Putin has more than one face presented to us. We don't know the face he sees in his mirror.
So we have one Putin who saw rabid capitalists gobbling up everything in Russia in the name of privatization and who also saw the threat posed by the capitalist forces headed by the Anglo-American Empire with all of its CIA and Pentagon forces, etc., ready to move into the wide open territory. His strong nationalistic streak and pride drove his ego to grab back the power and wealth that the West had undermined.
Putin has said that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was "the greatest geo-political catastrophe of the 20th century." That tells one a great deal.
Putin was a KGB agent. He ended up as the head of the KGB. He can look around the world to see all the secret services in capitalism being populated with people who go through the revolving doors of government administrations, elected offices, and big business. US president Eisenhower called it the military-industrial complex. The famous US sociologist C. Wright Mills had earlier identified them as the "power elite."
Of course, the power elite existed in the USSR and it now exists in the Russian Federation. The directors of the various state-owned and -run industries of the USSR were rich and powerful. The new directors of the renationalized industries have once again made themselves rich and powerful. Most of them have come through the revolving door from the KGB/FSB. It is just a new twist on an age-old theme.
The question in this worldly world to the people who don't understand that falsehood of the entire spectrum is which flavor of elitism do you want? Do you want the world of the billionaires (who tried, and did for a time, buy up Russia for themselves) holding all things in their private hands, or do you want the other brand of elitists who ostensibly hold all things in nationalized form but who live the life of princes and kings while there are still the poor and dispossessed in the world? Which is ultimately more or less enslaving? Which is run by the more ruthless gangsters? They both use the same tactics. History shows it clearly and plainly. Is what Putin did to Chechnya worst than what Bush has done to Iraq?
Both the USSR and the US have struggled to control Afghanistan for instance, but the UK tried before them and the whole area has seen empires (imperialists, colonialists) come and go for millennia.
For those who do understand the falsehood of the entire spectrum, there is the one and only right alternative that is real Christianity, which is small-c, non-coercive communism and the understanding that God is not only the author of that system but is that system.
So is Putin the savior of Russia, or is he just a ruthless gangster who sanctions and facilitates torture, assassinations, corruption, embezzlement, ad nauseam? Some famous recent assassinations include Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko.
Anna Politkovskaya was an American-born Russian investigative journalist who focused heavily upon the Chechnya Wars and the corruption and weakness of the Putin administration. She was gunned down in a "professional" hit.
Alexander Litvinenko was a former FSB agent/whistleblower who was poisoned to death for revealing that some (many, most, nearly all) of the alleged terrorist attacks in Russia were false-flag operations designed by the FSB (KGB) as a pretext for the crackdown on Chechnya and increases in Putin's authoritarianism.
Litvinenko said that the FSB infiltrated a group of Muslims to steer them into undertaking the terrorist attack in Moscow on the theater. Those FSB agents were allowed to escape by the FSB.
We've seen a long history of agent provocateurs (provokers) in the world. The CIA has been especially adept in this dark art.
Many nationalists in the lower ranks want falsely to imagine that their nation only directs these activities externally. However, history shows that ruthless, power-hungry people turn as secretly as they are given to feel they must be upon their own nation's innocent. This dirty, secret tactic is used time and again in strategies always designed to keep the people from having a truly participatory government. This dirty, secret tactic remains only as secret as hypnotized subjects will remain thusly hypnotized. Whole systems of society are geared to suppressing this instrument used upon the Americans, the British, and the Russians alike.
So, while neocons in America shun the need for a thorough outing of everything 9/11 and while their has been greater and greater consolidation of media into the hands of those who are getting richer and richer relative to the rest of the people, American neocons point the finger at Putin as becoming more and more authoritarian. However, you will note that the American mainstream media don't touch the false-flag operations of the FSB in Russia. You will also note that the mainstream media in Russia don't touch the false-flag operations of the CIA in America.
Each knows full well that the other has done it, but each wants the whole subject of the use of false-flag operations to remain as suppressed as possible. That of course is due to the fact that once people start looking at how secret services operate, they will begin to see that those services mirror each other in depravity. They even attempt to out do one another.
The creed in this is (Leo) Straussian. It is, by implication, that whoever is the most cunning in his or her ruthlessness will invariably be the leader. In other words, the ideology says that terrorism is the secret tool to power.
Understand here that terrorism is throwing the fear (terror) into the people to work their souls the way rats are conditioned in a laboratory. If a leader wants to consolidate and magnify his power and control over the people, he simply causes or goes along with that which will throw fear into the people. Then he ostensibly supplies that which will counter the very things that caused or causes that fear.
This is what happened in 9/11, 7/7, the Russian apartment bombings of September 1999, and elsewhere.
A Bloody September
In September 1999, a series of middle-of-the-night explosions shook Russian cities destroying several apartment blocks [buildings]. More than 300 people died as they slept. The attacks, attributed to Chechen separatists [Muslim "gangsters"], boosted the popularity of the hawkish would-be President Vladimir Putin. Then, a strange thing happened. A bomb was defused by the local police, and the trail of evidence led to the door of the FSB, the secret service. The FSB was forced to admit "an ill-conceived exercise", which was remarkably similar to the earlier explosions. Ever since, a question has lingered over Mr. Putin's presidency: Who Done It? Why was the "esxercise" [sic] incident covered up? Witnesses disappeared? Inquisitive journalists [were] intimidated? Critical TV stations [were] closed down? And who was behind the assassinations of two members of Russian Parliament, who persisted with their own investigation?
Four years later, as Mr. Putin began campaigning for a second term, two Chechen rebels finally went on trial on charges related to the September 1999 bombings. But what is really happening at the trial, which is closed to the public and the press? And why [was] an independent lawyer, who had been hired by the victims to investigate the case, [
was] arrested a week before the trial on planted evidence?
In these pages you will find the facts, the news and the views about the gravest of unsolved crimes of the XX [20th] century.1
The so-called "ill-conceived exercise" in Ryazan was no exercise.2 Everything points to cover-up. Everything points to the FSB conducting a string of false-flag, terrorist attacks (apartment bombings) on their own people (the Russians) all designed to set up the pretext for Russian wrath against the Chechen Muslims (the second Chechen war). It was to consolidate and magnify power under Vladimir Putin. It was to get the people so afraid and angry that they would go along with reversing openness, the freedom to dissent, to have a voice.
The story concocted by the FSB is ridiculous in the face of all the evidence of the cover-up.
Duma [the Russian parliament], on a pro-Kremlin [Putin] party block vote, voted to seal all materials related to [the] Ryazan incident for the next 75 years and forbade an investigation of what really happened.3
The local police in Ryazan had tested the material and positively identified explosives. Their bomb experts saw and defused the bomb. There is no doubt that it was a real bomb set to go off at 5:30 AM. It was definitely planted there by FSB agents.
The secret service lied and lied and lied and did the dastardly deeds so that now their top people are the rich directors of the various industries taken back from the equally greedy capitalist oligarchs and "nationalized." We put that in quotes, because those industries really are not the full property of the people since the people don't control those industries. It is not a government of, by, or for the people.
The exact same philosophy and tactic was used in the US with 9/11 and UK with 7/7.
Stirring up trouble to cause the people to turn to those very people stirring up the trouble is a tried way of duping the people. The subsequent clampdown always includes a clampdown on the information (the press) that would expose the connections (the network) of trouble makers with those supposedly in charge of providing safety and security. Hence we see the banning in Russia of Litvinenko's book, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror.
We also hear the American neocons calling for reducing freedom of speech and of the press in the US. They do this by appealing to the people to believe that America is an exception to the use of false-flag operations. It is called American exceptionalism. The recent revelations by the Holy Spirit of all the torturing and other despicable acts by American bad shepherds show that Americans are no exception. They are wolves in shepherd's clothing, holding themselves up as angels of light but who are hell's angels, running the nations.
The neocons are fast to point at Putin as a growing authoritarian, which he has been. However, they are quick to fall back upon the centuries of conditioning of the American people into thinking of themselves as somehow inherently, genetically, superior and incapable of Nazism. Nonsense.
You may also be interested in Putin's Russia, by Anna Politkovskaya.
Alexander had also accused Putin of pedophilia. He said it was known in the inner circles of power. One of the main accusers, Artyom Borovik, died in a "mysterious" plane crash, so common among enemies of the state gangsters who seek to dominate large areas or the entire world. Most people will remember the video of Putin kissing the young boy on the stomach. It was so strange for people to see that sort of behavior that Putin was inundated with questions about it.
We aren't accusing him. We aren't judging or condemning him. How can such statements though be put to rest in the face of what is known about Putin's FSB cover-up of the 9/99 false-flag operations? We certainly can't put it past people capable of blowing up apartment buildings with innocent people of their own nation sleeping in them just for the sake of personal power, wealth, and control that they wouldn't also be capable of defiling little boys.
It is true though that greed, violence, and sexual depravity come from the same root. Where you find one, you don't find the others far behind. The temptation to one can open the door to the temptation of the others. It is a vicious, selfish, self-destructive, and generally destructive cycle. Overcoming one requires overcoming all three.
The program of Russian disinformation has succeeded for a time. The Russian people support Putin at 70-80%. They see him as having restored some of Russia's prestige, giving them more decisive safety, and preventing the rape of Russia by capitalists from the West. Since Putin's FSB-types control the mainstream media in Russia, the people don't hear the countervailing story. The dissidents are beaten and arrested. Their words are censored from the mainstream news in Russia.
It is much the same as with the mainstream media in the US that is always under the watchful eye of Big Brother who is the oligarchy.
Well, to answer the question of whether or not Putin is the savior of Russia, the only person against whom we can compare him is Jesus Christ. When we do that we find that Putin is no savior.
We remember the build-up to the first Chechnya War in which the Chechens were called "gangsters." What wasn't emphasized at the time was the strong Mujahideen current running through the rebellion and break-away movement.
Now that Russia (the Russian tribe) has reasserted control over the tiny republic, Putin is tolerating a reputed puppet, corrupt dictator/president, Ramzan Kadyrov. Kadyrov is accused of being a gangster as is Putin.
Remember that the Nixon administration and the Kennedy family both had ties to "organized crime." In our work, we'd made it clear that the whole apparatus of the worldly government is a form of organized crime. The leaders of the Empire are kleptomaniacs. That's why the US is in Iraq: To steal control of the oil, to divert the profits into their own pockets and to reward their followers and those who place them in power in the first place.
You can see the mirror image of the US and Russia here. The only difference is in how the image is projected to the public through the word-game that is played out.
Both entities are operating on the false spectrum. Neither is divinely legitimate. However, as is clear from the proper interpretation of scripture, it has been known for ages that humanity gets the government it deserves.
Therefore, let us begin now to deserve better and the best government. Let us follow and do that which is best for the sake of each and all.
This we cannot get out of the false spectrum that comprises all the hypocritical ideologies developed by those who were not striving in earnest for Christlikeness.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)