Alex Jones, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, et al.: George Soros & Barack Obama part of a collectivist-dictatorship plan?

Alex Jones (and Glenn Beck after him) is defining "collectivist" per Ayn Rand and Ron Paul, et al. A mixed-economy to Ayn Rand is a sin. She believed in separation of economics and state — meaning money is the only way to vote. Those with whatever it takes to get more of it have a greater say. She claimed that there are to be moral restraints upon this, but what spirit can be so utterly self-centered and "independent" and simultaneously avoid doing harm vis-a-vis others?

Jesus Christ clearly holds the exact opposite views of Ayn Rand. Consider it before you rush off to march under Ayn Rand's banner.

She despised Jesus. Her works are loaded with statements directed exactly against what Jesus teaches. She hated that he went to the cross for his friends. She hated it that he condemned amassing riches in mammon rather than doing good works consistently and unselfishly.

The very spirit of Jesus is defined as collectivist and therefore evil by Ayn Rand. Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and Glenn Beck profess Christianity. They're confused. Are they with Rand or Christ? they can't be with both.

The following is a comment thread that probably should be read in conjunction with my previous post.

Tom Usher

If Alex Jones is right Obama is part of a collectivist-dictatorship plan, why has Obama been dragging where George Soros has been funding?

Thomas Smitherman

I do not wish to comment too much on what AJ or Obama themselves believe, but one must remember that while Israel is clearly protected by global elites, extreme Zionism and neoconservatism is an annoyance. How can you gain control over Arab countries and economies while people are running around talking about destroying all Muslim countries to protect Israel? The Soros-EU-NGO faction, which is critical of Israel (not its existence or its borders, but its adventurism), is hereby opposed to the Likudnik-AIPAC-Murdoch wing, which focuses on top-down media domination and military invasion to achieve its aims, not grassroots subversion. Both factions are found in the Obama WH, but obviously neoconservatism is not so powerful outside the Anglo-Saxon countries (and Israel itself).

Tom Usher

Thomas, when he is engaging in backing the left-wing endeavors that he does, Soros doesn't have to be thinking full time about extending his personal net worth or building the Greater Israel of Herzl, et al. Clearly though, he suffers from some personality conflicts. It's called hypocrisy. It comes with being rich.

He's attacked foremost because he backs leftist causes and not because he's Jewish though.

On your other comment, you mentioned Putin and others not allowing in (actually kicking out) NGO's. Yes, well let's not forget the Moscow Apartment bombing false-flag operations that Putin covered up — and not very well. Let's keep it real.

Putin, it will turn out, has grossly enriched himself at the direct and negative expense of the Russian people.

He's pushing libertarian strains of capitalism when it suits him (internationally) while he clamps down on the same thing domestically — clever but transparently selfish.

He sells out to the highest bidder. Look at the promises he made to Iran about missiles only to back out because Obama's bosses' people whispered in Putin's ear about "deals" that can be his if....

Putin's every bit as much NWO as anyone else: Russian oil and gas; Russian gold as a new reserve currency, etc. Altruistic he's not, and that's including compared to Soros.

Thomas Smitherman

I don't see Soros as terribly self-conflicted. I also didn't comment on him being Jewish. He is attacked IN THE US for backing leftist causes, but he was well-known before that in Europe for being one of the most criminal speculative traders in the world (and also for opposing communism, so some Europeans think he is right-wing).

It is not clear that Putin was involved in false-flag terror. The video implicating Putin was financed by Berezovsky, a Yeltsin-era oligarch who fled (and got ASYLUM with his stolen money) in the UK. I do not know what to believe about the events of 1999, but what you allege is far from obvious.

I do not support Putin as a domestic politician (I would likely vote Communist if a Russian citizen, given the choices), but Putin is a huge improvement on Yeltsin and has far exceeded expectations. Why? Mainly because pensions and wages are being paid and the State is taking more control over the economy and pushing out foreign financiers and parasitic investors. They also paid off their debts. I do not support his social welfare policies, which are somewhat neoliberal. But it is hard to say Putin is NWO, as both neocons and the more left-liberal European/Soros/US Democrat faction hate him and denigrate him something terrible in the press (unlike their much bloodier puppet Saak'ashvili).

I lived in Moscow for two years. Most people genuinely like Putin. Yeltsin's approval rating was usually under 10%, but they liked him in the West because he ACTUALLY sold out. The govt collected no taxes from criminal oligarchs who stole most of the State property, they also incurred foreign debts, so they paid interest on the debts rather than wages and pensions.

What Putin did was kick out oligarchs who maintained foreign loyalties and did not want to pay taxes (and play ball) and co-opted the rest. This is not socialism in the least, but it did get the State in order and prevent civil war. If his family has gotten rich off his rule, that is not clear and would be terrible, but they could have done so like the Yeltsins without bothering to create order in the country.

And I have never heard of an altruistic government. But Putin is definitely > Soros in terms of intentions.

Tom Usher

"I don't see Soros as terribly self-conflicted." Too many people leave him alone about it or laud him.

"I also didn't comment on him being Jewish." That's right. I did. I did it because of ethnic bigots in the Anti-NWO Movement. Those bigots have Nazi and/or KKK ... inclinations.

It is true that Soros has engaged in speculation that is highly suspect at the least. He is right wing relative to left-communism for sure. Glenn Beck thinks he's a closet Bolshevik or something though.

Look, I'm not a Soros fan. He's just not nearly as dangerous as the Kochs and their ilk. There's nothing worse than anarcho-capitalism.

As soon as we finish handling the Christian-Zionists as the more immediate (festering) problem, we'll have the Ayn Rand types front and center.

They're worse than the militarist, per se, because at least many militarist think they're doing it selflessly.

The Randians are pure egotists and much harder to turn from the brainwashing they've received in support of their hyper-selfishness that isn't enlightened in the least — enlightened self-interest my foot. Real enlightened self-interest is knowing that one is part of the greater whole who is God who is unselfish enough to be supplying even the Randians with existence and so far, the basic necessities of life. Let's pray to put a stop to the hyper-capitalist Monsanto before it's too late for even that.

You don't think it's clear Putin covered up the apartment bombings? The evidence was not fabricated by Berezovsky, Thomas. Did you not stay abreast of Russian public opinion during the whole investigative/reporting period? A large majority of the people believed there was a huge cover-up and whitewashing. They believed that based upon the clear evidence that it was an inside job. The agents were caught, Thomas. Did Putin string them up? It is obvious, Thomas.

Sure Putin is an improvement on Yeltsin.

"...it is hard to say Putin is NWO, as both neocons and the more left-liberal European/Soros/US Democrat faction hate him and denigrate him something terrible in the press (unlike their much bloodier puppet Saak'ashvili)."

Well, Thomas, you're defining the NWO as Soros while Putin sits at tables every bit as important as any Soros sits at. Who will have more say over what becomes the new reserve currency, Putin or Soros? Who controls more natural resources? Are Soros and Putin in competition on certain levels? Sure they are. Are you being a "realist" concerning Putin while not being one concerning Soros? It appears so.

In my book, they are both basically wrong, but are both still able to be viewed in relative terms. The same may be said of Obama too. I do the same for Hitler and Stalin and Herzl, etc. Some people claim FDR and Lincoln were terrible dictators, but there're flipsides. From God's perfection, they're all in darkness. What's to be done? Shed light.

Yeltsin suffered from a wet brain. He was caught at a very difficult time deliberately created by neoliberals who 1) gave Gorbachev the cold shoulder after Gorbachev bent over backwards and 2) sent in Jeffery Sachs to give them the worst economic advice imaginable. Yeltsin showed some courage but lacked Putin's ability to see any way out and to act on it and pull it off.

Putin is tough, organized, decisive, nationalistic, and apparently no drunk. However, he's plateaued out and mishandled many golden opportunities vis-a-vis China, Iran, and Europe. I won't go into detail about that here though.

"I have never heard of an altruistic government." Well, let's change that.

"Putin is definitely > Soros in terms of intentions." Putin is a nationalist, Thomas. As for what's in Soros' heart of hearts, how do you know his ultimate intentions are worse than Putin's nationalistic goals? Putin thought the demise of the Soviet Union was a terrible thing not because of the austerity measures but because of the loss of Russian Empire, an often very brutal Empire.

Thomas Smitherman

Look, even if you prefer Sorosian left-liberalism to anarcho-capitalism, and I could understand why, what you need to take into account is that Soros represents corruption. He supports a left-liberal system where the central banking system sucks money out of the economy and offshores it, which is not the official mantra of social-liberalism of the John Stuart Mill/John Rawls/Keynes heritage. Private banks get free money (0% interest) from the central bank, they practise usury, create derivatives, eventually the derivatives fail and they are bailed out by taxpayers and do it all over again. This is not Adam Smith's capitalism, it is corruption! I do not support Ron Paul's economics, but his programme (no central bank with special privileges) is not overtly corrupt (it would create an easily corruptible society, but that is a different issue).

I am 100% opposed to Ayn Rand, and I agree, her disciples are worse than militarists. The leader of the opposition here in Norway counts Rand as her hero. I try to explain to people how dangerous this is.

There was never a Russian public opinion majority that believed Putin was behind the apartment bombings (that the evidence was covered up is clear, I grant you that). Since you probably don't speak Russian, and have assumedly never lived there, I would doubt you are more abreast of Russian public opinion. I believe the TV program you are referring to (?????) was on NTV when it was also controlled by another oligarch who later fled with his stolen money (to Spain this time; though he has *Israeli* citizenship), Gusinsky. It is also perhaps more likely forces loyal to Yel'tsin or Berezovsky committed the crime, and Putin, the main benefactor (and whom the aforementioned still supported), covered it up. Rather like the US govt obviously covered up 911, but that does not mean Bush had any foreknowledge.

If there were a reserve currency promoted by the IMF, I think Soros and his faction would have far more power than Putin. Russia would come out better than the US because of their policy of paying off their foreign debt and building huge currency and gold reserves. This is not because they are NWO, but rather, because they were not subservient to the bankster scheme for Russia, which had brought several financial collapses in the 1990s. If Putin sits at the same table as Soros, it is because the former has real political power and cannot be ignored. If he were a globalist himself (and you say he is "nationalist" yet NWO??), he would have more support in Western media. Note also Russia was never admitted to the WTO, whereas China has a very privileged relationship with the US.

You are right to see Stalin and Hitler, etc., in relativity. Demonisation campaigns are only useful to prop up another existing order. I don't bear hatred towards Soros as a person, like Glenn Beck types seek to promote, because he is just a cog (if a major one) in a wheel. If he were not doing what he does, someone else would. I do not think he is motivated by greed. I think he is a political manipulator, but not one calling all his own shots. If he were a single actor, he would be arrested and in jail (or dead).

Yel'tsin probably lost the 1996 election to Zyuganov (Communist), and the extent to which he was competitive enough to steal it he owed to oligarchs' money, which was repayed via an even greater hands-off approach. The West actively supported these bastards as good examples of free market capitalism and you see their criticism of Putin trebled following the arrest of Xodor'kovsky. I think Yel'tsin was fully compromised, so I do not know what courage you speak of after 1991 unless you mean his drunken rant threatening nuclear war over the NATO assault on Serbia.

I am really confused as to why you are bending over backwards to defend Soros, even if you do not support him. Do you really think the enemy of your enemy is your friend? A lot of Russians (the real opposition with any popular support there, not the Western-financed liberals) think Putin is not nationalist enough. But nationalism is half-good, involving sacrifice and care for a large, if exclusive, group, it is superior to liberalism and NWO globalism, even if we take the latter on the face value of its own propaganda. Any just internationalism has to built upon the cooperation of sovereign states with decent social order, whereas globalism is the elimination of national boundaries so that rootless corporations can plunder the earth without being subject to any law. Soros represents the latter. He is an arch-criminal. Financial capitalism is theft; it produces nothing and necessarily redistributes wealth upwards. But even with this corrupt system, the likes of Soros regularly break the law. I also do not know how you compare tea parties to actual coups d'etat. I think this shows a lack of perspective.

Tom Usher

I am not a monetarist, Thomas. I thought you knew that. Perhaps I'm assuming that you see more of what I write.

I am openly for the nationalization of the Federal Reserve and the complete conversion to United States Notes. I've been there for years and years now. I stand squarely opposed to finance capitalism. I'm anti-capitalist, period. I also understand the difference between Keynes and Goldman Sachs, Thomas. Give me a little credit.

"I am 100% opposed to Ayn Rand, and I agree, her disciples are worse than militarists. The leader of the opposition here in Norway counts Rand as her hero. I try to explain to people how dangerous this is." My point exactly. The stinking Randians are hell bent for global domination. They target social democrats and democratic socialist and communists and liberation theologians and progressives and liberals and anything that isn't "greed is good" (and neocons). They have tentacles into the Scandinavian countries big time because of the social welfarism that has been practiced there often to much success.

I didn't say that the whole of Russia believe Putin was doing a cover-up. The people directly impacted held that position though. Also, it's true I don't read Russian, but I've known how to use Promt for well over a decade.

"It is also perhaps more likely forces loyal to Yel'tsin or Berezovsky committed the crime, and Putin, the main benefactor (and whom the aforementioned still supported), covered it up. Rather like the US govt obviously covered up 911, but that does not mean Bush had any foreknowledge." To be clear, I said cover-up. I didn't say foreknowledge. Regardless, just because oligarchs say something doesn't mean it's not true. Putin stood to gain, as you said. Also, the agents were under Putin. Putin came out from "intelligence." Anyway, if he covered it up, he's a rat. So, he's a rat.

"If there were a reserve currency promoted by the IMF, I think Soros and his faction would have far more power than Putin." Yes, but will it happen without a basket that includes a Russian currency? China and Russia don't want to take a backseat. If there is to be one currency, then Putin will be sure that there are strings attached where Russia is not subservient to the central bank of any other nation. He's an NWO player, Thomas.

I said Putin sits at tables where Soros isn't allowed. Putin is above Soros in the global pecking order. He's there as a major "capitalist" player.

"If he were a globalist himself (and you say he is "nationalist" yet NWO??), he would have more support in Western media." Not necessarily. He is a nationalist and wants Russia as Empire to sit at the NWO table.

What I see you doing here Thomas is allowing "NWO" to be pre-defined by those who have been echoing the term the most. That's not how it's happening though. The NWO is a process where absolutely no one but God knows the final look of it.

"Note also Russia was never admitted to the WTO, whereas China has a very privileged relationship with the US." China was sucked in under the propaganda that opening up China to money would open up China to American style multi-party liberalism. Keeping Russia out was also a way of widening the rift between China and Russia, which in the not too distant past, had more weapons pointed at each other than at the US.

I don't want to go on and on about Yeltsin. I remember him from when he was Mayor and before he fell apart. I remember him not through the lens of history books but through my watching him struggle to avoid exactly the traps he fell into. Thomas, there was a time when Russians for the most part didn't know a thing about "markets." Yeltsin was not a business man, good or bad. He screwed up. He did face down tanks though when others would have run away. It was remarkable whether you think so or not. Perhaps you're getting your views through manipulative lens.

"I am really confused as to why you are bending over backwards to defend Soros, even if you do not support him. Do you really think the enemy of your enemy is your friend?" Of course not. Where do you get these ideas about me? I made clear that I'm looking at him in relative terms, just as you are doing with Putin. Putin's not your buddy, is he? No, he's not; but I give you credit for that position whereas you're acting as if, if I don't take the most rabid anti-Soros position, I must be an NWO shill or something.

I don't agree with Julian Assange about 9/11, but I don't use that as a litmus test. I've spelled out why in great detail on this blog. I do support WikiLeaks even though I qualify my support. I have reservations about Julian Assange and George Soros. What's more, I've gone to bat for Alex Jones when he's made sense. What I'm not is someone who figures Alex knows more. He's a headline reader. He takes headlines and reads into them what is very often not in the text of the articles. It's a major, major problem. I can say that without failing to realize the depth of evil in some people in "high" places. If anything, I think Alex is naive. He doesn't know how to work it. He has a lot of people running around where a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. Also, he doesn't explain his relationship with oil. Maybe he doesn't understand his relationship with oil (Texas tea).

I'm for the NWO, just not the one Putin or Soros or the Kochs or Netanyahu want.

"...whereas globalism is the elimination of national boundaries so that rootless corporations can plunder the earth without being subject to any law." Ah, but it doesn't have to, Thomas. That's the whole point. Anti-globalists are laissez-faire capitalists as well as leftists. The laissez-faire capitalists (not all) claim the NWO is communism. The Marxists (not all) claim the NWO is laissez-faire capitalism. You are saying it's lawless corporatism. You are closer to right than are the others if we don't do anything about it. Let's see to it that it doesn't come to lawless corporatism.

The NWO is coming. Supranational government is coming. There's no stopping it. Alex Jones and the "Patriots" aren't going to stop it. The emphasis needs to be on making the NWO into what it ought to be, and that's Christianity. That's what I care about. That's what I'm working on — Christianity that is no more coercive than was Jesus Christ but where people freely chose (not Calvinism, as we both agree) and were chosen.

"I also do not know how you compare tea parties to actual coups d'etat. I think this shows a lack of perspective." I addressed this in the other thread. You're getting hung up on the terms used in different contexts.

Thomas Smitherman

1. I didn't say you were a monetarist. Monetarism is irrelevant. I said you are comparing Soros with others based on overt ideological positions people proclaims, whereas, what one must remember first of all about Soros, is that he is a criminal and in the class of people who benefit from elements of the private central banking system that can only be described as corruption (not "laissez-faire", not monetarism per se). He is like many of the old Russian oligarchs, who were/are criminals and are now proclaiming Austrian economics, but were once throwing in lines about the historical materialist dialectic. Criminals are worse than Randians.

2. Putin was not head of the FSB in 1999, he was prime minister. This is why he stood to gain the most. His predecessor, Sergei Stepashin, and the one before him, Jevgenij Primakov, were also spy chiefs. Primakov was very popular, built bridges with the Communist plurality in the Duma, wanted renationalisations, etc., and was the favourite to become president after Yel'tsin. The Berezovsky clan built up Putin so he could beat Primakov. They provocateered the 2nd Chechen war. After becoming president, Putin turned on them. Then in exile, Berezovsky developed links to Chechen warlords and promoted videos about how evil Putin is, acting like he himself was a "man of peace".

3. "China was sucked in under the propaganda that opening up China to money would open up China to American style multi-party liberalism."
—-What does this mean? The PRC jumped at the chance for foreign capital investment, but hasn't budged an inch towards multi-party politics. Oh, if you mean from the Western side, no, that is ridiculous. Big business invested there for the billion person pool of cheap labour. The WTO, which regularly rules in their favour (and, obviously, on the side of 3rd world deregulation) was a later formalisation of the trend Western elites had already created. "Free trade" (from our end) with the PRC never required popular American support, and has probably never had it.

4. Yel'tsin "faced down tanks" in a coup that, if it had succeeded (or been led by smarter people), would have likely been best for the Soviet peoples (it also would have put Boris Nikolaveyich in prison). I don't know how I am the one manipulated when you are the one always repeating the media dream story of a few people who stop the evil, evil dictators and save democracy, constructed for naive people who have little understanding of the cultural and political contexts in which these events take place. And btw, Yel'tsin's whole extended family was wrapped up in criminal business, so he didn't just screw up.

5. I don't find AJ, meanwhile, naive at all. I think he is half-businessman that combines business interests with his already existing personality weakness towards rabid anger giving him the energy that drives his show (and sells survivalist products to the paranoid callers he tends to cut off). He can calm down and give perfectly reasonable analyses. He can also get caught up on some minutia and go mad. Of course, he is not smarter than you. He usually gets his details wrong.

Tom Usher

"Private banks get free money (0% interest)." Dude, that's monetarism. I hate that term: "Dude." I just threw it in because it works here. I'm keeping it light.

Look, if you're saying that Putin was not the only person around with intelligence roots or even in intelligence at the time of the apartment bombings, well no kidding. I said he covered it up. You're concerned with whether he master-minded it or gave it the green light or whatever. Fine. I don't know if he master-minded it or gave it a green light. I know he covered it up.

Look, Putin isn't a "good guy," Thomas. He's what he is. He's overreacted. I sympathize with his situation though considering that he had George W. Bush across the table from him, and George believes almost all's fair in politics.

As for the Berezovsky stuff, you're a real apologist for Putin. Who do YOU think slipped Litvinenko the polonium-210? Who assassinated Politkovskaya, Berezovsky's people? Do you also believe that Yushchenko's poisoning was not Russian in origin? Yanukovych, "Putin's man," is in now, and Yushchenko was never the same after the poisoning.

Why are you so sure that you're getting the straight dope from Putin's side? You hedge a bit here and there, but for the most part, you seem to nearly always take the line that gives Putin the benefit of the doubt on the big matters while you're sure that Soros's side of the story is never closer to right. I don't trust Putin over Soros.

Yes, you didn't get what I said about China. Look, before China was opened up, the American newspapers I read everyday at the time were loaded with propaganda designed to convince Americans to go along with opening up the market with China. The argument that was given over and over was that economic prosperity would force China to do exactly what it still has not. The argument was that by now, China would have long since converted from it's one-party dictatorship.

Most people initially were of the mind that if we were to do that, China would simply take the money and not change from a one-party dictatorship. I was one who said that and never change from that position. However, public opinion was moved by the propaganda enough to allow the overtures, which you are correct, the Chinese snapped up. Well, as you know, I was right. I knew what was going on at the time, Thomas. I understood that what would happen is what has happened. Okay?

You need to remember that I'm 57 and have always had my head up from a fairly early age.

On Yeltsin, you're not getting me there either. You're coming at me as a young whippersnapper, Thomas. Do you know what that means?

Look, I tried to explain to you what I think you know or should and that's the absence of understanding in Russia at the time about capitalist business. They didn't study capitalism from an American perspective, Thomas. They studied it from Marx. They didn't have a clue about what was in store for them. Only a very few elites were even allowed to read a Life Magazine or things on that level. It was mostly done for intelligence reasons too. Gorbachev was one who was extra privy by the way. That never became common knowledge even among Soviet specialists. The Iron Curtain aspect was real. Yeltsin didn't know squat. He looked around and things were bleak. He heard of reform and tried to start in on it with some success. He wasn't faking it. He did think he was doing the right thing. The Soviet Union was stiflingly repressive. It was in reaction to rabid capitalism; but nevertheless, it was still not a good regime at all.

So, Yeltsin was chosen and when the results were threatened with a violent coup, he showed courage that was admirable at that time and place within the context in which the world was viewing it hoping for the best in terms of a society for Russia that most people want to see for Egypt now for instance. Yeltsin was not the only one responsible for what went wrong, far from it.

I was upset all through it that the US wasn't helping in a genuine way all across the region. We could have. There were rats in power in the US though who were loving the vengeance of neglect.

As for your saying that he didn't screw up, Thomas, crime is a screw up. He screwed up. Don't tell me I'm wrong because he committed crimes. Criminals are screwing up.

The Soviet Union was led by dictators, Thomas, and they were evil, evil, evil regardless of the fact that capitalism is also evil. Stalin was a monster. Don't excuse him because he was a communist. The only good communist is a good communist. Stalin was a very, very bad communist.

The men who came after him slowly lightened up in fits and starts until Gorbachev actually came across as someone whose heart wasn't made of steel.

If you don't see any naivety in Alex Jones, that simply means to me that you don't see where I see he's being naive. You're sharing your thoughts with me about him. That's fine. However, it seems very apparent that he twists headlines. I explained that he doesn't read the articles with an eye to getting what they are really saying. He reads them and then stretches them as far as he can get away with with his audience that is largely made up of people who don't go into things in depth and rely on Jones for their information. I've dealt with them on his site and on his YouTube posts. Most of them are extremely simplistic and genuflect to Alex.

Lately though, the caliber of commentators on his site has gone way up because Jones has his people killing the ridiculous comments. The last time I was there and read the comment section, more than half the comments were opposing the article and were actually quite astute.

So, more people are seeing through the shallow and, yes, naive treatment he gives to news analysis. Other than that, I think you sized him up fairly well. Have I heard him get on a roll where he doesn't mess up? Yes, and I've given him credit when that's happened that I've seen.

I don't watch but maybe 1-5% of his stuff though. I can go months without bothering with him. He's way too slow for me. He fills the time. After three hours of his show, it could sometimes be said in ten minutes. I hate the music and the moving background, but I'm an old man and he's appealing to people his age and younger mostly.

I just peak in to see where he is. It's not too difficult to fill in the gaps. One thing I always enjoy is hearing him link something together that I haven't heard before and then go check it out knowing that I'll see that the link the way he's presented it is far from the only way of taking the information and is usually not the best way to have read it.

Frankly, the more time that goes by, the more I believe many people touting him know the big picture he presents is not fully supported.

Anyway, I don't hate him. I think he thinks he's being real. I believe he's trying but he's stuck with his audience and how he makes his money.

Truth doesn't sell. People don't want it. They'd rather buy falsehood.

Thomas Smitherman

""Private banks get free money (0% interest)." Dude, that's monetarism."
—Afraid not, Tom. That's corruption. Monetarism refers to a central banking emphasis on tight money (high interest rates and low money supply growth). 0% interest is not tight money. 'Monetarism' was the policy of Volcker and Thatcher, which led to 10%+ official (and long-term) unemployment. It is not synonymous with central banking corruption or free market economics (and certainly not with Bernanke or the later Greenspan).

"Putin was not the only person around with intelligence roots or even in intelligence at the time of the apartment bombings, well no kidding"
—You implied he was the spy-chief at the time (said the agents worked for him), which is inaccurate. Even if you meant the agents work for a political boss ultimately, that would be the president, who was Yel'tsin.

"Who do YOU think slipped Litvinenko the polonium-210?"
—The FSB. This is what happens to ex-spies who defect. I don't feel particularly bad for him.

"Who assassinated Politkovskaya, Berezovsky's people?"
—Most likely some mafiosi who stood to be embarrassed or ruined by her journalism. That is why most journalistic murders occur in Russia. There were far more in the mid-late 90s, but it is not because Yel'tsin ordered them. They are mafia hits.
The Russia "experts" who claim Putin has everyone killed are neocons/neolibs. Politkovskaya was politically irrelevant in Russia. Only a few people took her seriously within the country (and I am not saying it is because she is bad, she was more like Chomsky in the US - who is hailed mostly in Europe and the Middle East - why would Obama or Bush whack Chomsky?).

"Do you also believe that Yushchenko's poisoning was not Russian in origin? "
—No telling, but the Russians stood to gain nothing from it and didn't gain anything from it, so it appears improbable. The Ukrainian parliament - including many from Western Ukraine - does not buy such a story anyway. From Wikipedia: "In September 2009, a special commission, created by the Verkhovna Rada, came to a conclusion that the Yushchenko dioxin poisoning was falsified to strengthen his positions during 2004 presidential elections."—Note that the Ukraine parliament had an ORANGE majority then. So a good number of their own MPs didnt believe he was even poisoned.

"As for the Berezovsky stuff, you're a real apologist for Putin"
—You are naive enough to believe what you read in major papers or see on CNN, apparently, except when it has to do with Israel/Iran/US wars. You don't research these issues, you don't have the background knowledge to evaluate what you hear. I don't know why you think the media lie systematically about Israel but are pretty much factual about Russia or Libya or how great our own financial oligarchs are vis-a-vis evil, evil politicians.

"I don't trust Putin over Soros."
—Your loss.

"Why are you so sure that you're getting the straight dope from Putin's side? You hedge a bit here and there, but for the most part, you seem to nearly always take the line that gives Putin the benefit of the doubt on the big matters"
—The aforementioned are not the "big matters". The big matters for Russia are their political economy, access to good education and social services, fighting drugs and crime, fighting US/NATO encirclement, corruption, reversing demographic decline, revitalising the Orthodox Church, etc. On some of these issues Putin has made progress, on others, regress. I am closest to the Communist Party of Russian Federation line on most of these issues, within the major players in Russian politics. The liberal groups the West always promotes have near zero influence and support of up to 5%, as their major leaders were prominent in the chaos of the 90s. They are not the real opposition in Russia. The Communists and nationalist groups are. But on these minutia about whom to blame about Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, whether Berezovsky or Putin lies more, etc., there is little debate as 90%+ of the population finds Putin blameless on *these matters*.
If you elevate those to major issues of Russian politics, it shows how little you understand.

"The argument that was given over and over was that economic prosperity would force China to do exactly what it still has not."
—Yes, I caught that, but people in the US don't really care if China is communist, social-democratic, feudal, free market, radically democratic, fascist, or whatever. And their popular support was and is unnecessary to pursue free trade with China.
That is what liberal capitalism is, in part. There is no democratic control over economic decisions. I think in the prosperous late 90s support for free trade briefly grew to close to half the population, but before and since it has been very small. The govt and business do not give a damn.
I don't care if they have elections in China. I care about how the State and business relate to workers, though. I care if people cannot afford to see a doctor.

"On Yeltsin, you're not getting me there either. You're coming at me as a young whippersnapper,"
—I don't care if you are 17 or 87, if you don't read Russian, haven't been there, haven't talked to older Russians (older than 57) who lived through the collapse of the USSR, who lost everything, who witnessed the criminality and anarchy of the 90s, who had snipers lodged on the roof during the events of fall 93, who remember Stalin (maybe had family repressed) and all the leaders in between, and, not only that, took your information from American newspapers and American television and want to talk as if you know what is going on ("of course Putin poisoned that man, killed that woman, etc.", as you are an aware and intelligent man, then you, sir, are the whippersnapper. You can't pull rank on this one.
I don't get emotional or arrogant about Burmese politics...with good reason.

"The Soviet Union was stiflingly repressive. It was in reaction to rabid capitalism; but nevertheless, it was still not a good regime at all."
—It was superior to what they have had since, although they are catching up a bit. And your language is extreme ("not a good regime *at all*"). So it was all wrong? How silly. The USSR was a good idea and could have been reformed by more Christian and traditionalist forces (most of which came to oppose perestroika and Yeltsin). Its destruction came to the benefit of a few million and the detriment a couple hundred million, among whom we could count the premature deaths of several million.
Do you really think people like Anatoly Chubais just made mistakes because they didnt understand capitalism? Oh, yes, I know about the academic mistake whereby you sell a state enterprise for 2% of its value in a closed auction to your old college roommate. Could happen to anyone! Marx did it!
Also...in terms of repression, there was a lot of freedom in that society that has since been lost. The USSR was not as it was often depicted - like some fascist state where everything was forbidden. In fact, I would say that eccentricity is a lot more accepted in that society than in the US. Also don't forget the freedom people have when their neighbourhoods aren't full of drug addicts, etc. Don't use the liberal definition of freedom alone (though even there the USSR lacked some of these NWO behavioural controls - e.g., you could smoke anywhere, anytime, the CPS was not probing everyone constantly for child abuse allegations, etc.).

"So, Yeltsin was chosen "
—Yel'tsin was elected president of the RSFSR, not of the Soviet Union, and not of an independent Russia. Yeltsin moved, allied with some generals and the regional leaders of the Ukraine and Belarus, to dissolve the USSR unilaterally (and in contrast to a popular referendum endorsing its continuation - with majorities everywhere - a year previously). When Gorbachjov accepted this dissolution of the USSR, the legal situation in Russia was unclear. They still had the president of the RSFSR and the Supreme Soviet. They inherited the Soviet constitution and laws except where they wholly impossible to practise. Then, Yel'tsin decided he would dissolve the Supreme Soviet. Problem - this was not in the authority of the President of the RSFSR. They impeached him - constitutionally - and he had tanks fire on the parliamentarians (the military split in loyalties, but apparently the tank division commander was on his side), killing hundreds. These were truly brave martyrs of "democracy", not the drunk Yel'tsin. And the West supported the dictatorial actions of the latter.

"Don't excuse him because he was a communist. The only good communist is a good communist."
—He was neither wholly good nor wholly bad. Nor was Hitler, FDR, Churchill, etc.

"Gorbachev actually came across as someone whose heart wasn't made of steel."
—And Gorbachjov became nearly universally hated. Why? This is what you don't understand about the Orient (or, really, most of the world). The dictator who kills many and is oppressive but creates material progress and social order is loved. The weak leader who, even if he proclaims good intentions (and Gorby's are debatable), causes, by his weakness, the destruction of the country and millions of needless deaths is wholly despised.
It is funny your opinions on what is good for Russia are almost always opposite of what the Russians themselves think. This shows how much you are influenced by Western media on Russian affairs.
I can qualify all that with this: I have met some Russians who like Gorby (if only in retrospect now). They are all academic types. It was a brief golden age for research and the arts with all the funding of the USSR (now depleted) combined with a lot of freedom (not previously experienced). Probably, such a combination could not last.

"However, it seems very apparent that he twists headlines"
—Agreed.

"I don't watch but maybe 1-5% of his stuff though"
—I am around that myself. I don't have time. I search youtube sometimes to hear his friday interview with bob chapman (sometimes he says nothing new, other times it is a lot of fun).

Tom Usher

I'm having a difficult time with you for a number of very fundamental reasons all stemming from your ideology and mistakes about the implications of what Jesus did and said. I don't know which is misinforming which, your ideology or your religious doctrine. My ideology is my religion. Yours actually is too, but you don't seem to know it.

Also, when I asked you some questions without stating one way or the other what I believe, you assumed (jumped to false conclusions) I had come to final decisions concerning the truth of the various matters. When I made a comment nearly in passing, you took it and tacked onto it all sorts of things I did not say and do not believe. You attributed to me things convenient to the construct and support of your false doctrine.

Your false doctrine is that Christianity is not full time, that geopolitics is separate from Christianity for the Christian, that politics is separate, that many things not actually separate are separate.

Freedom to choose to follow Jesus is a fundamental right for all Christians, all real Christians that is. Where Christianity is persecuted in anyway, it is injustice. No real Christian believes otherwise. Anti-hypocrisy is a fundamental principle of Christ. A Christian cannot say to any regime to allow Christians to openly practice Christianity while saying also to coerce others to either practice or not any religion. A Christian can promote a lack of hypocrisy, as Jesus did, which if understood, would result in everyone practicing Christianity anyway.

Every regime that stifles in any way the full import of the message of Jesus is completely evil. You balk at that because you think in relative terms only. Jesus and others and I do not. You are aware of the concept of the absolute goodness of God, yet you don't read what I just said as truth: Every regime that stifles in any way the full import of the message of Jesus is completely evil. At the same time that there is the absolute of God, there is also the spectrum where relativity exists in Earth, Heaven, and Hell. You need to reconcile this. As a Christian and when you are dealing with regimes and regime changes, you need to keep both the relative and absolute in mind. On a certain level, you are to be dealing constantly with regimes and regime changes.

The goal is the absolute. It is not usurping God, obviously, if you've understood what I said above. It is rejoining God. It is rejoining God's side.

There's a great deal going on with you. You're a multifaceted personality, highly eccentric; but I am reading you.

When I deal with Israeli Zionists, they ask me if I've ever lived in Israel and laugh at me when I speak the truth and say I have not. When I deal with American Zionists who say Ahmadinejad said he wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" and I say that it is my understanding that, that is a distortion, they ask me if I know Farsi and laugh at me when I speak the truth that I do not. I have not lived in Israel and I don't know Farsi, but I've listen to and read Juan Cole concerning what Ahmadinejad was getting at and believe Juan's statements about that. I've listened to and read Ilan Pappe and many others concerning the history of Israel, and I believe Ilan Pappe and a number of others concerning that history.

More to the point though, my religion informs me of how things ought to be, which is my primary concern. However, how things ought to be on Earth per Jesus is not your primary concern. You build walls of separation that I see need to be deconstructed. The walls are evident in your positions concerning "long-established governments" that run contrary to how things ought to be. They are also evident concerning Catholic traditions that are anti-Christ in many respects. There are many other places where you have walls that need to come down.

Thomas, you tell people that settling for less than Christianity is acceptable. I judge everything and full time against how things ought to be and always seek to move in ways designed to bring Christianity to fruition.

The Federal Reserve setting the discount rate to change the money supply is monetarism. Lowering the discount rate to near zero to flood the banks with liquidity to offset the toxic securities was the decision and act of monetarists. The fact that there is much corruption involved does not make the act non-monetary. However, I understand that your point is that the corruption is so large and nasty that it overwhelms the "pure" concept of monetarism. So you and I are both right and wrong depending upon the context.

Even with the corruption, there was a Keynesian effect. It was not enough and was directed to banksters who should not have even been there. Furthermore, as a Christian, I'm opposed to the whole system anyway and look forward to the day when it is completely gone.

I did not imply Putin was in the Official office of spy-chief at the time. You overestimate that channels of power flowed in accordance with the "official" organizational chart. I was referring to bureaucratic and operational power by virtue of personal networking and loyalties, etc. (real power).

You don't feel particularly bad for Litvinenko that he was poisoned with polonium-210 because that's what happens? If you were to feel bad it would be in part because it would make Putin look bad. However, you're supposed to be promoting Christian standards. I do concerning George Soros and Putin and everyone. The world and the Russian people in general are not interested in this. I don't stop just because the majority of Russians and you are being shortsighted.

Putin has the most power over the media in Russia. He uses the media to control what the people think. It's the same as in the US only more direct. He can suppress dissenters to keep their ranks smaller than they would otherwise be in a freer society. There's no fairness doctrine in operation in Russia or the US. The minority opinion in the US is the Russian view about the US. The minority opinion in Russia is the US view about Russia. The enemy has the best real and fabricated dirt. The fact that there is fabricated dirt should never stop a Christian from seeking the truth. The truth exposes evil. It sorts the fact from the fiction. One does not need to know every detail to know that Putin has order the death of people and that doing that is against Christianity, even though he didn't start it in South Ossetia for example. He is not a Christian who turns the other cheek and tells all others to do likewise, yet he lights candles in churches as if he's a Christian.

You don't know who assassinated Politkovskaya. She was becoming too well known outside Russia. What people are saying and thinking outside Russia matters to Putin. She's silenced now and took things to the grave. You think it was the mafia. Many people see Putin as working with that very mafia. You don't deny that he has unsavory ties. I don't know that he ordered it, but I don't know that he didn't and neither do you. I suspect him. I would investigate if I could, not to seek his punishment but to free the minds of people. I seek a 9/11 investigation. It's no different. I'm not interested in invading everyone's privacy. It's not too difficult to tell who could be upsetting things with bad intentions.

When I ask you questions, it will be more mature for you not to assume I've staked out a hard and fast position. I have a hard and fast position that on some level to some degree, the US government was criminally involved in a very direct way with 9/11.

To believe that Russia stood to gain nothing from Yushchenko's death is incorrect. Putin's man lost to Yushchenko. Had Yushchenko not been there, the clock would have been moved forward. That's common knowledge regardless of Western psy-ops. Western propaganda (true or false) worked very well about it in the US because of the strength of its plausibility even knowing how conniving Western disinfo can be. It doesn't sound farfetched at all because of Putin's background and the things that we know he's done for sure that fit the pattern. You see his actions as necessary and "good" because your doctrine is not Christian. You leave aside Christianity while you evaluate him and what he should or shouldn't do. I see his action as only understandable within his anti-Christ ideology and do not leave aside Christianity concerning what I say to him that he should or shouldn't do. There is a huge, impassable gap between us on account of this difference.

Putin engaged in a cover up of the apartment bombings. You shrug your shoulders. Do you shrug your shoulders about the Downing Street Memo or the Yellowcake forgery? You don't shrug your shoulders about Soros's currency trading, etc. I don't shrug my shoulders about any of it. Putin's man in Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, has reportedly engaged in extremely evil deeds. The number of deaths of critics is unnatural unless one counts political assassinations as natural.

Contrary to your assertions, Putin stood to gain the most from the apartment bombings for the very reason of what happened vis-a-vis the Chechens. Putin was a hero. He road to the rescue. He commanded the campaign (and don't jump on me as if I just said he was the general in the field). You don't want to consider it that way because you don't care whether or not Putin uses such tactics provided workers are treated well and there's healthcare, etc. So, you rationalize, which you think you can get away with by laying aside Christ. You're not going to make it.

You don't care whether the Chinese have free and fair multi-party elections. Well, I care about the people having the freest voice possible, and I mean free as I define it.

I don't watch CNN and rarely read the major papers. I more often see Putin's side of various stories because of my interest in getting all views and how I search new sources, etc.

"You don't research these issues, you don't have the background knowledge to evaluate what you hear." How do know what I research? I studied Soviet and East European Politics while graduating number one in the Political Science department of a large university all the while standing up for socialism and anti-Zionism and correcting a "Soviet expert." I don't see you showing me anything to back up any of your claims about Putin other than your opinions, which are clearly clouded.

You aren't schooling me in anything, Thomas. I evaluated both sides of all the stories I've mentioned. Not once did I fail to do that. Putin has extremely deep roots in Russian intelligence. He had them when the bombings occurred, and he covered up those bombings and benefited directly more than did anyone else. It doesn't prove his guilt, but your evidence is much weaker going in. I haven't judged him guilty of the particular crimes other than the cover-up. I do though judge him for what he is, which is a typical anti-Christ ruler of a major nation-state that is rife with corruption concerning which he has done much less than he could have. I largely agree with Gorbachev's recent statements about Putin, and it matters not in that regard whether Gorbachev is popular in Russia. The real Jesus isn't popular there either. You know exactly what I mean by that too.

"I don't know why you think the media lie systematically about Israel but are pretty much factual about Russia or Libya or how great our own financial oligarchs are vis-a-vis evil, evil politicians."

When the West attacked via Georgia, I was way out front in taking Russia's side in terms of the narrative (not the violence, although I understand from within Putin's context why he stepped in). Russia almost didn't fabricate a thing about what happened on the ground. They didn't need to. The truth was scathing. I was in a very small minority at first. A number of the things I wrote first ended up as the main Russian headlines in terms of emphasis — the same order of priorities (weight) I had assigned them — the same list of points. I don't say that it wouldn't have occurred to others independently, but it seems obvious to me that people searched and found my earlier take on it all and built upon it. That then ended up in the US mainstream and did have an impact. Several others and I hammered on it in a series of early articles. I have also come to the aid of Putin when I've seen that he has been wrongly appraised at least in terms of what he actually said.

I do want to say that while the US actually caused Putin to react and head in the direction he has, a direction the West then bitches about, Putin way overcompensated. He clamped down way beyond what was necessary simply to stop what might be seen as illegitimate subversion. You need to have in mind that in Putin's eyes, Jesus is a dangerous subversive so the message must be manipulated at the very least.

Just to be clear, I don't trust Putin over Soros or Soros over Putin. It remains to be seen which one will break out if either. Right now, Soros is actually doing better on the surface. Putin slid back for reasons such as Iran, as I mention to you before. That's no small matter. It has huge implications if Obama's feet can't be held to the fire — if he goes really stupid and attacks Iran or green lights Israel doing it without real evidence but just because Iran wouldn't knuckle under to Empire. I don't see him right now as being Bush-stupid though — stupid yes, but not THAT stupid.

Concerning Libya, is it breaking the truth to you that Qaddaffi really has ordered that the people be wiped out if they don't quit and allow him to remain their lord and master? Do you really think that the Western media has fabricated that and fabricated that there have been many deaths and injuries, etc.? Did the Egyptians really mass in Tahrir Square or was it all special effects? That's about the level of what you're suggesting — that it's all false propaganda. Millions of people are going to live to tell about it though. They aren't all going to be lying. Just how many have died and just how people are fighting back remains to be seen, but the whole thing is mainly Qaddaffi's fault. It's not George Soros's or anyone else's more than Qaddaffi's directly and immediately. He had other options. He's had other options, better options, all along.

As for the global banksters and corporate plutocrats, I've worked hard exposing and hammering on their crap dealings. "Bankster" and "plutocrat" are terms I have repeatedly used from long before they finally started to be common. This is how it works and even though I'm not widely read or quoted.

"Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, whether Berezovsky or Putin .... If you elevate those to major issues of Russian politics, it shows how little you understand."

Those were major issues used in the West concerning him. I didn't say they are central in Russian public opinion. You assume I have not read about the exact list of issues you gave. I have read about every one of them. I didn't need you to tell me about the weakness in Russian public opinion concerning the opposition propagandized in American mainstream media. Also, I knew about the CIA and the Western papers before you were born. When Ramsey Clark was in Iran, I was censored in the papers for saying SAVAK torturers were CIA trained. Where were you?

"but people in the US don't really care if China is communist, social-democratic, feudal, free market, radically democratic, fascist, or whatever. And their popular support was and is unnecessary to pursue free trade with China."

People did care. Many still do. I was talking about before the US "normalized" trading. It was a gigantic issue. You have no idea what you're talking about on this point. It was absolutely necessary that American public opinion be tricked into going along with it. It took a huge and protracted propaganda campaign to convince enough people to go along with it. You are demonstrating very little appreciation for how major the Cold War was. Nixon was completely right that a Democrat couldn't have gotten away with doing what Nixon did on China. You're trying to correct me about what I lived through and followed daily both in the mainstream and underground. Oh, and I speak and write English fluently. I also live in the US and was at the time. What have you said to me about how I shouldn't be making statements about Yeltsin and why (even though you took what I said out of context and built a huge mountain out of it trying to frame me as a Yeltsin-corruption-and-error excuser)? It was language and living there and talking with people to get secondhand info; but I speak and read the language, was living here, and have firsthand knowledge of what the Cold War was like starting in the 1950's. There go all of the reasons that you know more about what was going on about opening up China than I do concerning exactly what I said about it — nothing more and nothing less. You read and echo all the academic analyses about that, that you want that say the opposite of what I just said, but all that will say to me is that you're easily brainwashed by people who are stupid themselves or up to no good by lying to revise real history.

"I don't care if they have elections in China." Yes, that's you. If they had elections in China that were not lorded over by "power," the people would do what is best for the people, but you don't care just so long as the workers are treated "well" and the people have "decent" healthcare, etc. You're an elitist in the bad sense. Jesus is not that kind of elitist.

Being able to read Russian is not required any more then it is required that you be able to read in every language of the world in order to know enough to be able to speak intelligently on the issues. I am not and was not unaware of a single thing you listed. I've been in other countries. That in and of itself, doesn't make me any more expert about them. I've lived in Canada some and traveled across it more than once but probably know less about it than Mexico in many respects, where I haven't lived plus don't speak Spanish. I'm not saying that knowing a language and living somewhere and having had direct conversation with people isn't useful. It is useful. However, many people who do that still come away with a worldview that remains less valid. I've communicated with former-Soviet Russians. I stayed with former-Soviet Russians. I practically married a former-Soviet Russian. Her first language was Russian.

I've read about all the things you've mentioned. However, the issue was about Yeltsin in a very narrowly define set of circumstances that I laid out. What you have repeatedly done is change those circumstances so you could run me down in a further attempt to diminish my religious positions that run counter to your wicked Catholicism — that's right, wicked — remember: relative and absolute terms. My observations about Yeltsin were not incorrect. I framed the context. You simply tried to change the scope of my meaning. You read in things that anyone who has read me properly for very long would never conclude are my positions. I never said I supported the Oligarchs or the decision to allow them to come to the fore. I'm on record ripping them for what they did.

I didn't make Yeltsin out a hero but a failure. He ended up a pitiful, confused, corrupted person, which was too bad since he was so popular at one point for many right reasons. Ask your older Russian friends about that in specific. Russians understand pity. They do pity better than any nationality I know. Most will pity his memory if they can remember him from his peak of genuine popularity.

It would be helpful were you to stop acting as if I'm saying things I'm not, that I buy into all the Western propaganda except about mostly the Zionists, that I know little to nothing about history or politics, that I haven't the faintest idea about being resourceful to research things, and that I've never talked to people from around the world or been anywhere or done anything. I was the sole American invited to the International Student's party at my university. Now exactly why do you think they singled me out? I lived across the hall from a communist Chinese with whom I had tea. I had my portrait done by a woman from what was Nationalist China at the time. I hung out with a group of Muslims from Pakistan. I often took my lunches with a friend from Botswana and another from Sri Lanka. Do I need to go on?

You know, a person shouldn't have to say these sorts of things to get a young man to back off and to think more before he goes on the attack.

You're defending the Soviet regime. Well, for someone who doesn't care about people being able to choose their leaders, it's no surprise. I knew you were a socialist, but I didn't know you were a Stalin-apologist before this recent go around.

You don't look to bring Heaven to Earth that I can see. You can't even bring yourself to say that the Soviet regime wasn't good at all. Is the American regime good at all to you? What definition of "good" are you using? I used the Christian definition. You didn't ask. You just threw a pejorative at me. You think using the Christian definition of good is "silly." Not asking first is silly.

I said that George H. W. Bush should have aided the former Soviets. If he had, the people would not have suffered; but you ignore that so you can attempt to harm how I'm perceived and consequently my religious position because you can't measure up. That's what's galling you, and you know it.

"Do you really think people like Anatoly Chubais just made mistakes because they didnt understand capitalism? Oh, yes, I know about the academic mistake whereby you sell a state enterprise for 2% of its value in a closed auction to your old college roommate. Could happen to anyone! Marx did it!"

You try to score this point, but it is not taken from the period about which I was speaking and neither is it about the mass of the people. You are addressing a point I didn't remotely suggest. Oligarchs knew what they were doing in terms of holding out cash (tiny cash) to a strapped system and a man depending upon that strapped system. That doesn't undo my point and doesn't make me an Oligarch supporter. The people were not business people. Yeltsin was not a business man. The Oligarchs were a very small percentage of the population. I was not referring to them. I could not have been referring to them in context while also being against them. The only way your attack on me works is if I'm saying things I'm not. You don't ask me first if I'm meaning to suggest something or if I'm saying something. You just jump to conclusions that my views do not suggest.

Has no one ever told you that you do this? Try some reflective listening as a change. You'll probably be favorably impressed with your new-found popularity. People don't like me because of the positions I take and not because I refuse to hear them out or to seek clarifications from them concerning possible inconsistencies. Oh, I can and do play hardball with certain arrogant types that come my way, but you are a special situation needing special attention that I'm giving you.

"Also...in terms of repression, there was a lot of freedom in that society that has since been lost. The USSR was not as it was often depicted - like some fascist state where everything was forbidden. In fact, I would say that eccentricity is a lot more accepted in that society than in the US. Also don't forget the freedom people have when their neighbourhoods aren't full of drug addicts, etc. Don't use the liberal definition of freedom alone (though even there the USSR lacked some of these NWO behavioural controls - e.g., you could smoke anywhere, anytime, the CPS was not probing everyone constantly for child abuse allegations, etc.)."

Are you talking to me? To whom are you writing this? After volumes between us, haven't you picked up on my thinking or style anymore than you understood it the first day we ever communicated? I find that difficult to buy. That's why I'm leaning so much on you about your agenda vis-a-vis me right now — about your religious position.

I said that they did not understand business and could hardly see a thing from the outside. I spoke of the purges, etc., but you launch into how it wasn't repressive. Once the mindset is in place as to what can or can't be said or done or you find yourself in a psychiatric ward or Siberia, sure people will find a level of automatic behavior that from the outside can appear not repressive. It did relax over time though, obviously. What you consider repressive versus what I consider repressive are two different things. A "good" Nazi could have a "great" life while it lasted. A Soviet-communist boss had it made. A regular citizen who didn't make waves for the party was left alone for the most part. Could they stand in Red Square preaching the Gospel?

—Yel'tsin was elected president of the RSFSR, not of the Soviet Union, and not of an independent Russia. Yeltsin moved, allied with some generals and the regional leaders of the Ukraine and Belarus, to dissolve the USSR unilaterally (and in contrast to a popular referendum endorsing its continuation - with majorities everywhere - a year previously). When Gorbachjov accepted this dissolution of the USSR, the legal situation in Russia was unclear. They still had the president of the RSFSR and the Supreme Soviet. They inherited the Soviet constitution and laws except where they wholly impossible to practise. Then, Yel'tsin decided he would dissolve the Supreme Soviet. Problem - this was not in the authority of the President of the RSFSR. They impeached him - constitutionally - and he had tanks fire on the parliamentarians (the military split in loyalties, but apparently the tank division commander was on his side), killing hundreds. These were truly brave martyrs of "democracy", not the drunk Yel'tsin. And the West supported the dictatorial actions of the latter.

Look, I just did a post about Gorbachev saying that the Russian people should have worked with him rather than giving up on him. I know about Yeltsin and the confused legal situation at the time. The legal legitimacy of the Soviet Union was always in question because Eastern Europe was locked down under brutal, Soviet-puppet dictators. The issues are not as simple or clear cut as you've attempted to paint them. There were among the forces arraying against Yeltsin a number of outspoken people heading factions not trusted at all by the West in terms of the seriousness of their threats to restart the Cold War with a vengeance and reconstitute/hold together the Soviet Union by force of arms.

You can rightly point out that the outcome of the breakup hasn't been good for the former-Soviet states because they were ill-prepared for the onslaught of predatory capitalism, but I've said all along that my goal is not simply keeping capitalism at bay by any means necessary but rather the wholesale transformation of the planet to Christianity. Would Russia holding all the Soviet Republics by force have been better than where we are now? How do you reconcile coercion with Christ? You don't.

Non-cooperation is not necessarily coercion. It's a difficult line to draw just where the Christian should take a stand. Jesus didn't cooperate with everything they wanted of him. He saw them as overreaching, being extralegal under the highest law. I say he was right. Neither the US nor USSR were legal under that highest law. The US is lawless now, even under its own Constitution.

Of course, you are simply taking the side of whatever would have held together that bloc under more anti-capitalist forces while I was concerned at the time with the West invading to stop an advancing, reckless, Russian nationalist attempt to keep the Soviet Union together by force: WWIII — global thermonuclear exchange.

I said my position, and that is that Bush should have aided the whole group with truly friendly intentions. That's what would have been best, not what some of the hyper-nationalists and/or Bolsheviks and others wanted.

As I said, Yeltsin screwed up. He misunderstood what he was getting into. He was not strong enough in moral convictions, and he was an alcoholic. Nevertheless, I felt sorry for him. Now, how about you lay off this issue since we've beaten it to death.

"—And Gorbachjov became nearly universally hated. Why? This is what you don't understand about the Orient (or, really, most of the world). The dictator who kills many and is oppressive but creates material progress and social order is loved. The weak leader who, even if he proclaims good intentions (and Gorby's are debatable), causes, by his weakness, the destruction of the country and millions of needless deaths is wholly despised."

You haven't told me anything I didn't know with that. It is though an antiquated view. You are out of touch with the pulse of the planetary movement. Many of the people struggling all over the place are bringing down those "loved" dictators.

That mentality you painted above is evil. I seek to change it. I don't want the neoliberals to win either.

Many didn't know what they were letting themselves in for by not working with Gorbachev, not that he had all the right ideas. Working with him though in a truly cooperative spirit would have prevented many worse problems. That's not an endorsement of coercive socialism though.

"It is funny your opinions on what is good for Russia are almost always opposite of what the Russians themselves think. This shows how much you are influenced by Western media on Russian affairs."

No, it doesn't show that. I don't take what I believe from Western media. My differences with you concerning Russia are over the meaning of the Gospel. It shows that you think that what the Russians think is necessarily what is best for them, sort of how many people think what is best for America are the options pushed by FOX or CNN. Besides, you couldn't even have told me what it is I want for Russia before this reply. What you've been suggesting that I want for Russia bears no resemblance to what I actually want for Russia. I don't judge what is best for people based upon the Western media. I judge based upon my Christianity.

You don't want me brainwashed by Western media, but hopefully you're aware that Russian media is still loaded with state propaganda. You're absolutely positive that every charge leveled against Soros is true and every charge leveled at Putin is false or doesn't matter where they are true, even though every charge against Soros is of Earth shaking importance to understanding of the content of his character. That's a strange position when you know Putin covered up the bombings and broke his promise to Iran when he knows the Zionists and American neocons are full of it about Iran's nuclear program. I'm not for the Iranian regime, but there's no way America and Israel should attack them. What convinced Putin to do what the neoliberals (you hate so much) wanted? Did you read Putin the riot act over his decision?

I'm not for weapons trading but he shouldn't promise anti-weapons equipment planned by Iran to help ward off a direct attack on Iran and then back out for no apparent reason other than the West cut him some deals. Doing that shows a real lack of concern.

Anyway, Putin has signed a joint statement with the EU condemning what Qaddaffi has been doing. Putin also though rightly said he's concerned that "radical' Muslims could be strengthened in the region and that, that could make matters worse in the North Caucasus. However, if he's smart for a change (I mean really smart), he'll work to undercut those so-called radicals by being too good to the general population of Muslims so that the radicals will not be listened to. It's largely the legitimate unaddressed grievances that give the "radicals" their introduction for a violent and otherwise, global, Islamic takeover.

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.