News & Analysis
Cult of Putin Is Alternative Media Porn?
As long term readers of this blog will be aware, I have been concerned for some time with the misreporting and interference in the west with Russian cases. The Pussy Riot case is another example. There is in fact no great legal or political issue or principle involved in this case. Every society has to face occasional challenges to public order and that is all ultimately that the Pussy Riot case is about. It is not the malevolent prosecution by a corrupt dictatorship of harmless artists or political dissidents. Treating it as if it was not only completely misrepresents the case but has also seriously damaged the prospects of the three young women involved avoiding a lengthy prison sentence. To the extent that this is the case the fault lies not with Putin, the Russian state, the Russian Courts, the Russian Orthodox Church or the Russian police but with the women's supporters both in Russia and the west. – Mercouris
Dominant Social Theme: This man, this magnificent little man who fights tigers with his bare hands and dives deeply into the sea for diamonds, this leader of all that is Holy in Mother Russia, is now freedom's strongest supporter. Alone among powerful people, he stands up to the West and its globalist adventures.
Free-Market Analysis: Somehow the idea has got around the alternative media that Vladimir Putin is some sort of protector of the West from its own globalist elites. We ran into this again when we published an article entitled "Kim Dotcom Resists, Pussy Riot Protests and the Insane Clown Posse Sues ... Internet Reformation Rolls."
We received several emails (well, one, anyway) saying the reason for the Pussy Riot provocations and trial was to punish Putin for not backing the Western war against Syria. And for generally resisting "Western globalism." We also spent some time over at Mercouris's blog (see excerpt above).
Okay but hold on.
In fact, we're not convinced that Putin IS a staunch backer of Syria. It was said that Putin would come to Libya's aid, and we all know how that ended up. So we think this interpretation of events may be a tad simplistic.
Is it possible that Putin is out for, well ... Putin? Is it possible he's not the a champion of freedom that he's increasing made out to be, at least by certain factions of the alternative media? The West basically controlled Russia in the 20th century, from what we can tell. Does Money Power really not have its fangs in the Russian jugular even now? (Part of our theory of what we call "directed history.")
G. Edward Griffin has shown us quite clearly that Wall Street provided the funding that allowed the Reds to win and create the Soviets. Hell, there's plenty of reason to speculate that the same power elite funded Marx via Engels to write his insufferable Das Kapital.
The elites injected Lenin back into Russia from Germany (where they'd stored him) on a sealed train "like a bacillus." The banking elites funded Adolf Hitler's regime initially, before apparently turning on him.
Putin supposedly comes out of the KGB. That's his power base. He's running his own version of the power elite monetary mafia, probably with their initial blessing. The Russian government has plenty of ties to the Western elites, which helped install it, funded it and even funneled top German scientists to it after World War II.
One now even questions the "tragedy" of Franklin Roosevelt's provision of so many "satellite" countries to the USSR. It was perhaps his final act of obedience to Money Power.
Winston Churchill spent the last part of his life laughably bemoaning the dissolution of the British Empire, as if it ever actually happened. Now it's come out in the alternative press that Gandhi himself was possibly an agent of British Money Power. Nothing is what is seems.
We've carried a number of stories about the creation of the current Iranian regime that Putin is supportive of in defiance of the West. The only trouble with this narrative is that, from what we can tell, the current "revolutionary" government of Iran was installed with Western connivance.
Putin is thus seen to be allied to a Persian polity perfected by Money Power. You can see some of our articles here:
For all these reasons, we would suggest that it is far from clear cut just who Putin is opposing and why.
It is perfectly possible that, as has happened so many times in the past, Money Power has tired of a favored son and marked him for termination. But the idea that Putin is a tireless warrior for freedom, a kind of one-man Alamo strikes us at least as ... suspicious.
Putin is said to be worth some US$50 billion. For Putin, then, being a freedom fighter is certainly paying off. Not so much for Russia.
- It doesn't pay to be a journalist for many reporters have been killed.
- It doesn't pay to be male or an alcoholic. You'll surely die younger than many in the West.
- It doesn't pay to be a twinkle in your parent's eyes, for you may never be born. The Russian birth rate is well below replacement levels, a sign of an unhealthy culture.
- It doesn't pay to be from Chechen for you could be set up via a false-flag terrorist attack and then murdered outright.
And then there is this by the admittedly anti-Putin politician and writer, Lev Ponomarev:
REVIVAL OF THE GULAG? PUTIN'S PENITENTIARY SYSTEM
Russia is attempting to demonstrate that it has fulfilled the demands of the European Court of Human Rights (which has acknowledged that conditions of detention and confinement can constitute torture, for example in the case of "Kalashnikov v. Russia," Case Application No. 47095\99, 15 July 2002) by making the work of the Federal Service for the Enforcement of Punishments of the Russian Federation (FSIN RF, successor to the Main Directorate for the Enforcement of Punishments, which was known as GUIN) more transparent and more in line with modern European humanitarian criteria.
Despite these efforts, there remains significant contradictory evidence on the status of Russia's penal system, such as the fact that a legislative bill on prison visitation has not been able to obtain a passing vote in the Russian State Duma for several years; Russian bureaucrats (chinovniki) happily visit Western countries and "study" at organizations that concern themselves with prisoners' rights to visitation, yet the prison administration is becoming ever more opaque and inhumane.
A "Potemkin village" policy is in practice, allowing visitors to the prisons to view several "model" penal colonies. Access to "torture colonies" (also known as press-zones, described in greater detail below) by human rights advocates and even Justice Ministry employees is completely cut off. In order for ombudsmen to visit detention centers without special permission, it would be necessary to amend Article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (UIK-RF). The right to prison visitation will not be acknowledged until Article 24 is amended.
Some improvements to the situation in Russian prisons and penal colonies were achieved several years ago, due to a broad series of amnesties, which shortened many inmates' sentences, as well as an increase in funding for the penal system. However, these improvements are proving temporary and fleeting, as the number of prisoners once again is growing, and the number of those who are amnestied or pardoned is shrinking, while prison sentences become ever harsher, in the framework of an all-out war on "criminal ideology."
Yes, it is fashionable right now in certain circles to denigrate Pussy Riot as a willing tool of Money Power intent on doing to Putin what was done to Gaddafi, etc. It is at the same time fashionable to celebrate Putin as some kind of intrepid freedom fighter.
We've read Nadezhda Tolokonnikova's closing statement several times and remain impressed. Perhaps it is ghost-written. Perhaps it is full of factual inaccuracies. But we are not so sure as some that she is (entirely anyway) a willing dupe of Money Power. You can find the full statement at Infowars and Business Insider. Read it for yourself.
Is it possible that Tolokonnikova believes her words and is not merely a pawn clutched close to George Soros's wizened chest? Certainly, as with Julian Assange, the Western media attention being paid to Pussy Riot tells us that it is a promotion of sorts. They are likely the thin end of a wedge of destabilization, or at least the threat of it.
Grant that it is a fabrication, and one is still left with the idea we've often advanced: The conversation that Money Power wishes to control has shifted so radically in this Internet era that it needs to adopt and publicize freedom-oriented rhetoric to retain its larger credibility.
The irony is a satisfying one for those who believe in more, not less, freedom. It shows us the situation is so out of control that the elites are forced to publicize eloquent freedom statements like Tolokonnikova's in order to retain control of the larger dialectic. If this is merely a nefarious strategy, perhaps we want more.
So you see ... we are not so ready as some to discard the whole incident as a Western connivance. She has already spent considerable time in jail and faces an uncertain future.
Putin, too, may face an uncertain future. Like a determined child playing musical chairs, Putin has been in and out of power now a number of times. Of course, he never REALLY leaves power and who knows what shadowy nexus backs him? Even his initial assumption of power is tainted by accusations of aggressive use of Russia's secret police (FSB). Here, from Infowars:
Vladimir Putin came to power as a result of an FSB orchestrated reign of terror in the autumn of 1999 which involved blowing up apartment blocks all over Russia and blaming the attacks on Chechen separatists, allowing Putin to start a new war and secure victory in the presidential election.
FSB agents were caught planting Hexogen explosives underneath an apartment block in Ryazan. Records indicate that the first call the "terrorists" made after planting the bomb was to FSB headquarters and the culprits were allowed to flee the country by authorities.
The FSB admitted planting the sacks of explosives, but later claimed they contained sugar and were used as part of a drill to test security procedures. Authorities first stated that a terrorist attack had been averted and that the sacks did contain Hexogen, until FSB involvement was discovered at which point the story was changed.
Russia still has a monopoly central bank and significant inflation. Putin has never made a serious move toward a gold-backed currency or taken other economic steps that would actually rattle the West. Rather than destabilize the EU, he props it up with Russian oil, albeit at a price. He's even announced a union of his own ... the Eurasian Union designed to put Russia "on a par" with the EU!
And what are Putin's REAL intentions when it comes to Syria? Couldn't Russia have stood in the way of the noxious R2P accord passed by the UN Security Council in 2005? Didn't he understand what it entailed? And what happened in Libya after so much tough talk?
The UN Council, in the service of Money Power, removed the 400-year-old Peace of Westphalia and replaced it with an affirmative obligation to interfere with a given nation-state were the leaders of that state seen as jeopardizing the "safety" of citizens.
Did Putin simply not understand the ramifications of R2P or did he cynically align himself with it anyway? Simply by opposing R2P, Putin could have ended the current wave of destabilizations before they began. He didn't. Why not?
Conclusion: What is Putin? Is he truly the West's last hope for freedom from its own globalist nightmare? Or is he something much less and more predictable at the same time, something, well ... controlled, momentarily satisfying for some (God bless 'em) but ultimately far less than the real thing.