Yes, it does seem that what we now have is “the merger of state and corporate power, on a global scale”, a form of fascism, i.e.The New World Order.
1 Like
Good point. That also goes for the Biden regime.
1 Like
Voltaire Network is a pure propaganda. Please do not link to it as if its reporting is a neutral statement of fact. The only reason to link to it would be to show how the pro-Putin outlets produce spin.
This particularly poisonous report uses a pro-Russian political stunt - burning of Ukrainian books - which took place in a Crimean town on March 14, 2010 as part of protest demonstration by Russians - to turn the tables onto Ukraine. Photographs of the stunt became viral, and were recycled in the current conflict. Former Swedish PM Carl Bildt tweeted the photograph in the belief that the burning it depicts had taken place in the current conflict. That is not the case. He removed the tweet. The removal of the tweet does not debunk the fact that it was Russians who were burning Ukrainian books. Voltaire comes along and puts up the Bildt tweet as an example of misinformation - not because it happened years ago, but as if it were lying about who was burning what books. Voltaire uses the Bildt tweet to “prove” that it is Ukrainians - not Russians - who destroy (ban) books.
Yes, the Ukrainian government has instituted “decommunization” or “de-russification”- like a de-nazification - program, which acquires some urgency during a hot war with Russia. See this Ukrainian news agency report - without spin - on the banning of Russian books based on an interview with Oleksandra Koval. The removal of Russian works from libraries is part of that program. (The removal of Russian literature is controversial). The culling of Russian works from libraries should also be seen in the context of the history of Russian destruction of Ukrainian libraries (read down the “events” page on the site linked to) and Russian attempts to obliterate Ukraine, Ukrainian separatist literature and separatists - and the ingrained Russian habits of censorship, opposition suppression etc.
Any link is presumptively propaganda on behalf of Putin, if it exposes Ukrainian libertarian shortcomings while ignoring the war context, and suppressing the facts that Ukraine intends to break away from the Russian yoke; that Putin intends to re-subjugate Ukraine, and that Russia is the greater obliterator of its enemies’ culture, self-expression, and civil rights, than Ukraine is - or can ever hope to be - of Russia’s,
Once again, in proposing a policy that the US should not send weapons to Ukraine, there is no reason to demonize Ukraine. Whatever measure you use to demonize Ukraine will demonize Putin more. Our own government might be untrustworthy, but that does not vitiate America’s very real national interests in supporting Ukrainian independence and sovereignty - even if Ukraine chooses to join the EU.
Generally, you seem to be unaware of how your choice of links to set down here reflect old leftist pro-Soviet, anti-US propaganda: Ukraine is “nazi”; the US supporters of Ukraine are war-profiteers; the US government is a servant of the military-industrial complex; the US is suppressing the rights of Ukrainians to be owned by the anti-US Russia bloc. Putin will have won a great propaganda victory if he recruits anti-statist right-wing sentiment to the cause of squashing the Ukrainian state by anti-US Russia, because Ukraine supports and is supported by the anti-Republican, anti-US Biden administration.
C.Gee, once again none of your arguments make sense. Volairenet has views I disagree with, but that doesn’t mean they wrong and they even did research on who funded the Bolshevik.
None of what you said there proves your point and you provide no evidence to support your claim and it’s hard to take this article seriously when it says stuff like this:
“According to her, it was Russian poets and writers such as Alexander Pushkin and Fyodor Dostoevsky who laid the foundations of the “Russian measure” and Russian messianism.”
"It’s actually very harmful literature, it can really affect people’s views. So my personal opinion is that these books should also be removed from public and school libraries. They should probably stay in university and research libraries for experts to study the roots of evil and totalitarianism.”
That sounds like they want to cancel Russian history the same way groups like BLM want to cancel American history only just because they don’t like and like it or not, Russian and Ukraine history are intertwined.
Once again, you are demonstrating that any information that counter to what you think you know you consider it “Putin propaganda” and you fail to provide any evidence that his aims are to bring back the Soviet Union and making any argument that aiding Ukraine is good for national security even though it’s only making us poorer and Ukraine is an ally even though they have proven time again that they aren’t and you clearly have not been paying attention to the fact that the west has tried to do regime change in Russia in the past. Here’s a past video of PJW explaining this:
1 Like
1 Like
Yazmin, your condemnation of NATO and your defense of Russia are persistent and passionate. I’d very much like to have your explanation for such persistence and passion in your own words - without a link to someone’s else’s article or video. Is there a personal reason? I do not like to pry into commenter’s personal situations, but I can’t help wondering if you are perhaps Russian? Of course you do not have to answer that question if you’d rather not. A connection with Russia would explain an emotional bias towards Russia. But if there’s no such connection, what is the cause of your pro-Russia feeling? After all, Russia is not a good country. In fact it is a horrible state to live in. (Yes, I have been there, I have seen what it’s like to live there.) It has a horrible history. My supposition would be that only a Russian could love Russia, but I’m told some non-Russians do too. I cannot fathom why.
“C.Gee, once again none of your arguments make sense. Volairenet has views I disagree with, but that doesn’t mean they wrong and they even did research on who funded the Bolshevik.”
You have not understood my arguments.
Voltairenet is an anti-US conspiracy spin-machine. (As Jillian demonstrates on another thread). Have you put up links to articles that you disagree with? Presumably you link to articles you do agree with. Why do you think that the site’s “research on who funded the Bolshevik” proves its bona fides as a go-to site for information or opinion? The “research” consists of Antony C. Sutton’s book - available for $5.99 from Amazon - which links US capitalists with the Russian revolution. The link supplies the text a document form - perhaps to give the impression that it was dug up from some archives somewhere. But it is a published work. First publication in 1974. Voltairenet has done no research whatsoever. As for the content of the book, it exposes US government officials, financiers and corporate grandees “meddling” in the Russian revolution. So what? Libertarian, anti-statist or minimal-statist politics should expose governmental hypocrisies and abuses. But no-one who is skeptical of western states (or capitalism) should be naive when it comes to the Russian state in any of its guises: Tsarist, Soviet, or Putinist.
'None of what you said there proves your point and you provide no evidence to support your claim and it’s hard to take this article seriously when it says stuff like this:
“According to her, it was Russian poets and writers such as Alexander Pushkin and Fyodor Dostoevsky who laid the foundations of the “Russian measure” and Russian messianism.”
"It’s actually very harmful literature, it can really affect people’s views. So my personal opinion is that these books should also be removed from public and school libraries. They should probably stay in university and research libraries for experts to study the roots of evil and totalitarianism.” ’
My “point” was - and remains - that you seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between “information” and “spin”. Nothing proves my point better than your response here.
The point of my linking to an article from a Ukrainian news agency was to demonstrate that the information supplied by Voltairnet concerning the intention by the Ukrainian government to remove Russian propaganda (in all its forms) from Ukrainian libraries is
1.available from sources other than Voltairenet.
2. not a secret or undercover policy.
3.not information that incriminates Ukraine, especially in the context of war with Russia, and its political and cultural separation from Russian domination. The Ukrainian derussification program exists because of Putin’s brutal russification program which is not justified by calling it “de-nazification.” )
When you say the article is “hard to take seriously” because it quotes the zealot who heads the Ukrainian Book Institute giving her opinion of Russian literature, you expose your confusion of information and spin. The article corroborates the information supplied by Voltairnet concerning Ukrainian policy on culling Russian books as part of the war against Russia and Ukraine’s defense of its separate and independent sovereignty. If you took Voltairenet’s article seriously, then you should take this article more seriously: it is fuller, more detailed, with longer quotes. It is, in fact, the source of the Voltairenet article. Your disagreement with the woman’s opinion on Russian literature is beside the point.
Why do you prefer the Voltairenet article? It cannot be for its superior information. It must be because of its spin. i.e. its (fraudulent) implication that barbarian Ukraine is burning books, and the west (through people like Carl Bildt) is spreading false propaganda about Russian barbarism. For a fact check on Bildt’s tweet read this article.
Why should we take your selection of links spinning information on Ukraine against Ukraine and for Russia “seriously”?
Did you watch the PJW video? I think he makes alot of sense, and he’s not a fan of Russia. Neither am I, and as Yasmin has already stated, she isn’t either.
Being against this war doesn’t mean one is pro- Putin. It just means one sees it as a dangerous result of the delusional thinking of the radical leftists running our government and NATO.
As Watson concludes, “The very fact that NATO and the White House are even considering this illustrates their staggering disconnect from reality…it threatens to place the world in the most dangerous jeopardy since the height of the cold war.”
1 Like
One again, you don’t demonstrate any evidence or sense for you argument. And I thought I already said that I don’t agree with every opinion that Voltairenet.org said, but that doesn’t mean that they are wrong with their information, and the Ukrainian sources is about as credible as “Palestinian” sources.
2 Likes
1 Like