug trafficking connection conveniently work with everyone the U.S. doesn’t like right now, according to Politico. They even have this other picture in the article to drive home their point:

Screen Shot 2018-01-02 at 9.28.06 AM

Three presidents who are way better than Trump.

The article is fascinating for who make up this apparent narco-terrorist network around the world. It seems to be a blend of Russians and Lebanese businessmen traveling around the globe in search of ways to fund Putin and Hezbollah.

Isn’t it all just so convenient!

At one point, the article basically celebrates when, in 2008, “the CIA and Israeli intelligence detonated a bomb in [Imad] Mughniyeh’s car as he was leaving a celebration of the 29th anniversary of the Iranian revolution in Damascus, Syria. He was killed instantly. ”

How is this treated unproblematically in this story about Hezbollah? This was pretty big news in 2015, after seven years of Israel and the U.$. denying responsibility for the murder.

The Politico article accuses Imad Mughniyeh, who was a Hezbollah commander, of the bombing of a U.$. military barracks (by a different organization) during the Lebanese Civil War. However, notably, there is very flimsy evidence on which to blame him of any of his alleged crimes.

Also, no one seems to question the presence of a U.$. barracks on the outskirts of Beirut during a civil war.

Luckily, we don’t have to regard anything in the text with much seriousness, because the idea of “objectivity” on any level is thrown out the window. The Politico article reveals its pro-Amerikkkan bias very clearly with the following paragraph:

“Meanwhile, Hezbollah — in league with Iran — continues to undermine U.S. interests in Iraq, Syria and throughout wide swaths of Latin America and Africa, including providing weapons and training to anti-American Shiite militias. And Safieddine, the Ghost and other associates continue to play central roles in the trafficking of drugs and weapons, current and former U.S. officials believe.”

That last line is the most crucial – current and former U.$. officials believe. What does that mean? No evidence. None. Zero. Zilch.

And what is Hezbollah’s real crime? The fact that it continues to “undermine” the U.$.

This isn’t about drugs or about the black market or about terrorism (or about some bizarre used-car money-laundering scheme in Benin).

Screen Shot 2018-01-02 at 10.25.32 AM

Really!?

This is about the fact that Hezbollah has stood up, time and time again, against U.$. imperialism.

Hezbollah has defended Lebanon from invasion by Israel. Hezbollah has defended Syria against terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. And Hezbollah continues to defend the Middle East from the threat of Saudi and U.A.E. influence.

Pyotr Pavlensky is Not an Artist

Pyotr Pavlensky lit a Parisian bank on fire this week in a stunt that mirrored his previous action in Moscow, when he set fire to the door of the FSB (formerly KGB) headquarters in 2015.

3500.jpg

Moscow 2015

He’s been both vilified and lionized in Russia and throughout the West for his actions. Hailed as a dissident, provocateur, and artist/actionist, Pavlensky is famous for stunts like nailing his scrotum to the Red Square or sewing his mouth shut in defense of Pussy Riot. He’s also been attacked in Russia as a traitor or an agent of the West.

Some have said that his art isn’t really “art”.

I won’t be making such a claim – I’m in no position to start handing out certificates of authenticity for what is or isn’t art.

For me, what is striking is that we still allow Pavlensky to self-identify as an artist, rather than insisting that he receive the proper label: rapist.

Whether it comes to his violent sexual assault of the actress Anastasia Slonina last December or the important history of his violence towards women (either physically) psychologically) and acting as a defender of that violence, Pavlensky’s “art” must be seen in the context of his surrounding life. For example, no one ought to forget when his wife, Oksana Shalygina, cut off her finger in some bizarre act of loyalty.

One thing is clear: misogyny surrounds his life.

Consider Pavlensky’s court “art” in Moscow during the trial in 2016. Pavlensky paid sex workers to take the stand and say that the arson of the FSB headquarters was not an art piece.

His point in all this? Pavlensky was trying to say that the legal system is full of “whores”, so they should have to deal with “whores”.

Notably, it was during this period that Pavlensky publicly attacked feminists, continuing a long tradition of “leftist” men attacking feminists.

Putting this all into perspective, Pavlensky should not be called a “Radical Protest Artist”.

He’s a man who has brought about tons of violence into the lives of women. Pavlensky can no longer be called an “artist” in the same way that we no longer refer to Bill Cosby as a “comedian” or Harvey Weinstein as a “producer”. They have now one identity – that of rapist.

APTOPIX_France_Russia_Dissident_Artist_53065.jpg-58326

Paris 2017

After he was accused of rape, he and his family fled to Paris, where they were granted asylum earlier this year. Why would France take an accused rapist in? This is the same country that has experienced a huge right-wing backlash due to the presence of refugees from the Third World.

But any enemy of Putin is a friend of mine, right!?

(as long as they have white skin!)

Actually, based on the reports this week, I agree pretty strongly with Pavlensky’s comparison between the FSB headquarters in Russia and the Central Bank in France. They both function as brutal institutions of neoliberal capitalism and imperialism, albeit in different ways.

A lot of his former allies have been decrying that the Russian FSB is much worse – which therefore invalidates this new action. I disagree with those segments of the Left in Russia.

I’m more focused on the circumstances surrounding the act.

“Artist” functions as an identifying marker.

We can say, perhaps, that Pavlensky “does art”. However, by allowing him to self-identify as an artist, we are missing the important point. Pavlensky is, first and foremost, a rapist.

While awaiting the death penalty, John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer of adolescent boys in Chicago, took up painting. He also “did art”, but we don’t refer to him as an artist.

There’s another insidious problem here, however. If this is considered a political action, then we need to reanalyze what we accept and embrace as “political”.

Has the Left become so enamored with defeatism and so convinced of failure that the most we can hope for is that some idiot sets a bank alight?

Is this really fighting capitalism?

We’re coming up on the hundredth anniversary of the Russian Revolution – one of the greatest events in human history – and our contribution to the anti-capitalist struggle is this?

What we saw this week was not the work of a political artist or dissident.

It was a rapist setting a bank on fire.

Who’s Responsible for the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933?

Yesterday, on the badhistory subreddit, a post entitled “Stalin paid the clouds not to rain!” – On Holodomor Denial sprang up to intervene in the Reddit Left-o-sphere’s analysis of the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933. The author, not to be outdone, decides to engage in some of their own bad history. In this text, the author attempts to disprove two claims:

  1. “There was a famine in Ukraine and other areas of the USSR, but it was the result of weather, and not man-made.
  2. The claim it was orchestrated deliberately was invented by the Nazis and popularized by them to justify a war with the USSR. This claim has been extended to including the concept of the Holodomor as a tenet of fascism.”

Unfortunately, the author fails to “debunk these claims”, as they intend, but rather display a broad (and probably willful) ignorance of the facts surrounding the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933. The following is an analysis of the author’s treatment of the first claim as well as a clarification of the circumstances of the Holodomor and the wider famine.

“… while it’s agreed that the Holodomor is a democide, it’s heavily debated that it was a genocide. Most scholars have adopted the position that it was not a genocide if genocide is defined at attempting to exterminate an ethnic group. While Ukrainians suffered disproportionately, Kazakhs and south Russians suffered as well, and there is little evidence that it was intended as “punishment” for Ukraine.”

“Democide” is a highly ambiguous term and not generally used in scholarly writing about the Holodomor. I’m not entirely sure where the author got this term (it’s been popularized more recently be some anti-communists in the United States), however, I’m not going to nitpick too much on that. For an interesting article that discusses and frames the Holodomor, check out Stanislav Kul’chits’kii’s article here (in Ukrainian).

The author says that “[m]ost scholars have adopted the position that it was not a genocide…” Actually, many of the scholars that the author cites here (Snyder, Davies, Service, Kiernan) argue that the Holodomor was, in fact, a genocide and a human-engineered famine. Considering the author’s Reddit Flair as “Trostkyist | CWI”, which indicates the ideological skew, it’s no surprise that all of the sources cited are either rabid anti-communists (like Kotkin and Snyder) or Trotskyists (like Cliff). Keeping this in mind, it’s important to note that the author clearly constructs the narrative of a genocide and then refrains from using that term. In typical Trotskyist fashion, the author wishes to have their cake and eat it too.

“Most scholars have adopted the view that it was a deliberate over-requisitioning of grain to export to fund industrialization, and attempts to circumvent the resultant food shortage in Ukraine led to harsher measures by Stalin which did aim to punish. The second debate is over the number of casualties. Many people try to cite that it was over 10 million killed, partly in order to deflect their own culpability in the holocaust and/or try to portray the USSR as worse. The consensus is around 4 million killed.”

I assume the number “around 4 million” is drawn from the number claimed by the Appellate Court in Kiev in 2010 – which is 3,941,000 deaths due to the famine and an additional 6,122,000 in birth deficit. It’s not clear why the author decides to call this a “consensus”, because it certainly is not. However, it is the number present on the Wikipedia page, where, it seems, the author derives the bulk of their argument.

I’d also like to point out here that 100% of the cited sources are in English, indicating that the author didn’t go through the Russian, Ukrainian, or Polish historiography on the Holodomor (where there are equally lively and challenging debates.) Even this BBC article (although in Russian) shows that historians are still arguing about the death tolls of the famine, because reliable data just doesn’t exist.

“In regards to claim one, the only scholar who seriously holds this position is Mark Tauger. Who has been dismissed as completely wrong by every other scholar in the field. Put simply, there is no real evidence for the effect of weather on the harvest. While there were dry periods in 1932, it was nothing that abnormal. This is pretty evident from the fact that no where else in Eastern Europe was there a significant food shortage, despite them sharing the exact same climate. Areas of depopulation of 15-20% run right up to the Polish border at that time and then mysteriously stop. In fact, not even Tauger argues that rain was the cause – because Tauger argues that the famine was the result of plant diseases. Of course this falls prey to the same problem as the drought hypothesis, namely, why does the famine stop at the Polish border?”

First, Tauger is not the only scholar who seriously holds this position. J. Arch Getty very famously took Robert Conquest to task in the pages of The London Review of Books in 1987 for claiming that the Holodomor was an intentional famine. Stephan Merl (article in German) also criticizes the dominant narrative of the Holodomor. As does Sheila Fitzpatrick, which makes it especially interesting that the author included her book on the Russian Revolution in the sources – a book, that, I might add, has nothing to do with the Holodomor. There’s also this thorough article by Viktor Kondrashin (in Russian).

Second, Tauger very clearly argues that it was a combination of drought and agricultural pests. Not a single scholar denies that weather had some effect on the harvests in the relevant years (with the exception of Robert Conquest). Even Wheatcroft and Davies (cited by the author) demonstrate that grain yield in 1931 and 1932 was significantly lower than previous and subsequent years. It’s surprising to me that the author does not even properly cite the English-language sources, which are obviously the only sources they are able to read. Perhaps it is a case of deliberately ignoring the facts or perhaps it is a case of simply being ignorant of them.

Third, the author apparently doesn’t understand how food production and distribution works. First of all, the Soviet Union was reliant upon one area (modern-day eastern Ukraine and the Kuban region of Russia) as the major grain-supplier for the entire country, referred to as the “Breadbasket” of the USSR. The author also says that all of Eastern Europe “shar[e] the exact same climate”, which is demonstrably false, as is evidenced by the presence of the Carpathian Mountains in modern-day Northwest Ukraine. Second of all, however, although the scale of the famine was substantially larger in the Soviet Union, crop yields decreased all over Eastern Europe (not just magically ending at the Polish border at the time, which, it should be noted, goes through modern-day Ukraine). This is why people were dying of starvation all over the Soviet Union (not just in Ukraine). After all, the Holodomor is just a piece of the greater Soviet Famine of 1932-1933.

“In any case, even assuming that there was a natural component, their explanation still doesn’t prevent Stalin from being responsible. Since around 1800, there has been a high enough rate of agricultural production worldwide that any famine since then has effectively been man-made, even assuming an agricultural component.”

Every famine has been effectively human-engineered since 1800? According to whom?

The author zig-zags between saying that the Soviet Famine was used as a measure by Stalin to punish any recalcitrant peasants and at the same time denying that it was a genocide. I will say it unequivocally, if Soviet government intentionally caused the famine of 1932-1933, then it was a genocide. However, none of the evidence leads to that unproblematic conclusion.

The lack of sources, except just the sloppy copy and paste job at the end shows the amateurish pseudo-scholarship by the author. First of all, the author includes sources that do not comment on the Soviet Famine or the Holodomor at all. Second of all, the author fails to include any sources that disagree with the argument put forth. Predictably, the author also omits sources that complicate the narrative.

The glaring omission from the text is the fact that there isn’t a single shred of evidence that the famine was human-engineered. Not a memo, a letter, or a decree from anyone within the Soviet government calling for the initiation or continuation of a famine in the Soviet Union (or in Soviet Ukraine). How is it that for all the archives that have been scoured and for all the official documents people have found from the Stalinist era, no one has been able to find anything that indicates an intentional extermination of the Ukrainian people?

Ultimately, the author creates an easy, uncomplicated history where Stalin, the evil dictator, wanted to starve out the peasant population. This isn’t convincing. Anyone who has studied the circumstances surrounding the Holodomor must at least take pause when such claims are made based entirely on English-language literature. The use of Famine Politics in order to establish a lazy anti-Stalin paradigm helps no one in reaching a realistic conclusion based on facts and evidence. A thoughtful approach to the subject may not lead one to say that Stalin “paid the clouds not to rain”, but it certainly doesn’t lead to the author’s conclusion either.

Analyzing Clinton’s Nonsense on the Late Show

When we talk about “what happened” regarding the 2016 elections, we should always start with the clear point that in the bourgeois political extravaganza, no one is willing to take responsibility. And, obviously, the masters of not taking responsibility are the Clintons.

In the video, Colbert and Clinton spend the first two minutes on general fluff and wound-licking. Following that, Clinton says the point of her book is to figure out what happened, “so that it doesn’t happen again”. Of course, she receives raucous applause for this line. After all, she is on Colbert’s show.

What is “it” exactly? Bourgeois elections? The Democrats losing elections? I suppose she means the government of the Russian Federation “interfering” in the elections, but we’ll cover that a bit later.

She says at around the 3:40 mark, that she’s being as candid as she could be about “the mistakes [she] made, … but also, … everything from sexism and misogyny to voter suppression to the unusual behavior of the former director of the FBI and the Russians, and the Russians and you have been sounding the alarm about this, because I believe so strongly that they think they succeeded in messing with our democracy…”

We can unpack this more as the interview goes on, but you’ll notice how quickly she pivots from talking about her own actions to blaming everyone else. Throughout the rest of the interview, she fails to mention anything else about what she could have done to change the outcome of the election.

That’s not to say the other things aren’t important, but rather that in her perspective, she is not responsible for her own loss. Well, what the fuck? For someone who apparently extolls the virtues of the Amerikkkan political process, why is she complaining about it so much? I don’t remember any (literally, not one) of the other losers in my lifetime doing anything remotely like this.

BLM Clinton

“Russia made me say racist things in the 90s!”

Back to the video…

Around 4:30, she says that the “Russians” definitely were “influencing voters and, therefore, influencing opinion…”

Let’s assume, for a moment, this is true. What does that mean? The government of the Russian Federation supposedly bought ads on Facebook and published news articles that were particularly aimed at Clinton and her campaign, placing her in a bad light.

What’s the issue here?

Last time I checked, that’s perfectly legal and acceptable. In fact, that’s what you do in an election! You attempt to influence voters and opinion in order to help you achieve your personal desirable outcome.

Now, dear reader, you might protest that the problem is that Russia is a foreign government. However, I don’t hear anyone complaining about how Clinton received money and blessings from Saudi Arabia and Israel (along with countless other states).

So what’s the deal? Russia bought Facebook ads? And by doing so, influenced the election?

Good for them. They played the game and beat out other countries. It seems like if we accept the narrative that Clinton and Colbert are pushing, the whole process was merely a power-play between different countries. And in that power-play, Russia beat Saudi Arabia.

clinton saudi

Around 5:07, she claims that she’s “a bit of a Paula Revere.”

Can’t you hear it now? The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

This is fear-mongering and highfalutin bullshit at its finest.

So now we get to hear Clinton’s breakdown of Vladimir Putin’s strategy. Fasten your seatbelt, dear reader, because you’re about to get thrown through a whirlwind of garbage.

At 5:12, she begins:

“You know, you’ve gotta understand what Putin’s strategy is. He really doesn’t like democracy. He thinks its an inconvenient, messy process. And he doesn’t like us. And he wants to destabilize our country, sow doubt about our democracy. I mean, these latest revelations where you had Russians pretending to be Americans. You had fake Americans with fake news and fake stories and fake demonstrations. That wasn’t just because he’s bored and has nothing to do. He wants to undermine how we see each other, how we respect each other, how we support our institutions and our society. So, I think they believed they had a good outing in 2016 and I think they will be back in 2018 and 2020 unless we stop them.”

This analysis received applause. And it really shouldn’t have.

The hypocrisy here is so blatant and so shameless, I’m surprised it got past people at all.

Putin doesn’t like democracy? Putin is trying to sow doubt about “our democracy”?

Seriously?

What the hell is she talking about?

Who is the person who just wrote a book and is appearing on television to say that the most recent elections were illegitimate? Not Putin!

Who is the one saying that we had people faking citizenship and lying about facts in order to help their side? Not Putin!

Who likes democracy? Not Putin and certainly not Hillary Clinton!

Clinton Putin.jpg

“I hate democracy as much as you do.”

At 6:30, Clinton speculates as to why Putin wouldn’t like her. She concludes that it’s because she questioned the legitimacy of the elections in Russia in 2011. She goes on to say that Putin is still upset about the dismantling of the Soviet Union and that he wants to “undermine the European-American alliance.”

I think there are probably a few other pretty good reasons for Putin to cheer for anyone opposing Clinton. It’s true, she did question the legitimacy of the elections in 2011 – as did everyone else, because it was obviously rigged.

So, that’s probably not the primary reason.

Who ran on the platform of shooting down Russian planes flying over Syria?

Who was Secretary of State and oversaw the total destruction of Libya?

Who threatened to give more money to the Ukrainian government and started peddling revisionist narratives of the events of 2013-2014?

Clinton has a very proactive record of military aggression against sovereign countries and trying to corner Russia into very tight positions. As the regional power, the Russian government has seen these maneuvers (rightfully) as threatening and has opposed them.

Obviously, Dumbass Trump has been little better, but we can all rest assured that, through incompetence, Trump has been unable to get as much done as Clinton would have.

And that’s a good thing for Russia (and everyone else, btw)!

Starting around 7:35, Clinton starts telling a story about a time she met with Putin “in his dacha” in order to demonstrate that Putin is a terrible misogynist.

It, of course, doesn’t take a genius to realize that Putin is a patriarchal piece of shit. His whole image is that of ultra-masculinity. However, we should ask ourselves the question: what’s the function of this story?

It’s to make sure that everyone is on Clinton’s side against Putin (and, of course, we must hate Russia, because we hate Putin).

Why doesn’t Clinton focus on other avowed misogynists?

Like King Salman or Bibi Netanyahu?

Or how about Bill Clinton?

hillary-clinton-shush-1

I’d like to end this with a story, just so we have the entire context here.

There was a significant event in 1996 that ought to be retold – the second election ever in the Russian Federation. Boris Yeltsin was running for re-election under very bad circumstances. He had been wildly popular in the beginning and watched that popularity dwindle as he did things like literally bomb the parliament building in central Moscow in 1993. At the same time, the economy was failing and the Russians were bombing Grozny to hell in the separatist republic of Chechnya.

So things weren’t going very well.

At the same time, a lot of people were looking back on the Soviet Union and realizing that they had lost a lot – public finances going to social security, healthcare, and education. Worker’s protections were also important. In Russia today, people refer to the 90s as “the wild 90s” and almost no one I’ve ever talked to has had anything positive to say about that time.

At this point, Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of the newly-formed Communist Party of the Russian Federation (replacing the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) looked like a superstar, promising to fix the economy and put Russia back on track as it moved into the 21st century.

Bill Clinton, president of the U.$. at the time, was not about to let a communist win the Russian elections.

In the run-up to the election, the U.$. and the IMF funneled money to the Russian government. Yeltsin was also given logistical help from the Clinton administration. Pretty much everyone agrees, in the end, Zyuganov would have won the election, but the government committed wouldn’t allow free and fair elections.

Zyuganov.jpg

Essentially, the Clinton administration made important moves (up to and including direct election fraud) in order to ensure that Yeltsin won the 1996 elections.

Following this move, the Russian economy continued to spiral, the Russian government continued the War in Chechnya (and admitted defeat just a month after the election).

So, allow me to pose the question to you, dear reader: who in truth has a track record of interfering in foreign elections? Is Russia really the bogey-man that Clinton and her minions are trying to paint it as? Or is it the case that the Russian government simply refuses to be a vassal of the U.$.?