Category: Gary Gindler

208245.jpg

Capitalism vs. Socialism: A Story of Two Family Relics


There are two stories that I am going to tell you.  They happened a long time ago.  They occur over three centuries and span multiple continents.  These stories have nothing in common except for one thing: the continuity of documents.

The history of the first document dates back to the beginning of the 18th century.  The scene is a North American colony called the Province of New York.  For his services to Great Britain, a German nobleman received land from King George II in the royal colony of New York.  The area was large, but subsequent generations quietly sold it piece by piece.  This family of new settlers supported the colonists, not King George III, in the Revolutionary War.  This allowed the ownership of the land to be preserved after the war.  Now my good friend owns this land (or rather, the small piece that remains).  He, like his ancestors spanning eight generations, is an American patriot.

Recently, there was a problem with the issue of land ownership in the state of New York.  Without going into details of the territorial dispute court case, I will dwell on its essence.  My friend did not have any official documents issued by the state of New York that would confirm his right to own said land.  So he brought to court the only thing he had: an old family relic – a fragile parchment scroll signed by the British monarch.

The American judge, having examined the parchment, ruled that the heir to the German nobleman be the only legitimate owner of the land, granted to his ancestors by King George II long before the establishment of the United States of America.

The court ordered the Executive Branch to issue him a modern deed confirming his right to own the land, as well as to record the information about the owner in the state register.

This story of land ownership has a happy ending.  The continuity of property rights is one of the main foundations of capitalism.  The second story, which also has a happy ending, is an entirely different pattern of continuity.

My supervisor at the scientific laboratory was a brilliant scientist and a true Russian intellectual.  His ancestors were Cossacks who lived in the south of Russia for many centuries.  Throughout their history, they eventually replaced their classic Nordic features with typical southern features – relatively dark skin, curly hair, and a slightly hunched nose.

In 1942, the south of Russia was occupied by the troops of the Third Reich.  First, the Nazis began to round up the Jews.  On one of the winter days of 1943, Gestapo agents broke down the door of my supervisor’s ancestors’ peasant hut and ordered them to gather for an hour and report at the railroad station together with all the other Jews.  The father of my scientific supervisor started a verbal skirmish with the Gestapo, which turned into a mêlée.  The whole time, he did not stop shouting that he was not a Jew, but a Russian.

The Gestapo was taken aback.  The agents immediately arrested him and threw him in jail.  They also informed the authorities about the incident.  After some delay, a commission of Nazi doctors arrived from Berlin.  They, using the canons of eugenics, made a thorough examination of the prisoner.  They measured his forehead, ears, and nose and came to an unambiguous conclusion – he was essentially a purebred representative of the Aryan race.

The Russian peasant was given a certificate with an official seal, on letterhead with a swastika, signed by some Standartenfuhrer, that he was not a Jew, but an Aryan.  The newborn “Aryan” jubilantly arrived back home and hid this document until better times.

Fast-forward a short ten years, and “better times” have come.  In 1953, Stalin planned to remove the entire Jewish population of the USSR to Siberia.  In other words, the Holocaust-2 was being prepared.  One March morning in 1953, agents of the NKVD (later renamed the KGB) burst into the hut of the Russian peasant and relayed the well known phrase: “Jews, get out!”  As it played out ten years ago, a verbal skirmish began, which again developed into a fistfight.  By the time the family relic obtained from the Nazis was finally found, the “Aryan” had lost two teeth.

However, when the NKVD agents saw this document stamped with a swastika, they turned pale.  After a long dumb scene, during which they reverently looked at the paper, they apologized to the Russian “Aryan” family and evaporated.  A few days later, the mustached communist tyrant died, and the Holocaust-2 did not take place.

This eugenics-related story has a happy ending, too.  The continuity and acceptance of the Gestapo document should not surprise anyone.

Supporters of National Socialism from the Third Reich and supporters of International Socialism from the Soviet Union, although they fought among themselves, understood each other perfectly.

At first glance, these stories about family relics have no political background.  However, these two family histories reflect the well known practical consequences of one or another ideological foundation of a society.

Under socialism and capitalism, there is a significant continuity of ideas, traditions, and laws.  At the same time, any form of socialism – whether in fascist Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea or the Soviet Union – always leads to totalitarianism and anti-Semitism.  Finally, in spite of utopian Marxism, socialism does not lead to an equal distribution of wealth; rather, as Winston Churchill rightly pointed out, it leads to an “equal sharing of misery.”

The cacophony of the pre-election race in 2018, when the number of sweetly singing socialist sirens in America is simply off the charts, should not confuse anyone.

The outcome of this year’s elections is more important than ever: either Trump’s capitalist reforms will be continued or they will be torpedoed, and Obama’s socialist reforms will again start to strangle America.

What family relics would you like to leave to your descendants?

Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.  Follow him on Twitter.

There are two stories that I am going to tell you.  They happened a long time ago.  They occur over three centuries and span multiple continents.  These stories have nothing in common except for one thing: the continuity of documents.

The history of the first document dates back to the beginning of the 18th century.  The scene is a North American colony called the Province of New York.  For his services to Great Britain, a German nobleman received land from King George II in the royal colony of New York.  The area was large, but subsequent generations quietly sold it piece by piece.  This family of new settlers supported the colonists, not King George III, in the Revolutionary War.  This allowed the ownership of the land to be preserved after the war.  Now my good friend owns this land (or rather, the small piece that remains).  He, like his ancestors spanning eight generations, is an American patriot.

Recently, there was a problem with the issue of land ownership in the state of New York.  Without going into details of the territorial dispute court case, I will dwell on its essence.  My friend did not have any official documents issued by the state of New York that would confirm his right to own said land.  So he brought to court the only thing he had: an old family relic – a fragile parchment scroll signed by the British monarch.

The American judge, having examined the parchment, ruled that the heir to the German nobleman be the only legitimate owner of the land, granted to his ancestors by King George II long before the establishment of the United States of America.

The court ordered the Executive Branch to issue him a modern deed confirming his right to own the land, as well as to record the information about the owner in the state register.

This story of land ownership has a happy ending.  The continuity of property rights is one of the main foundations of capitalism.  The second story, which also has a happy ending, is an entirely different pattern of continuity.

My supervisor at the scientific laboratory was a brilliant scientist and a true Russian intellectual.  His ancestors were Cossacks who lived in the south of Russia for many centuries.  Throughout their history, they eventually replaced their classic Nordic features with typical southern features – relatively dark skin, curly hair, and a slightly hunched nose.

In 1942, the south of Russia was occupied by the troops of the Third Reich.  First, the Nazis began to round up the Jews.  On one of the winter days of 1943, Gestapo agents broke down the door of my supervisor’s ancestors’ peasant hut and ordered them to gather for an hour and report at the railroad station together with all the other Jews.  The father of my scientific supervisor started a verbal skirmish with the Gestapo, which turned into a mêlée.  The whole time, he did not stop shouting that he was not a Jew, but a Russian.

The Gestapo was taken aback.  The agents immediately arrested him and threw him in jail.  They also informed the authorities about the incident.  After some delay, a commission of Nazi doctors arrived from Berlin.  They, using the canons of eugenics, made a thorough examination of the prisoner.  They measured his forehead, ears, and nose and came to an unambiguous conclusion – he was essentially a purebred representative of the Aryan race.

The Russian peasant was given a certificate with an official seal, on letterhead with a swastika, signed by some Standartenfuhrer, that he was not a Jew, but an Aryan.  The newborn “Aryan” jubilantly arrived back home and hid this document until better times.

Fast-forward a short ten years, and “better times” have come.  In 1953, Stalin planned to remove the entire Jewish population of the USSR to Siberia.  In other words, the Holocaust-2 was being prepared.  One March morning in 1953, agents of the NKVD (later renamed the KGB) burst into the hut of the Russian peasant and relayed the well known phrase: “Jews, get out!”  As it played out ten years ago, a verbal skirmish began, which again developed into a fistfight.  By the time the family relic obtained from the Nazis was finally found, the “Aryan” had lost two teeth.

However, when the NKVD agents saw this document stamped with a swastika, they turned pale.  After a long dumb scene, during which they reverently looked at the paper, they apologized to the Russian “Aryan” family and evaporated.  A few days later, the mustached communist tyrant died, and the Holocaust-2 did not take place.

This eugenics-related story has a happy ending, too.  The continuity and acceptance of the Gestapo document should not surprise anyone.

Supporters of National Socialism from the Third Reich and supporters of International Socialism from the Soviet Union, although they fought among themselves, understood each other perfectly.

At first glance, these stories about family relics have no political background.  However, these two family histories reflect the well known practical consequences of one or another ideological foundation of a society.

Under socialism and capitalism, there is a significant continuity of ideas, traditions, and laws.  At the same time, any form of socialism – whether in fascist Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea or the Soviet Union – always leads to totalitarianism and anti-Semitism.  Finally, in spite of utopian Marxism, socialism does not lead to an equal distribution of wealth; rather, as Winston Churchill rightly pointed out, it leads to an “equal sharing of misery.”

The cacophony of the pre-election race in 2018, when the number of sweetly singing socialist sirens in America is simply off the charts, should not confuse anyone.

The outcome of this year’s elections is more important than ever: either Trump’s capitalist reforms will be continued or they will be torpedoed, and Obama’s socialist reforms will again start to strangle America.

What family relics would you like to leave to your descendants?

Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.  Follow him on Twitter.



Source link

208913.jpg

American Kitsch


The current situation in our country resembles a poorly written play.  Act I: The Democrats and their media-industrial complex force President Nixon to resign and block Robert Bork, who was nominated by President Reagan to the Supreme Court.

Act II: The same players try to squeeze Trump out of White House and attempt to prevent nomination to the Supreme Court of Judge Kavanaugh.  In this regard, let’s recall this quote well known to all students of leftism: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.”  This quote exists (in different versions), but nobody knows its origin.  Karl Marx had written on the repetition in history, referring to Hegel.  However, only the beginning of this phrase – “history repeats itself” belongs to Hegel, and Marx should be credited only for the ending – “first as tragedy, then as farce.”

So if we believe the founding fathers of the ideology of the modern Democratic Party of the United States, then we are in a phase of farce.  Moreover, surprisingly, this farce is created solely by the hands of the ideological followers of Marx and their militant propaganda wing, the American mass-disinformation media.  A well known role in all this, like many years ago, is played by Bob Woodward.  His book about the Watergate scandal cannot be underestimated, but his new book – about Trump – is likely to be perceived in the context of farce.

What a vulgar farce Democrats demonstrated on the first day of the hearing of Judge Kavanaugh!  The audience was crammed with protesters, who tried to create chaos and disrupt the proceedings.  They showed a zero level of civility.  Judges Kavanaugh’s children were even forced to withdraw from the Senate building because of security concerns (they were allowed to return later on).  About 20 people were arrested only during the first hour of proceedings, then more during the day – more than 50 bullies.

Leaders of hooligans at hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee were well known anti-Semites – “Palestinian” Linda Sarsour; Al Sharpton; and the radical female group Code Pink, which supports the “Palestinians.”  The supporter of sharia in America, Sarsour, like the hooligan from Code Pink, was arrested.  The Democrats’ hooligan-like behavior started the on the fifth second after the hearing did.  Only after a few hours did the police succeed in calming the public.

Democratic senators were forced to publicly admit that they had worked out a strategy for torpedoing hearings of Judge Kavanaugh in advance.  This shows that Democrats are in a state of despair and panic and explains why they made such blunders.

Who opposes Judge Kavanaugh?  Politically: Marxists, militant atheists, globalists, feminists, anti-Second Amendment crowd, Democrats, sharia-supporters, and Bolshevik supporters of Bernie Sanders are against him.  However, most of all, just like Judge Robert Bork, Judge Kavanaugh is hated for his uncompromising stance on respecting the original (that is, without modern voluntarist interpretations) U.S. Constitution.

Everyone who watched this farce in the Senate Judiciary Committee could feel a significant difference between the two opposing sides.  Every American was convinced that in our country, there is a civilized party that defends the traditional democratic process and a party of vicious opponents of it.

Democrats screamed, squealed, and interrupted the speakers, and this applies to both senators and their accomplices in the audience.  What will be the result of this farce? It is unlikely that the party of neurasthenics, anti-Semites, and hooligans will get new followers.

Democrats increasingly resorted to violence, but this violence is now somewhat castrated.  There is a lot of noise and emotions, but the lack of a positive platform for the Democrats does not lead to any results, except for the loss of their own reputation.

Noise and emotion also dominated the recent funeral of Senator McCain and singer Aretha Franklin.

Until recently, funerals in America were what they always have been– a sad farewell to a departed human being.  However, in the era of farce, the funeral turned into some kind of kitsch funeral.

A kitsch funeral is no longer just a farewell, but a grand political rally at which the invited VIPs pour mud on uninvited VIPs.

All of those invited to the kitsch funeral openly enjoyed their feeling of belonging to the upper kitsch-society.  This society has picked up a motley crew – Democrats, anti-Semites, anti-Trumpists, and sexually preoccupied males.  Moreover, some kitsch VIPs managed to be present not only at both funerals, but also at the hearing of Judge Kavanaugh in the Senate.

As you know, the funeral of President Kennedy lasted three days.  The funeral of President Reagan went for seven days (a record at the time).  Of course, Reagan was one of America’s favorite presidents.  However, Senator McCain, while he was still alive, directed everything in such a way as to outdo President Reagan – he planned that his funeral would last eight days.

How could a man who in his youth showed examples of courage, having been in Vietnamese captivity for many years, slide down to scrupulous planning of his own state funeral?

Democrats demonstrated vulgar manners, unworthy of public figures, at the funerals of Aretha Franklin and Senator John McCain and at the hearing of Judge Kavanaughagh.  This kind of behavior is not American.  Therefore, there is every reason to believe that the political price the Democrats will have to pay in November will be high.

It can be said that McCain’s kitsch funeral is likely to become a severe mistake both of the Democrats and of the Republican anti-Trumpists.  Perhaps, when we analyze the results of the elections in November this year, we will return to kitsch funerals once again.

Unfortunately, we live in an age of kitsch funerals and kitsch politics.

The former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, who was McCain’s vice presidential candidate, was demonstratively not invited to McCain’s funeral, although she never spoke of him negatively.  President Trump was also demonstratively and shamelessly not invited to the funeral.

About two years ago, Donald Trump said, “Let’s make America great again,” and leftists still cannot calm their anger.

New York State governor Andrew Cuomo said, “America has never been great,” and leftists began to rejoice.

McCain’s daughter Meghan said, “America has always been a great country,” and leftists, as if nothing had happened, once again began to rejoice.

Does this all seem silly?  Of course it does.  What else can the kitsch look like?

Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.  Follow him on Twitter.

The current situation in our country resembles a poorly written play.  Act I: The Democrats and their media-industrial complex force President Nixon to resign and block Robert Bork, who was nominated by President Reagan to the Supreme Court.

Act II: The same players try to squeeze Trump out of White House and attempt to prevent nomination to the Supreme Court of Judge Kavanaugh.  In this regard, let’s recall this quote well known to all students of leftism: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.”  This quote exists (in different versions), but nobody knows its origin.  Karl Marx had written on the repetition in history, referring to Hegel.  However, only the beginning of this phrase – “history repeats itself” belongs to Hegel, and Marx should be credited only for the ending – “first as tragedy, then as farce.”

So if we believe the founding fathers of the ideology of the modern Democratic Party of the United States, then we are in a phase of farce.  Moreover, surprisingly, this farce is created solely by the hands of the ideological followers of Marx and their militant propaganda wing, the American mass-disinformation media.  A well known role in all this, like many years ago, is played by Bob Woodward.  His book about the Watergate scandal cannot be underestimated, but his new book – about Trump – is likely to be perceived in the context of farce.

What a vulgar farce Democrats demonstrated on the first day of the hearing of Judge Kavanaugh!  The audience was crammed with protesters, who tried to create chaos and disrupt the proceedings.  They showed a zero level of civility.  Judges Kavanaugh’s children were even forced to withdraw from the Senate building because of security concerns (they were allowed to return later on).  About 20 people were arrested only during the first hour of proceedings, then more during the day – more than 50 bullies.

Leaders of hooligans at hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee were well known anti-Semites – “Palestinian” Linda Sarsour; Al Sharpton; and the radical female group Code Pink, which supports the “Palestinians.”  The supporter of sharia in America, Sarsour, like the hooligan from Code Pink, was arrested.  The Democrats’ hooligan-like behavior started the on the fifth second after the hearing did.  Only after a few hours did the police succeed in calming the public.

Democratic senators were forced to publicly admit that they had worked out a strategy for torpedoing hearings of Judge Kavanaugh in advance.  This shows that Democrats are in a state of despair and panic and explains why they made such blunders.

Who opposes Judge Kavanaugh?  Politically: Marxists, militant atheists, globalists, feminists, anti-Second Amendment crowd, Democrats, sharia-supporters, and Bolshevik supporters of Bernie Sanders are against him.  However, most of all, just like Judge Robert Bork, Judge Kavanaugh is hated for his uncompromising stance on respecting the original (that is, without modern voluntarist interpretations) U.S. Constitution.

Everyone who watched this farce in the Senate Judiciary Committee could feel a significant difference between the two opposing sides.  Every American was convinced that in our country, there is a civilized party that defends the traditional democratic process and a party of vicious opponents of it.

Democrats screamed, squealed, and interrupted the speakers, and this applies to both senators and their accomplices in the audience.  What will be the result of this farce? It is unlikely that the party of neurasthenics, anti-Semites, and hooligans will get new followers.

Democrats increasingly resorted to violence, but this violence is now somewhat castrated.  There is a lot of noise and emotions, but the lack of a positive platform for the Democrats does not lead to any results, except for the loss of their own reputation.

Noise and emotion also dominated the recent funeral of Senator McCain and singer Aretha Franklin.

Until recently, funerals in America were what they always have been– a sad farewell to a departed human being.  However, in the era of farce, the funeral turned into some kind of kitsch funeral.

A kitsch funeral is no longer just a farewell, but a grand political rally at which the invited VIPs pour mud on uninvited VIPs.

All of those invited to the kitsch funeral openly enjoyed their feeling of belonging to the upper kitsch-society.  This society has picked up a motley crew – Democrats, anti-Semites, anti-Trumpists, and sexually preoccupied males.  Moreover, some kitsch VIPs managed to be present not only at both funerals, but also at the hearing of Judge Kavanaugh in the Senate.

As you know, the funeral of President Kennedy lasted three days.  The funeral of President Reagan went for seven days (a record at the time).  Of course, Reagan was one of America’s favorite presidents.  However, Senator McCain, while he was still alive, directed everything in such a way as to outdo President Reagan – he planned that his funeral would last eight days.

How could a man who in his youth showed examples of courage, having been in Vietnamese captivity for many years, slide down to scrupulous planning of his own state funeral?

Democrats demonstrated vulgar manners, unworthy of public figures, at the funerals of Aretha Franklin and Senator John McCain and at the hearing of Judge Kavanaughagh.  This kind of behavior is not American.  Therefore, there is every reason to believe that the political price the Democrats will have to pay in November will be high.

It can be said that McCain’s kitsch funeral is likely to become a severe mistake both of the Democrats and of the Republican anti-Trumpists.  Perhaps, when we analyze the results of the elections in November this year, we will return to kitsch funerals once again.

Unfortunately, we live in an age of kitsch funerals and kitsch politics.

The former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, who was McCain’s vice presidential candidate, was demonstratively not invited to McCain’s funeral, although she never spoke of him negatively.  President Trump was also demonstratively and shamelessly not invited to the funeral.

About two years ago, Donald Trump said, “Let’s make America great again,” and leftists still cannot calm their anger.

New York State governor Andrew Cuomo said, “America has never been great,” and leftists began to rejoice.

McCain’s daughter Meghan said, “America has always been a great country,” and leftists, as if nothing had happened, once again began to rejoice.

Does this all seem silly?  Of course it does.  What else can the kitsch look like?

Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.  Follow him on Twitter.



Source link

The Russian Method of State Suicide


It seems that Russia, in its search for a suitable method of collective suicide, has decided to compensate for America’s supposed superiority in anti-missile defense systems with an enormously expensive one-sided arms race.

Russia decided to create missiles capable of almost 100% penetration of not just the existing but also any future missile defense of the United States. Of course, the Pentagon only shrugged — they know perfectly well about Russia’s tiny military budget. Well, if Russia wants to go bankrupt unilaterally, so be it. Trump’s administration will not interfere. It will even help.

The fact is that the nuclear missiles currently in service in Russia can overcome any U.S. missile defense. Not all of them, of course, but even a small percentage of missiles that penetrate are capable of wiping America off the face of the earth many times over. Conversely, U.S. missiles can overcome Russia’s missile defense. It’s called parity, also known as “guaranteed mutual destruction.” It is a confirmation of the old military adage: in a confrontation between the armor and the projectile, the projectile always wins.

The self-destruction of Russia in the form of a one-sided arms race is happening in broad daylight. Russia never concealed its intentions. In the West, all this was understood a long time ago. Western politicians are also not hiding the results of their analysis. The autocrat Putin is no longer invited to important international forums, and no one among prominent heads of states visits him. Why should they? The country under his leadership has become an outcast, and everything Russian has become politically toxic, but strangely enough, at the same time a very convenient scapegoat.

Democrats are blaming Russia for the loss in the 2016 election. The special prosecutor Robert Mueller investigates activities of Paul Manafort at the time when Manafort worked for Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. But Mueller himself also worked with Yanukovych during the same time. Democrats accuse Russian hackers of hacking DNC e-mails, but for some reason, they refuse to provide the FBI with their servers for investigation.

Now, a year and a half after the election, it is safe to say that Russia played the same role in the American election of 2016 as it has been playing since the mid-1930s — none. That is, efforts to destabilize America as the main adversary, of course, are underway. They were conducted, starting from the time of Stalin, and with the same indispensable result — zero.

Of course, Tsar Putin does not want the destruction of America. After all, the West is where he and his courtiers keep their billions. He merely wants to destabilize America and thereby weaken the main oil and gas rival of Russia.

Republicans have other scores with Russia. Under the leadership of Donald Trump, America has charted the course for complete energy independence. The war against American mining and oil industries, initiated by Obama, had been canceled. The United States has been the world’s number one producer of natural gas for several years (Russia is second). And six months ago, America reached a production level of 10 million barrels of oil per day. That places it second in the world. Russia is in first place with 12 million barrels of oil per day.

If things progress as they are doing, it will take ten years for America to catch up with Russia’s oil production. And if Trump steps up the pace, as he has apparently decided to do, it will take only three years, no more — just in time for Trump’s reelection. For Republicans, Russia is just business as usual, nothing personal. However, the Democrats, who are openly anti-Russian, meet the anti-Russian demarches of Trump with enthusiasm.

Trump sees Russia not as a political adversary, but as an oil and gas competitor who has determined its own method of self-destruction. Even so, who needs an adversary’s help when on a course of self-destruction?

Did Russia hack the e-mail of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign? Maybe. But nobody is looking for an answer to this question, because no politicians need it. They also do not need an answer to the question of who used chemical weapons in Syria. Why look for one if nobody needs it? Perhaps it was Russian chemical weapons, and perhaps not. Did the Russian intelligence services poison their former spy, Sergei Skripal, in the United Kingdom? Perhaps they poisoned him, or perhaps not. No one is interested in the correct answer from the political standpoint.

After the aggression against Georgia and Ukraine, after disconnecting Europe from its natural gas supply during winter, after the downed Malaysian Boeing, after the formation of the Caliphate and the annexation of the Crimea, Russia practically gave carte blanche to all other countries to write off all their failures and all their problems. As a result, the majority of international scandals in the world are now associated with Russia regardless as to whether Russia is in fact involved or not. Even the UN has stopped accusing Israel on a daily basis (now the UN does this every other day). The hostility the Axis countries – Russia-Iran-Syria-North Korea – to the West exists, if not de jure but de facto, and is a very convenient target.

For many years Russia has acted quite thoughtlessly and become vulnerable to various false flag operations. Without question, it is a self-inflicted wound. It sounds irrational, but Russia methodically works toward self-destruction on all fronts — internationally, economically, and militarily.

Concurrently, Russia is trying to appeal to the common sense of the world community and to use international judicial procedures. But the situation into which Russia has driven itself is not a legal, but a political issue. Therefore, rhetorical questions from the Kremlin such as, “Where is the evidence?” will not be useful. After all, this is not a jury trial or a military tribunal; rather, it is international politics that are apparently poorly taught at the KGB School.

Russia’s behavior over the next several years will be viewed by the West only as the caprices of a prisoner going to the gallows, who has already enjoyed his last supper provided to him by law.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

It seems that Russia, in its search for a suitable method of collective suicide, has decided to compensate for America’s supposed superiority in anti-missile defense systems with an enormously expensive one-sided arms race.

Russia decided to create missiles capable of almost 100% penetration of not just the existing but also any future missile defense of the United States. Of course, the Pentagon only shrugged — they know perfectly well about Russia’s tiny military budget. Well, if Russia wants to go bankrupt unilaterally, so be it. Trump’s administration will not interfere. It will even help.

The fact is that the nuclear missiles currently in service in Russia can overcome any U.S. missile defense. Not all of them, of course, but even a small percentage of missiles that penetrate are capable of wiping America off the face of the earth many times over. Conversely, U.S. missiles can overcome Russia’s missile defense. It’s called parity, also known as “guaranteed mutual destruction.” It is a confirmation of the old military adage: in a confrontation between the armor and the projectile, the projectile always wins.

The self-destruction of Russia in the form of a one-sided arms race is happening in broad daylight. Russia never concealed its intentions. In the West, all this was understood a long time ago. Western politicians are also not hiding the results of their analysis. The autocrat Putin is no longer invited to important international forums, and no one among prominent heads of states visits him. Why should they? The country under his leadership has become an outcast, and everything Russian has become politically toxic, but strangely enough, at the same time a very convenient scapegoat.

Democrats are blaming Russia for the loss in the 2016 election. The special prosecutor Robert Mueller investigates activities of Paul Manafort at the time when Manafort worked for Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. But Mueller himself also worked with Yanukovych during the same time. Democrats accuse Russian hackers of hacking DNC e-mails, but for some reason, they refuse to provide the FBI with their servers for investigation.

Now, a year and a half after the election, it is safe to say that Russia played the same role in the American election of 2016 as it has been playing since the mid-1930s — none. That is, efforts to destabilize America as the main adversary, of course, are underway. They were conducted, starting from the time of Stalin, and with the same indispensable result — zero.

Of course, Tsar Putin does not want the destruction of America. After all, the West is where he and his courtiers keep their billions. He merely wants to destabilize America and thereby weaken the main oil and gas rival of Russia.

Republicans have other scores with Russia. Under the leadership of Donald Trump, America has charted the course for complete energy independence. The war against American mining and oil industries, initiated by Obama, had been canceled. The United States has been the world’s number one producer of natural gas for several years (Russia is second). And six months ago, America reached a production level of 10 million barrels of oil per day. That places it second in the world. Russia is in first place with 12 million barrels of oil per day.

If things progress as they are doing, it will take ten years for America to catch up with Russia’s oil production. And if Trump steps up the pace, as he has apparently decided to do, it will take only three years, no more — just in time for Trump’s reelection. For Republicans, Russia is just business as usual, nothing personal. However, the Democrats, who are openly anti-Russian, meet the anti-Russian demarches of Trump with enthusiasm.

Trump sees Russia not as a political adversary, but as an oil and gas competitor who has determined its own method of self-destruction. Even so, who needs an adversary’s help when on a course of self-destruction?

Did Russia hack the e-mail of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign? Maybe. But nobody is looking for an answer to this question, because no politicians need it. They also do not need an answer to the question of who used chemical weapons in Syria. Why look for one if nobody needs it? Perhaps it was Russian chemical weapons, and perhaps not. Did the Russian intelligence services poison their former spy, Sergei Skripal, in the United Kingdom? Perhaps they poisoned him, or perhaps not. No one is interested in the correct answer from the political standpoint.

After the aggression against Georgia and Ukraine, after disconnecting Europe from its natural gas supply during winter, after the downed Malaysian Boeing, after the formation of the Caliphate and the annexation of the Crimea, Russia practically gave carte blanche to all other countries to write off all their failures and all their problems. As a result, the majority of international scandals in the world are now associated with Russia regardless as to whether Russia is in fact involved or not. Even the UN has stopped accusing Israel on a daily basis (now the UN does this every other day). The hostility the Axis countries – Russia-Iran-Syria-North Korea – to the West exists, if not de jure but de facto, and is a very convenient target.

For many years Russia has acted quite thoughtlessly and become vulnerable to various false flag operations. Without question, it is a self-inflicted wound. It sounds irrational, but Russia methodically works toward self-destruction on all fronts — internationally, economically, and militarily.

Concurrently, Russia is trying to appeal to the common sense of the world community and to use international judicial procedures. But the situation into which Russia has driven itself is not a legal, but a political issue. Therefore, rhetorical questions from the Kremlin such as, “Where is the evidence?” will not be useful. After all, this is not a jury trial or a military tribunal; rather, it is international politics that are apparently poorly taught at the KGB School.

Russia’s behavior over the next several years will be viewed by the West only as the caprices of a prisoner going to the gallows, who has already enjoyed his last supper provided to him by law.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link

Trump's Strategy


Opposition publications represent Trump’s actions as absolute chaos — constant and unpredictable reshuffling in the government, increasing external taxes (tariffs) and reducing domestic taxes, restrictions on immigration, the deliberate disintegration of ObamaCare, and withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. This list is quite extensive. And almost every day the press receives a gift from Trump, another bone — he declares something politically incorrect on Twitter again, or he fires someone, or orders to strike another country with 60 Tomahawk missiles. The biased media has to abandon covering a subject that seemed relevant yesterday, and switches to a discussion of a more recent “scandal.”

This is all reminiscent of the actions of a skillful magician who deliberately draws the attention of the audience to his left hand at a time when his right hand is making the most imperceptible movement for which the whole trick was conceived.

So what’s the intrigue?

In fact, Trump’s policy is very tricky, and only a few have figured out his game. After all, Trump did not target immigrants. He did not target international trade. He did not target women’s rights. He did not target “global climate change.”

Trump is swinging at the complete destruction of the Democratic Party by gradually squeezing the Democrats out of the American political arena.

That is how Trump used to deal with competitors in the construction business, and he is not about to change his habits. The complete bankruptcy of competitors is the only real measure of success for him. He knows this very well, having been in the shoes of the defeated several times.

One of his strikes is the new tax legislation. Since January 2018, state taxes have to be paid in addition to federal taxes. This move will severely affect the states with high local taxes — California, New York, New Jersey. Of course, these states are bastions of American socialism, and these states will suffer the most. As a result, Trump’s tax reform will deprive the Democratic Party of significant sources of funding.

Also, Trump’s blow on illegal immigration deprives the Democratic Party of their contrived illegal voter base. It is possible that this will lead to the emergence of a new, genuinely democratic Democratic Party at the site of the present socialist Democratic Party of America.

In American politics, there is a whole spectrum of the neo-Marxist movements: communists, socialists, anarcho-communists, Social Democrats, and other leftists. The Democratic Party of the United States is one of them. At a time when most Americans are discussing whether a wall will be built on the southern border of the United States or not, the Leftists are faced with Hamlet’s problem — to be or not to be?

It is because the entire American Leftist ecosystem understands that stopping illegal immigration is a grave threat. It means the loss of the electorate. It means extinction. It means political death.

Trump skillfully switched the leftists’ hysterics about the wall on the border with Mexico in another direction by sending the National Guard to protect the southern border. A few days later, when the entire opposition had already forgotten about the wall, Trump forced another reboot on the opposition by canceling the long-term idiotic immigration practice of “catch and release.” Because the half-life of the news cycle is about 24 hours, the opposition immediately forgot about the National Guard and began discussing the question of where Trump will build concentration camps for Hispanics.

They can be understood. Leftists, of course, realize what the sovereignty of the country is, but if one chooses between sovereignty and political survival, Leftists want survival. The return to the census of the citizenship question is evaluated by the Leftists from the standpoint of survival. Hence the hysterics.

Like the immigration issue, the American public opinion of implementing external taxes (tariffs) was divided.

But the left opposition on the issue of tariffs missed the most important point again. For Trump, both tariffs and immigration are the matter of, not foreign, but domestic policy.

As with immigration, Trump, by initiating tariffs, is preparing for the elections in November 2018. And Trump uses one of the essential cards — jobs. After all, new jobs in the industrial Midwest will significantly weaken the position of the Democrats and put an end to their insane ideas about the victorious revenge in 2018 and the impeachment of President Trump.

Put yourself in Trump’s place — he could leave everything as is and not bother with all these tariffs, and not create favorable conditions for business in the Midwest. At the same time, the prices for steel and aluminum in the U.S. market would remain unchanged, but the Republican majority in the Congress would be in jeopardy.

As a result, Trump receives the support of a massive block of voters in the Midwest, where economic stagnation has been evident for many decades. In this scenario, the Democrats will become political losers well beyond 2018. The road to the White House will be closed to them for decades. The states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are unlikely to return to the Democratic camp any time soon.

Finally, it is necessary to recall one more winning Trump strategy — the partial repeal of ObamaCare. As we know now, Obama himself never thought of ObamaCare as a law governing medical care in America. As a socialist, Obama conceived it as a law for the redistribution of wealth from one group of American citizens to another group of citizens. The medical services were chosen merely as a mechanism for this wealth redistribution. As a result, ObamaCare has two components — financial (additional taxes) and medical (facade, smoke screen, distracting maneuver).

Additional taxes to the federal government is the main component. The lion’s share of these taxes was supposed to be used for subsidies to those Americans who do not have enough money to buy health insurance.

That is, by tricking taxpayers, Obama tried to create a special category of Americans — an eternal Democratic electorate. Why eternal? Because the dependence on handouts from the federal government is a condition that cannot be treated.

It was this financial component that Republicans managed to repeal. Meanwhile, the facade of ObamaCare — its medical part — remained practically unchanged. Of course, depriving ObamaCare of financial support would mean its imminent political death, and with it — the hopes of the Democrats for the eternal electorate.

From the opposition point of view, the White House is in a state of chaos. But from the standpoint of preparing for elections, Trump’s policy is well thought out and is oriented toward achieving the main strategic objective – a GOP wave this November.

This strategic goal of Trump is cleverly concealed by a veil of truths, half-truths, and sheer disinformation, which the left opposition voluntarily, free of charge, and with dull enthusiasm helps Trump to distribute.

Time works against the Leftists. There is every reason to believe that 2018 — the year of the bicentenary of the birth of the idol of the modern Democrats Karl Marx — will lead to another defeat of the opposition.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

Trump’s tactical moves are widely publicized by the media. Now, more than one year after assuming the presidency, enough data have been accumulated to define Trump’s strategy with a certain degree of accuracy.

What is his main task? Where is the vector of his primary efforts directed?

Opposition publications represent Trump’s actions as absolute chaos — constant and unpredictable reshuffling in the government, increasing external taxes (tariffs) and reducing domestic taxes, restrictions on immigration, the deliberate disintegration of ObamaCare, and withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. This list is quite extensive. And almost every day the press receives a gift from Trump, another bone — he declares something politically incorrect on Twitter again, or he fires someone, or orders to strike another country with 60 Tomahawk missiles. The biased media has to abandon covering a subject that seemed relevant yesterday, and switches to a discussion of a more recent “scandal.”

This is all reminiscent of the actions of a skillful magician who deliberately draws the attention of the audience to his left hand at a time when his right hand is making the most imperceptible movement for which the whole trick was conceived.

So what’s the intrigue?

In fact, Trump’s policy is very tricky, and only a few have figured out his game. After all, Trump did not target immigrants. He did not target international trade. He did not target women’s rights. He did not target “global climate change.”

Trump is swinging at the complete destruction of the Democratic Party by gradually squeezing the Democrats out of the American political arena.

That is how Trump used to deal with competitors in the construction business, and he is not about to change his habits. The complete bankruptcy of competitors is the only real measure of success for him. He knows this very well, having been in the shoes of the defeated several times.

One of his strikes is the new tax legislation. Since January 2018, state taxes have to be paid in addition to federal taxes. This move will severely affect the states with high local taxes — California, New York, New Jersey. Of course, these states are bastions of American socialism, and these states will suffer the most. As a result, Trump’s tax reform will deprive the Democratic Party of significant sources of funding.

Also, Trump’s blow on illegal immigration deprives the Democratic Party of their contrived illegal voter base. It is possible that this will lead to the emergence of a new, genuinely democratic Democratic Party at the site of the present socialist Democratic Party of America.

In American politics, there is a whole spectrum of the neo-Marxist movements: communists, socialists, anarcho-communists, Social Democrats, and other leftists. The Democratic Party of the United States is one of them. At a time when most Americans are discussing whether a wall will be built on the southern border of the United States or not, the Leftists are faced with Hamlet’s problem — to be or not to be?

It is because the entire American Leftist ecosystem understands that stopping illegal immigration is a grave threat. It means the loss of the electorate. It means extinction. It means political death.

Trump skillfully switched the leftists’ hysterics about the wall on the border with Mexico in another direction by sending the National Guard to protect the southern border. A few days later, when the entire opposition had already forgotten about the wall, Trump forced another reboot on the opposition by canceling the long-term idiotic immigration practice of “catch and release.” Because the half-life of the news cycle is about 24 hours, the opposition immediately forgot about the National Guard and began discussing the question of where Trump will build concentration camps for Hispanics.

They can be understood. Leftists, of course, realize what the sovereignty of the country is, but if one chooses between sovereignty and political survival, Leftists want survival. The return to the census of the citizenship question is evaluated by the Leftists from the standpoint of survival. Hence the hysterics.

Like the immigration issue, the American public opinion of implementing external taxes (tariffs) was divided.

But the left opposition on the issue of tariffs missed the most important point again. For Trump, both tariffs and immigration are the matter of, not foreign, but domestic policy.

As with immigration, Trump, by initiating tariffs, is preparing for the elections in November 2018. And Trump uses one of the essential cards — jobs. After all, new jobs in the industrial Midwest will significantly weaken the position of the Democrats and put an end to their insane ideas about the victorious revenge in 2018 and the impeachment of President Trump.

Put yourself in Trump’s place — he could leave everything as is and not bother with all these tariffs, and not create favorable conditions for business in the Midwest. At the same time, the prices for steel and aluminum in the U.S. market would remain unchanged, but the Republican majority in the Congress would be in jeopardy.

As a result, Trump receives the support of a massive block of voters in the Midwest, where economic stagnation has been evident for many decades. In this scenario, the Democrats will become political losers well beyond 2018. The road to the White House will be closed to them for decades. The states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are unlikely to return to the Democratic camp any time soon.

Finally, it is necessary to recall one more winning Trump strategy — the partial repeal of ObamaCare. As we know now, Obama himself never thought of ObamaCare as a law governing medical care in America. As a socialist, Obama conceived it as a law for the redistribution of wealth from one group of American citizens to another group of citizens. The medical services were chosen merely as a mechanism for this wealth redistribution. As a result, ObamaCare has two components — financial (additional taxes) and medical (facade, smoke screen, distracting maneuver).

Additional taxes to the federal government is the main component. The lion’s share of these taxes was supposed to be used for subsidies to those Americans who do not have enough money to buy health insurance.

That is, by tricking taxpayers, Obama tried to create a special category of Americans — an eternal Democratic electorate. Why eternal? Because the dependence on handouts from the federal government is a condition that cannot be treated.

It was this financial component that Republicans managed to repeal. Meanwhile, the facade of ObamaCare — its medical part — remained practically unchanged. Of course, depriving ObamaCare of financial support would mean its imminent political death, and with it — the hopes of the Democrats for the eternal electorate.

From the opposition point of view, the White House is in a state of chaos. But from the standpoint of preparing for elections, Trump’s policy is well thought out and is oriented toward achieving the main strategic objective – a GOP wave this November.

This strategic goal of Trump is cleverly concealed by a veil of truths, half-truths, and sheer disinformation, which the left opposition voluntarily, free of charge, and with dull enthusiasm helps Trump to distribute.

Time works against the Leftists. There is every reason to believe that 2018 — the year of the bicentenary of the birth of the idol of the modern Democrats Karl Marx — will lead to another defeat of the opposition.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link

To Tariff or Not to Tariff? Trump's Answer


Only now has Trump’s economic policy become clear: Trump squeezes out companies from abroad and forces them to relocate to the United States.

On Friday, March 23, 2018, new tariffs for steel and aluminum, signed by President Trump on March 8, came into effect.  Two weeks have passed, and the promised apocalypse of the world tariff war did not happen.  The reaction of America’s leading trading partners somehow turned out to be muted and unconvincing and, in many cases, just nothing, as if nothing had happened.

Why?  After all, according to the TV hysterics, Trump went against the fundamental idea of the world-famous Nobel laureate in economics, Milton Friedman.  Friedman once argued that tariff wars always play a negative role for consumers of final products.  Since then, we are all frightened by the idea of tariff retaliation, as if all other countries will also raise tariffs, leaving American citizens to take the brunt, or so the theory says.

In practice, most of the world has been imposing tariffs on American products for decades, and no administration before Trump has even tried to protest earnestly.  Our country is surrounded by high tariff walls.  And tough tariff war against American industry has been going on since the time of the emergence of the European Union.

For example, China has set tariffs for motorcycles in the amount of 30% to 45%, depending on the cubic size of the engine.  (All data on tariff rates for all countries are from the World Trade Organization database.)  Chinese car tariffs are 25%.  Therefore, on the roads of China, you will see neither Harley-Davidson motorcycles nor Ford trucks.  In total, China has set about 300 different tariffs for American cars, buses, trucks, and spare parts for them.

For comparison, China has established a purely symbolic tariff for airplanes – from 1% to 4%, depending on the weight of the aircraft, and spare parts for aircraft have a zero tariff.  By the way, steel in China is also subject to a tariff – from 0% for scrap metal to 10% for rolled steel products.  And the tariff for aluminum is up to 25%.

The European Union has set tariffs for cars at 10%, for trucks at 15.8%.  In Europe, everything that moves – bicycles, motorcycles, tractors, and buses – is taxed.  In total, Europe has set more than 250 tariffs for land transport, more than 250 tariffs for various vegetables (up to 14.4%), and more than 200 tariffs for multiple types of meat (up to 15.4%).

Even all these figures (thousands of tariffs for American goods) do not produce a complete picture of the trade war being waged against America.  There are other levers of economic warfare in the arsenals of many countries.

For example, many jurisdictions charge imported goods not only with a tariff, but also with an additional value-added tax (VAT).  Also, other countries require (as a rule, in addition to tariffs) separate payments for “quality inspection of goods.”  In China, for example, such inspections can be carried out for weeks, and an exporter company is forced to pay substantial demurrage fees.

Finally, China has successfully adopted the old Soviet practice.  To make an entry into the Chinese market, American companies are forced to establish a joint venture with a Chinese company, with mandatory disclosure and transfer of all technological know-how to China.  Software companies pay this price of entering China’s marketplace in the form of transferring to Chinese authorities full source code of all programs and all other intellectual property.

What did China do in retaliation for imposing tariffs on steel by Trump?  China, instead of retaliatory increases in tariffs for American goods (expected by the economists of the Washington swamp), decided to reduce its 25% tariff on cars and finally allow American companies to enter the Chinese automobile market on approximately the same terms as Japanese and German car-manufacturers.

Why did China and other countries act contrary to the theory of Friedman?  Because Friedman’s arguments, unfortunately, are correct only when all other variables in economic equations remain unchanged.

Trump had changed the overall conditions of the economic game.

On the one hand, Trump raises taxes for companies outside America (tariffs), and on the other hand, he reduces domestic taxes for companies in America.  Let me remind you that thanks to Trump, now corporate income tax in America has been reduced from 35% to 21%.  Also, the lion’s share of bureaucratic barriers to business development, set by Obama, are canceled by Trump.

Only now has Trump’s economic policy become perfectly clear: Trump squeezes out companies from abroad and forces them to relocate to the United States.

The lack of tariff retaliation of the U.S. trade partners proves once again that the capitalist economy is a nonlinear system in which, as is known, the sequence of events is significant.  Trump had lowered domestic corporate taxes, and after only three months, he increased external taxes.  Imagine what would have happened if the sequence of these events had been in reverse. First, Trump would have raised external taxes (tariffs), and three months later, he would have lowered the internal ones.  More precisely, he would try to reduce them, because in the nonlinear system, A + B is not equal to B + A, and it is unlikely that the political situation after a unilateral increase in tariffs by America would be favorable.

From a political point of view, Trump’s tariff solution is a cold calculation.

Trump realized that the political price of inaction during the World Trade War is too high.  And all other countries wisely decided to remain silent.  They realized that Uncle Sam has woken up.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

Image: Marco Verch via Flickr.

Only now has Trump’s economic policy become clear: Trump squeezes out companies from abroad and forces them to relocate to the United States.

On Friday, March 23, 2018, new tariffs for steel and aluminum, signed by President Trump on March 8, came into effect.  Two weeks have passed, and the promised apocalypse of the world tariff war did not happen.  The reaction of America’s leading trading partners somehow turned out to be muted and unconvincing and, in many cases, just nothing, as if nothing had happened.

Why?  After all, according to the TV hysterics, Trump went against the fundamental idea of the world-famous Nobel laureate in economics, Milton Friedman.  Friedman once argued that tariff wars always play a negative role for consumers of final products.  Since then, we are all frightened by the idea of tariff retaliation, as if all other countries will also raise tariffs, leaving American citizens to take the brunt, or so the theory says.

In practice, most of the world has been imposing tariffs on American products for decades, and no administration before Trump has even tried to protest earnestly.  Our country is surrounded by high tariff walls.  And tough tariff war against American industry has been going on since the time of the emergence of the European Union.

For example, China has set tariffs for motorcycles in the amount of 30% to 45%, depending on the cubic size of the engine.  (All data on tariff rates for all countries are from the World Trade Organization database.)  Chinese car tariffs are 25%.  Therefore, on the roads of China, you will see neither Harley-Davidson motorcycles nor Ford trucks.  In total, China has set about 300 different tariffs for American cars, buses, trucks, and spare parts for them.

For comparison, China has established a purely symbolic tariff for airplanes – from 1% to 4%, depending on the weight of the aircraft, and spare parts for aircraft have a zero tariff.  By the way, steel in China is also subject to a tariff – from 0% for scrap metal to 10% for rolled steel products.  And the tariff for aluminum is up to 25%.

The European Union has set tariffs for cars at 10%, for trucks at 15.8%.  In Europe, everything that moves – bicycles, motorcycles, tractors, and buses – is taxed.  In total, Europe has set more than 250 tariffs for land transport, more than 250 tariffs for various vegetables (up to 14.4%), and more than 200 tariffs for multiple types of meat (up to 15.4%).

Even all these figures (thousands of tariffs for American goods) do not produce a complete picture of the trade war being waged against America.  There are other levers of economic warfare in the arsenals of many countries.

For example, many jurisdictions charge imported goods not only with a tariff, but also with an additional value-added tax (VAT).  Also, other countries require (as a rule, in addition to tariffs) separate payments for “quality inspection of goods.”  In China, for example, such inspections can be carried out for weeks, and an exporter company is forced to pay substantial demurrage fees.

Finally, China has successfully adopted the old Soviet practice.  To make an entry into the Chinese market, American companies are forced to establish a joint venture with a Chinese company, with mandatory disclosure and transfer of all technological know-how to China.  Software companies pay this price of entering China’s marketplace in the form of transferring to Chinese authorities full source code of all programs and all other intellectual property.

What did China do in retaliation for imposing tariffs on steel by Trump?  China, instead of retaliatory increases in tariffs for American goods (expected by the economists of the Washington swamp), decided to reduce its 25% tariff on cars and finally allow American companies to enter the Chinese automobile market on approximately the same terms as Japanese and German car-manufacturers.

Why did China and other countries act contrary to the theory of Friedman?  Because Friedman’s arguments, unfortunately, are correct only when all other variables in economic equations remain unchanged.

Trump had changed the overall conditions of the economic game.

On the one hand, Trump raises taxes for companies outside America (tariffs), and on the other hand, he reduces domestic taxes for companies in America.  Let me remind you that thanks to Trump, now corporate income tax in America has been reduced from 35% to 21%.  Also, the lion’s share of bureaucratic barriers to business development, set by Obama, are canceled by Trump.

Only now has Trump’s economic policy become perfectly clear: Trump squeezes out companies from abroad and forces them to relocate to the United States.

The lack of tariff retaliation of the U.S. trade partners proves once again that the capitalist economy is a nonlinear system in which, as is known, the sequence of events is significant.  Trump had lowered domestic corporate taxes, and after only three months, he increased external taxes.  Imagine what would have happened if the sequence of these events had been in reverse. First, Trump would have raised external taxes (tariffs), and three months later, he would have lowered the internal ones.  More precisely, he would try to reduce them, because in the nonlinear system, A + B is not equal to B + A, and it is unlikely that the political situation after a unilateral increase in tariffs by America would be favorable.

From a political point of view, Trump’s tariff solution is a cold calculation.

Trump realized that the political price of inaction during the World Trade War is too high.  And all other countries wisely decided to remain silent.  They realized that Uncle Sam has woken up.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

Image: Marco Verch via Flickr.



Source link

Trump's Military Budget: Seventy versus Seven Hundred


Why has the U.S. military budget for 2018, just signed by President Trump, amounted to $700 billion?  After all, initially, Trump planned to increase military spending by only $50 billion, but ultimately, this increase was $94 billion compared to last year.  That’s almost twice as much.

Why was an increase of $50 billion not enough?  One possible reason is that during the 2016 campaign, Trump relied on the level of Russia’s military budget for 2016 – about $50 billion.  That is, the initial plan could produce a simple increase in U.S. military expenditures that covers the entire military budget of Russia.  But in 2017, Russia’s military spending amounted to about $70 billion.  And the U.S. Congress decided that it was time for a spectacular budget démarche.

As a result, for the first time in history, the ratio of the military budgets of Russia and the United States became 1:10.

The round figure 10 looks deliberately chosen precisely to ensure that everyone who still doubts something has finally understood that the train has left the station.  Of course, stubborn anti-Trumpers will argue that Trump has criminally (and how else?) conspired with Putin that when Russia increases its military spending, Trump will have every reason to increase U.S. military spending to a nice-looking and comfortable tenfold superiority.

Let me remind you that at the time of Ronald Reagan’s accession to the post of U.S. president, the military budget of the USSR (according to indirect estimates, about $300-310 billion) was superior to the U.S. military budget ($200 billion).  By the beginning of Reagan’s second term, the ratio became 1:1, and by the end of Reagan’s second term, the USSR’s military budget had collapsed.  Since then, the USSR (now the Russian) military budget has been falling steadily compared to the U.S. military budget.

The tenfold advantage of the military budget, of course, does not guarantee tenfold superiority on the battlefield.  I do not like to repeat the truisms, but there is no reliable method to assess the strength of the enemy except for the actual combat.  Officially, the Americans fought the Russians a long time ago – in the Korean War.  But on the night of February 7, 2018, a unit of Russian mercenaries (more than 500), reinforced with tanks, artillery, and armored personnel-carriers, was almost destroyed in a short four-hour battle with American Rangers in Syria.

A small detachment of American Rangers guarded an oil company, which the Russians planned to capture.  As is customary, the Rangers hung American flags around the perimeter of the facility.  So it’s not entirely clear what the Russians were counting on.  All of their artillery was destroyed in the first 30 minutes of the battle with the help of combat drones, then the artillery and the AC-130 “flying tanks.”  As a result, only one tank remained unscathed from all Russian equipment.  The infantry that survived the artillery raid was finished off by helicopters.  Resistance from the Russians did not materialize.  Their losses amount to hundreds, and Americans didn’teven have a single soldier wounded.

This battle was made possible by the fact that President Trump canceled the Obama rules of engagement with the enemy.  Now the decision on the use of weapons is made by the unit commander on the spot (as it always was throughout military history), and not a military lawyer in a cozy office in the Pentagon.

Two days after these events, American weapons again confronted the Russians on the battlefield.  Iran launched a military drone into Israel.  It looked as if this drone had been copied from the U.S. reconnaissance drone downed by Iran in 2011.  The drone was immediately detected and shot down 90 seconds after penetration into Israel’s airspace.  Three hours later, Israeli aircraft bombed the control post of this drone and several of the newest Russian air defense batteries in Syria.  Russian missiles damaged only one Israeli plane, but the pilots held on to the territory of Israel, and there they ejected.

In retaliation for a lost aircraft, Israel unleashed the most devastating missile and bomb strike on Iranian and Syrian positions over the past decade.  Armed with Russian weapons, Iranians and Syrians could not offer any opposition.

This battle was also possible because, under President Trump, Israel no longer required Washington’s consent for carrying out measures to defend its country.

The events of the past few days are significant.  They show the world that the Trump administration not only increased the military budget to a level of dizzying superiority (the U.S. military budget is now higher than the military budget of the subsequent 15 countries combined), but also untied the hands of the U.S. military and its allies in a confrontation with the Axis countries, Russia-Syria-Iran-North Korea.

There is a silver lining even for the Russians in this matter.  For example, they will not have to pay for U.S. military spending.  Payments are happily made by American citizens themselves.  Why?  Because pragmatic Americans know that peace is costing the taxpayers much less than war.

For most of the world’s inhabitants, the Second World War ended in 1945, but for American taxpayers, it lasted until 1975, when the federal government paid the last installment for the last 30-year military loan.  America did not have money for WWII.  The U.S. had to borrow money from its citizens and abroad and then repay this debt with interest.

By 1975, the bitterness of military losses was already in the past, and in all the countries participating in WWII, there was a new life, a new generation, and new worries.  However, America continued to pay for its military expenditures, and for the military spending of its allies, Great Britain and the USSR, and for the restoration of Europe, and for the recovery of Southeast Asia and Japan.

We do not want to repeat this.  Consequently, we have a military spending ratio of1:10.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

Why has the U.S. military budget for 2018, just signed by President Trump, amounted to $700 billion?  After all, initially, Trump planned to increase military spending by only $50 billion, but ultimately, this increase was $94 billion compared to last year.  That’s almost twice as much.

Why was an increase of $50 billion not enough?  One possible reason is that during the 2016 campaign, Trump relied on the level of Russia’s military budget for 2016 – about $50 billion.  That is, the initial plan could produce a simple increase in U.S. military expenditures that covers the entire military budget of Russia.  But in 2017, Russia’s military spending amounted to about $70 billion.  And the U.S. Congress decided that it was time for a spectacular budget démarche.

As a result, for the first time in history, the ratio of the military budgets of Russia and the United States became 1:10.

The round figure 10 looks deliberately chosen precisely to ensure that everyone who still doubts something has finally understood that the train has left the station.  Of course, stubborn anti-Trumpers will argue that Trump has criminally (and how else?) conspired with Putin that when Russia increases its military spending, Trump will have every reason to increase U.S. military spending to a nice-looking and comfortable tenfold superiority.

Let me remind you that at the time of Ronald Reagan’s accession to the post of U.S. president, the military budget of the USSR (according to indirect estimates, about $300-310 billion) was superior to the U.S. military budget ($200 billion).  By the beginning of Reagan’s second term, the ratio became 1:1, and by the end of Reagan’s second term, the USSR’s military budget had collapsed.  Since then, the USSR (now the Russian) military budget has been falling steadily compared to the U.S. military budget.

The tenfold advantage of the military budget, of course, does not guarantee tenfold superiority on the battlefield.  I do not like to repeat the truisms, but there is no reliable method to assess the strength of the enemy except for the actual combat.  Officially, the Americans fought the Russians a long time ago – in the Korean War.  But on the night of February 7, 2018, a unit of Russian mercenaries (more than 500), reinforced with tanks, artillery, and armored personnel-carriers, was almost destroyed in a short four-hour battle with American Rangers in Syria.

A small detachment of American Rangers guarded an oil company, which the Russians planned to capture.  As is customary, the Rangers hung American flags around the perimeter of the facility.  So it’s not entirely clear what the Russians were counting on.  All of their artillery was destroyed in the first 30 minutes of the battle with the help of combat drones, then the artillery and the AC-130 “flying tanks.”  As a result, only one tank remained unscathed from all Russian equipment.  The infantry that survived the artillery raid was finished off by helicopters.  Resistance from the Russians did not materialize.  Their losses amount to hundreds, and Americans didn’teven have a single soldier wounded.

This battle was made possible by the fact that President Trump canceled the Obama rules of engagement with the enemy.  Now the decision on the use of weapons is made by the unit commander on the spot (as it always was throughout military history), and not a military lawyer in a cozy office in the Pentagon.

Two days after these events, American weapons again confronted the Russians on the battlefield.  Iran launched a military drone into Israel.  It looked as if this drone had been copied from the U.S. reconnaissance drone downed by Iran in 2011.  The drone was immediately detected and shot down 90 seconds after penetration into Israel’s airspace.  Three hours later, Israeli aircraft bombed the control post of this drone and several of the newest Russian air defense batteries in Syria.  Russian missiles damaged only one Israeli plane, but the pilots held on to the territory of Israel, and there they ejected.

In retaliation for a lost aircraft, Israel unleashed the most devastating missile and bomb strike on Iranian and Syrian positions over the past decade.  Armed with Russian weapons, Iranians and Syrians could not offer any opposition.

This battle was also possible because, under President Trump, Israel no longer required Washington’s consent for carrying out measures to defend its country.

The events of the past few days are significant.  They show the world that the Trump administration not only increased the military budget to a level of dizzying superiority (the U.S. military budget is now higher than the military budget of the subsequent 15 countries combined), but also untied the hands of the U.S. military and its allies in a confrontation with the Axis countries, Russia-Syria-Iran-North Korea.

There is a silver lining even for the Russians in this matter.  For example, they will not have to pay for U.S. military spending.  Payments are happily made by American citizens themselves.  Why?  Because pragmatic Americans know that peace is costing the taxpayers much less than war.

For most of the world’s inhabitants, the Second World War ended in 1945, but for American taxpayers, it lasted until 1975, when the federal government paid the last installment for the last 30-year military loan.  America did not have money for WWII.  The U.S. had to borrow money from its citizens and abroad and then repay this debt with interest.

By 1975, the bitterness of military losses was already in the past, and in all the countries participating in WWII, there was a new life, a new generation, and new worries.  However, America continued to pay for its military expenditures, and for the military spending of its allies, Great Britain and the USSR, and for the restoration of Europe, and for the recovery of Southeast Asia and Japan.

We do not want to repeat this.  Consequently, we have a military spending ratio of1:10.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link

Wondering Which States Americans Hate to Live In? Ask U-Haul.


Americans are dynamic people.  World statistics on the number of cars per capita show that America is in first place among the “big” countries and in third place among all countries, behind the dwarfs of San Marino and Monaco.

Where do Americans drive other than to work, shopping, and perhaps to school?  Americans move, and move quite often.  They relocate to neighboring cities and distant states.  By and large, the U.S. looks like a big monolithic country.  In fact, the U.S. is a federal republic of independent states, each with many laws, many customs, and a unique political climate.

Does the changing political climate affect population migration between states?  Of course, it does, but how?  What if we were to express the movement of intra-American migration, not in words, but in the language of numbers?  A convenient measure of internal migration could be the U-Haul Index.

U-Haul is a truck rental company used by many Americans who relocate.  The rented trucks must be driven by U-Haul customers themselves, and payment is charged one way only.  That is, after unloading, it is not necessary to return the vehicle to the starting point.  If necessary, the U-Haul company will take care of it.  Then the prices for transportation from point A to point B will be the same as from point B to point A, but only if the average number of customers is the same at both points A and B.

If the number of orders for trucks at both destinations is the same, then U-Haul has no problems.

If the number of orders is not the same, then U-Haul must hire drivers to relocate the empty trucks, and then pay to transport these drivers back.  In this case, the prices for traffic will not be symmetrical – renting trucks to a popular point A from an unpopular point B will entail higher costs.

Here are some examples (all data is taken from the U-Haul website; prices are for March 1, 2018, for a favorite 20-foot van.)

Renting a truck from New York to Orlando costs $2,214 and back $1,557 (the difference is $657, a 42% surcharge.)

Renting a truck from New York to Dallas costs $2,442 and back $1,962 (the difference is $480, a 24% surcharge.)

Renting a truck from San Francisco to Orlando costs $3,308 and back $1,988 (the difference is $1,510, an 84% surcharge.)

Renting a truck from San Francisco to Dallas costs $3,206 and back $1,128 (the difference is $2,078, a 184% surcharge.)

For comparison, renting the same truck from New York to San Francisco costs $3,409, and back $3,058 (the difference is $351, a surcharge of 11%).

What causes people to leave San Francisco and New York and to make a move to Dallas and Orlando?

San Francisco is in the state of California, and New York City in the state of New York.  Both states for decades have been bastions of left-wing politicians – former Democrats, and now socialists and communists.

Dallas is in Texas, and Orlando is in Florida.  Both states for decades have been bastions of right-wing politicians – Republicans and conservatives.

Perhaps the question should be posed differently: what forces people to leave those states where the government is pursuing a left socialist policy and move to states where the government is pursuing a pragmatic right-wing policy?

The example above shows that in the move from one corner of the American socialist paradise, San Francisco, to another, New York, a small difference in prices exists.  But, most likely, this asymmetry is because the climate in San Francisco is more pleasant than in New York.

Regardless of the political views of those Americans who leave Democrat states for Republican states, Democrat states will be the losers.  After all, most American migrants simply repeat the path of many talented people who left the socialist paradise known as the Soviet Union.

Democrats are losing their electorate and therefore are forced to pursue a policy of “open borders.”  Moreover, the inclusion of socialism into the capitalist economy leads to severe imbalances that Democrats prefer to compensate by the injection of illegal aliens into the U.S. economy.  Democrats see their last hope in the legalization of illegal aliens.

The socialists pursue a single goal: to legalize the participation of illegal aliens in elections.  The mayor of New York, communist Bill de Blasio, openly supports the idea that 500,000 illegal aliens residing in New York City should receive the right to vote at least in local elections.  The governor of California, socialist Jerry Brown, has already implemented that law.  Starting April 1, 2018, all residents of California, including illegal aliens, will automatically be added to voting rolls while renewing their driver’s licenses.

The U-Haul Index shows that Americans categorically do not like such policies.  Americans take part in federal elections every two years, but in between elections, they vote, too – with their feet.  More precisely, with trucks.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

Americans are dynamic people.  World statistics on the number of cars per capita show that America is in first place among the “big” countries and in third place among all countries, behind the dwarfs of San Marino and Monaco.

Where do Americans drive other than to work, shopping, and perhaps to school?  Americans move, and move quite often.  They relocate to neighboring cities and distant states.  By and large, the U.S. looks like a big monolithic country.  In fact, the U.S. is a federal republic of independent states, each with many laws, many customs, and a unique political climate.

Does the changing political climate affect population migration between states?  Of course, it does, but how?  What if we were to express the movement of intra-American migration, not in words, but in the language of numbers?  A convenient measure of internal migration could be the U-Haul Index.

U-Haul is a truck rental company used by many Americans who relocate.  The rented trucks must be driven by U-Haul customers themselves, and payment is charged one way only.  That is, after unloading, it is not necessary to return the vehicle to the starting point.  If necessary, the U-Haul company will take care of it.  Then the prices for transportation from point A to point B will be the same as from point B to point A, but only if the average number of customers is the same at both points A and B.

If the number of orders for trucks at both destinations is the same, then U-Haul has no problems.

If the number of orders is not the same, then U-Haul must hire drivers to relocate the empty trucks, and then pay to transport these drivers back.  In this case, the prices for traffic will not be symmetrical – renting trucks to a popular point A from an unpopular point B will entail higher costs.

Here are some examples (all data is taken from the U-Haul website; prices are for March 1, 2018, for a favorite 20-foot van.)

Renting a truck from New York to Orlando costs $2,214 and back $1,557 (the difference is $657, a 42% surcharge.)

Renting a truck from New York to Dallas costs $2,442 and back $1,962 (the difference is $480, a 24% surcharge.)

Renting a truck from San Francisco to Orlando costs $3,308 and back $1,988 (the difference is $1,510, an 84% surcharge.)

Renting a truck from San Francisco to Dallas costs $3,206 and back $1,128 (the difference is $2,078, a 184% surcharge.)

For comparison, renting the same truck from New York to San Francisco costs $3,409, and back $3,058 (the difference is $351, a surcharge of 11%).

What causes people to leave San Francisco and New York and to make a move to Dallas and Orlando?

San Francisco is in the state of California, and New York City in the state of New York.  Both states for decades have been bastions of left-wing politicians – former Democrats, and now socialists and communists.

Dallas is in Texas, and Orlando is in Florida.  Both states for decades have been bastions of right-wing politicians – Republicans and conservatives.

Perhaps the question should be posed differently: what forces people to leave those states where the government is pursuing a left socialist policy and move to states where the government is pursuing a pragmatic right-wing policy?

The example above shows that in the move from one corner of the American socialist paradise, San Francisco, to another, New York, a small difference in prices exists.  But, most likely, this asymmetry is because the climate in San Francisco is more pleasant than in New York.

Regardless of the political views of those Americans who leave Democrat states for Republican states, Democrat states will be the losers.  After all, most American migrants simply repeat the path of many talented people who left the socialist paradise known as the Soviet Union.

Democrats are losing their electorate and therefore are forced to pursue a policy of “open borders.”  Moreover, the inclusion of socialism into the capitalist economy leads to severe imbalances that Democrats prefer to compensate by the injection of illegal aliens into the U.S. economy.  Democrats see their last hope in the legalization of illegal aliens.

The socialists pursue a single goal: to legalize the participation of illegal aliens in elections.  The mayor of New York, communist Bill de Blasio, openly supports the idea that 500,000 illegal aliens residing in New York City should receive the right to vote at least in local elections.  The governor of California, socialist Jerry Brown, has already implemented that law.  Starting April 1, 2018, all residents of California, including illegal aliens, will automatically be added to voting rolls while renewing their driver’s licenses.

The U-Haul Index shows that Americans categorically do not like such policies.  Americans take part in federal elections every two years, but in between elections, they vote, too – with their feet.  More precisely, with trucks.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link

Explosion over the Washington Swamp


On Friday morning, President Trump declassified the memo prepared by the Intelligence Committee of the House. This document was originally marked “Top Secret.” Of course, there is nothing new for the inquisitive reader in this memo. Everything that is described there has long been widely discussed in America. But none of the participants in these discussions have ever had any evidence. Now this evidence, gathered during the closed sessions of the Intelligence Committee, has become public.

As a result, we know that the chain of events associated with the case of Trump’s “criminal collusion with Putin” looks like this:

  • Trump’s political opponents during the primaries hired the firm Fusion GPS, which specializes in opposition research, to dig up some dirt on Trump
  • After Trump won the primaries, Fusion GPS lost the customer, but just for a short while
  • The new customers of the dirt on Trump become the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC
  • The new customers requested dirt on Trump from Fusion GPS, not only in the American domain but also in the international arena
  • To add international dimension, Fusion GPS hired a subcontractor – former resident of British intelligence in Moscow Christopher Steele, known for his open anti-Trump beliefs
  • Christopher Steele hired some former agents of the Russian intelligence services (against whom he once fought during the Cold War)
  • The agents of Russian intelligence services concoct a dirty file on Trump (linguistic analysis confirmed that this dossier was written in “Russian English” with minimal editing by native English speakers)
  • It is still unclear as to what extent these Russian agents were the “former” agents of the Russian intelligence services (that is, to what extent this dossier is fiction, and to what extent is it the deliberate work of the KGB/FSB disinformation effort)
  • Trump’s dossier, compiled by the Russians, gets to the FBI through the Assistant Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who received it from his wife. At that time, she was working for Fusion GPS and was a part of the anti-Trump research team
  • The FBI used this dossier as one of the key arguments in the secret intelligence court FISC to obtain a warrant to wiretap the Trump campaign

In other words, the Obama administration used a dossier concocted by Russian agents to legitimize its surveillance of their political opposition.

According to the memo, FBI leaders knew precisely where the dossier came from, but in the application to the FISC, they presented the dossier as a proven fact, and not as opposition research. It was not just a mere bureaucratic mistake — the FBI used the dossier in such a way not once, but at least four times.

As a result, the Trump campaign was under surveillance by the FBI before the elections, after the elections, and even after the inauguration of President Trump.

Also, it became clear from the memo how the sale of this dirty product was conducted. Christopher Steele organized a “leak” of information from the dossier to the media. The article published in Yahoo News added some missing details, so it appeared like independent confirmation of the Russian dossier. In other words, the FBI submitted false information to the FISC about the authenticity of the Trump dossier. And as a “confirmation,” they used an open publication organized by the authors of the dossier themselves.

Corruption in the highest echelons of power of the Obama administration is now no secret to anyone.

American intelligence agencies, like all other intelligence agencies around the world, have always been content with the level of “Gray Eminences.” They were very close to any political power, but they have never formally become the heads of state. So, it was since ancient times, and it became an unwritten tradition until Putin came to power in Russia.

The coming to power of an intelligence officer aroused envy in all intelligence services in the world. After all, they consider themselves to be real rulers, and whoever is currently formally at the head of the state is unimportant. An additional irritant was that Putin came to power legally (meaning that if his coming to power was a coup led by intelligence agencies, then it was bloodless).

The first director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, was at the helm for almost 50 years. During this time, the FBI turned from a small agency that dealt with federal crimes to one of the leading political forces of Washington. Hoover transformed the FBI from a criminal investigation agency into a criminal and political investigation agency. The files he collected over the years (both real and imaginary) made the FBI a powerful lever of political influence.

Probably, Hoover could have become president if he wanted to. But he played the role of the “Gray Eminence” until the end. However, Putin violated the unofficial taboo.

Since the 1930s, thanks to the “active measures” of the Soviet intelligence services of the OGPU-NKVD-KGB-FSB, many American institutions have picked up the virus of socialism (in schools, universities, Hollywood, the State Department, etc.)

But during Cold War, an unusual “exchange of viruses” took place — the KGB picked up the virus of American pragmatism and capitalism, and the FBI/CIA picked up the virus of socialism.

The American virus turned out to be so strong that the intelligence services of Russia succeeded in what the intelligence services of all countries dreamed about — gaining political power in their country.

The Soviet virus was strong enough for the entire Democratic Party to be affected, but the CIA and the FBI were only partially infected. Another significant difference is that the American virus spread from the bottom up, that is, from rank-and-file Soviet agents to the top-level officers. On the contrary, the Soviet virus propagated from top to bottom, that is, the neo-Marxist worldview was implanted in America by appointing political activists, donors, and agitators of the Democratic Party to critical high-ranking posts.

Eventually, the coming to power of Putin pushed the top of the preconditioned American intelligence services to the idea of ​​a bloodless coup to remove the unwanted President Trump from the Oval Office. They showed such scrupulous tactics in this matter to ensure all their steps were based on formal legal grounds. They did not dare install the “listening equipment” without the court’s warrant.

But the Washington swamp miscalculated. The publication of the memo removes the veil only over one episode of the war that U.S. intelligence agencies are waging against the sitting president. Soon, other memos will follow, including the expected report of the Inspector General about power abuses at the FBI.

The Watergate scandal lasted more than two years, while this Obamagate outrage is a little more than a year. The explosion of the memo over the Washington swamp is only the first blast. It’s not going to be a long wait for more bombshell revelations in this matter.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

On Friday morning, President Trump declassified the memo prepared by the Intelligence Committee of the House. This document was originally marked “Top Secret.” Of course, there is nothing new for the inquisitive reader in this memo. Everything that is described there has long been widely discussed in America. But none of the participants in these discussions have ever had any evidence. Now this evidence, gathered during the closed sessions of the Intelligence Committee, has become public.

As a result, we know that the chain of events associated with the case of Trump’s “criminal collusion with Putin” looks like this:

  • Trump’s political opponents during the primaries hired the firm Fusion GPS, which specializes in opposition research, to dig up some dirt on Trump
  • After Trump won the primaries, Fusion GPS lost the customer, but just for a short while
  • The new customers of the dirt on Trump become the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC
  • The new customers requested dirt on Trump from Fusion GPS, not only in the American domain but also in the international arena
  • To add international dimension, Fusion GPS hired a subcontractor – former resident of British intelligence in Moscow Christopher Steele, known for his open anti-Trump beliefs
  • Christopher Steele hired some former agents of the Russian intelligence services (against whom he once fought during the Cold War)
  • The agents of Russian intelligence services concoct a dirty file on Trump (linguistic analysis confirmed that this dossier was written in “Russian English” with minimal editing by native English speakers)
  • It is still unclear as to what extent these Russian agents were the “former” agents of the Russian intelligence services (that is, to what extent this dossier is fiction, and to what extent is it the deliberate work of the KGB/FSB disinformation effort)
  • Trump’s dossier, compiled by the Russians, gets to the FBI through the Assistant Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who received it from his wife. At that time, she was working for Fusion GPS and was a part of the anti-Trump research team
  • The FBI used this dossier as one of the key arguments in the secret intelligence court FISC to obtain a warrant to wiretap the Trump campaign

In other words, the Obama administration used a dossier concocted by Russian agents to legitimize its surveillance of their political opposition.

According to the memo, FBI leaders knew precisely where the dossier came from, but in the application to the FISC, they presented the dossier as a proven fact, and not as opposition research. It was not just a mere bureaucratic mistake — the FBI used the dossier in such a way not once, but at least four times.

As a result, the Trump campaign was under surveillance by the FBI before the elections, after the elections, and even after the inauguration of President Trump.

Also, it became clear from the memo how the sale of this dirty product was conducted. Christopher Steele organized a “leak” of information from the dossier to the media. The article published in Yahoo News added some missing details, so it appeared like independent confirmation of the Russian dossier. In other words, the FBI submitted false information to the FISC about the authenticity of the Trump dossier. And as a “confirmation,” they used an open publication organized by the authors of the dossier themselves.

Corruption in the highest echelons of power of the Obama administration is now no secret to anyone.

American intelligence agencies, like all other intelligence agencies around the world, have always been content with the level of “Gray Eminences.” They were very close to any political power, but they have never formally become the heads of state. So, it was since ancient times, and it became an unwritten tradition until Putin came to power in Russia.

The coming to power of an intelligence officer aroused envy in all intelligence services in the world. After all, they consider themselves to be real rulers, and whoever is currently formally at the head of the state is unimportant. An additional irritant was that Putin came to power legally (meaning that if his coming to power was a coup led by intelligence agencies, then it was bloodless).

The first director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, was at the helm for almost 50 years. During this time, the FBI turned from a small agency that dealt with federal crimes to one of the leading political forces of Washington. Hoover transformed the FBI from a criminal investigation agency into a criminal and political investigation agency. The files he collected over the years (both real and imaginary) made the FBI a powerful lever of political influence.

Probably, Hoover could have become president if he wanted to. But he played the role of the “Gray Eminence” until the end. However, Putin violated the unofficial taboo.

Since the 1930s, thanks to the “active measures” of the Soviet intelligence services of the OGPU-NKVD-KGB-FSB, many American institutions have picked up the virus of socialism (in schools, universities, Hollywood, the State Department, etc.)

But during Cold War, an unusual “exchange of viruses” took place — the KGB picked up the virus of American pragmatism and capitalism, and the FBI/CIA picked up the virus of socialism.

The American virus turned out to be so strong that the intelligence services of Russia succeeded in what the intelligence services of all countries dreamed about — gaining political power in their country.

The Soviet virus was strong enough for the entire Democratic Party to be affected, but the CIA and the FBI were only partially infected. Another significant difference is that the American virus spread from the bottom up, that is, from rank-and-file Soviet agents to the top-level officers. On the contrary, the Soviet virus propagated from top to bottom, that is, the neo-Marxist worldview was implanted in America by appointing political activists, donors, and agitators of the Democratic Party to critical high-ranking posts.

Eventually, the coming to power of Putin pushed the top of the preconditioned American intelligence services to the idea of ​​a bloodless coup to remove the unwanted President Trump from the Oval Office. They showed such scrupulous tactics in this matter to ensure all their steps were based on formal legal grounds. They did not dare install the “listening equipment” without the court’s warrant.

But the Washington swamp miscalculated. The publication of the memo removes the veil only over one episode of the war that U.S. intelligence agencies are waging against the sitting president. Soon, other memos will follow, including the expected report of the Inspector General about power abuses at the FBI.

The Watergate scandal lasted more than two years, while this Obamagate outrage is a little more than a year. The explosion of the memo over the Washington swamp is only the first blast. It’s not going to be a long wait for more bombshell revelations in this matter.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link

Democratic surrealism


The Russian attempt to influence the elections in America seems to have been confirmed. This attempt was carried out not through Donald Trump, but by Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton.

The 13th month after the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has just ended. For his political opponents, this month was as unfortunate as anything that is usually associated with the “unlucky” number thirteen.

The strategy of the Democrats after the defeat in November 2016 was understandable from the very beginning — to deprive Trump of the post of president at any cost by either declaring him an illegitimate president, or recognizing him as legitimate, but removing him from the White House by impeachment. For example, the investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller concerning the “criminal collusion between Trump and Putin” was for many months considered by “Democrats” the highest achievement of anti-Trumpism.

But no one knew about Trump’s survival strategy in the Washington swamp.

The events of the past month give every reason to believe that Trump is aiming at the full-scale bankruptcy of his political opponents. This bankruptcy refers not only to financial, but also political, legal, and moral bankruptcy of the Democratic and its allies in the disinformation media.

Put yourself in Trump’s place.

After all, he knows like no other that he is not Putin’s marionette. It is reasonable to assume that Trump has built his counterstrike strategy based on this fact. Why did the Washington swamp not think about the possibility of such a counterpunch and precisely from this direction? Are Soros, Obama, and Clinton so naive that they sincerely believed that Trump would accept their rules of engagement and just idly sit by?

Did they seriously expect that an investigation into something that doesn’t exist would trigger no answer from Trump? None of these neo-Marxists with allegedly high IQs bothered to consider a strategy to forestall Trump just in case he turned out not to be guilty of anything. Could the creatures of the Washington swamp have hoped that Trump would not take advantage of the opportunity provided to him by the Democratic surrealists?

The list of Trump’s counterpunches during the 13th month is impressive. We suddenly found out that:

  • The trumped-up dossier on Trump about his adventures in Russia was ordered and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign The fabricated dossier was probably used by the Obama administration for obtaining FISA court warrant for surveillance and wiretapping of Trump and his campaign headquarters until his inauguration.
  • The wife of U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr (in the Obama administration) was hired by Fusion GPS (the main contractor of the “Russian dossier”) for work on drafting the dossier.
  • Bruce Ohr met both with the head of Fusion GPS and with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele (a subcontractor of the “Russian dossier”). It was Steele who, using his old contacts in Moscow, managed to organize a communication channel for a Russian FSB disinformation diversion into the West.
  • The FSB-produced disinformation served as the basis for fabricating the “Russian dossier.”
  • The same FBI “super-agent,” Peter Strzok, was implicated in the case of Hillary Clinton, in the case of General Flynn, in the team of prosecutor Mueller, and in an extensive conspiracy against Trump.

This list is far from complete. Every day we learn something that no Hollywood screenwriter could ever come up with.

For example, look at the composition of the Mueller team. It’s impressive. All of his investigators are supporters of Hillary Clinton. One of Mueller’s investigators spent the election night of 2016 at Hillary’s headquarters to take part in the expected celebration of Hillary Clinton’s victory. Another investigator at one time was one of the Clinton Foundation lawyers. Mueller’s right-hand man was a lawyer for a computer engineer who installed a vulnerable e-mail server for Hillary Clinton. It is documented that 9 of the 16 Mueller team investigators donated large sums of money to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

What was Mueller thinking while assembling his openly anti-Trump team? A man who has made his way to the very top of the Washington swamp is not a naif. Perhaps the Washington elites are not as smart as their lapdog press pretends.

It’s impressive that the pause before Trump’s counterpunch lasted a full year. For twelve months Trump was mostly picking fights with pseudo-reporters. And then someone turned on the green light. Almost every day, America began to learn the detials of the unprecedented “witch hunt,” in which the investigation of Mueller is just the tip of the iceberg. The method and frequency of public disclosure of this information indicate that the people behind it are perfectly aware of the news cycle.

After only one month of Trump’s counterpunches, most Americans are questioning the objectivity of Mueller and his team. The reputation of Mueller’s team drops further every day. This is also facilitated by the fact that all the official charges put forward by the Mueller team so far are unrelated to either Trump or Russia. FBI agent Strzok (who was fired from Mueller’s team for ardent anti-Trumpism) mentioned that this whole “Russiagate” against Trump started simply as an “insurance policy” for the Washington swamp in case of Trump’s win. Nobody needs to explain to Americans what it means.

Since it became known that it was agent Strzok, a Hillary supporter, who not only initiated the Russian investigation but also the termination of the case against Hillary Clinton for criminal negligence in possession of top secret documents, many are calling for the “investigation of investigators.” Of course, the criminalization of American politics will make our country look and feel very similar to the proverbial banana republics. Nevertheless, the Democrats have made their choice in favor of this particular method of political vendetta.

If evidence is presented that the Obama administration used FSU disinformation to obtain permission from the secret FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign, the reputation of the Democrats and Obama will be destroyed. It is no secret to anyone that the Watergate scandal has led to the fact that the use of government institutions to spy on political opponents has become a real political taboo in America.

The surrealism of the situation lies in the fact that the Russian attempt to influence the elections in America seems to have been confirmed. Republicans should have listened to the Democrats when they accused Russia of interfering in the election process in America — the Democrats knew exactly what they were talking about.

They knew that this Russian attempt was carried out not through Donald Trump, but through Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

The Russian attempt to influence the elections in America seems to have been confirmed. This attempt was carried out not through Donald Trump, but by Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton.

The 13th month after the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has just ended. For his political opponents, this month was as unfortunate as anything that is usually associated with the “unlucky” number thirteen.

The strategy of the Democrats after the defeat in November 2016 was understandable from the very beginning — to deprive Trump of the post of president at any cost by either declaring him an illegitimate president, or recognizing him as legitimate, but removing him from the White House by impeachment. For example, the investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller concerning the “criminal collusion between Trump and Putin” was for many months considered by “Democrats” the highest achievement of anti-Trumpism.

But no one knew about Trump’s survival strategy in the Washington swamp.

The events of the past month give every reason to believe that Trump is aiming at the full-scale bankruptcy of his political opponents. This bankruptcy refers not only to financial, but also political, legal, and moral bankruptcy of the Democratic and its allies in the disinformation media.

Put yourself in Trump’s place.

After all, he knows like no other that he is not Putin’s marionette. It is reasonable to assume that Trump has built his counterstrike strategy based on this fact. Why did the Washington swamp not think about the possibility of such a counterpunch and precisely from this direction? Are Soros, Obama, and Clinton so naive that they sincerely believed that Trump would accept their rules of engagement and just idly sit by?

Did they seriously expect that an investigation into something that doesn’t exist would trigger no answer from Trump? None of these neo-Marxists with allegedly high IQs bothered to consider a strategy to forestall Trump just in case he turned out not to be guilty of anything. Could the creatures of the Washington swamp have hoped that Trump would not take advantage of the opportunity provided to him by the Democratic surrealists?

The list of Trump’s counterpunches during the 13th month is impressive. We suddenly found out that:

  • The trumped-up dossier on Trump about his adventures in Russia was ordered and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign The fabricated dossier was probably used by the Obama administration for obtaining FISA court warrant for surveillance and wiretapping of Trump and his campaign headquarters until his inauguration.
  • The wife of U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr (in the Obama administration) was hired by Fusion GPS (the main contractor of the “Russian dossier”) for work on drafting the dossier.
  • Bruce Ohr met both with the head of Fusion GPS and with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele (a subcontractor of the “Russian dossier”). It was Steele who, using his old contacts in Moscow, managed to organize a communication channel for a Russian FSB disinformation diversion into the West.
  • The FSB-produced disinformation served as the basis for fabricating the “Russian dossier.”
  • The same FBI “super-agent,” Peter Strzok, was implicated in the case of Hillary Clinton, in the case of General Flynn, in the team of prosecutor Mueller, and in an extensive conspiracy against Trump.

This list is far from complete. Every day we learn something that no Hollywood screenwriter could ever come up with.

For example, look at the composition of the Mueller team. It’s impressive. All of his investigators are supporters of Hillary Clinton. One of Mueller’s investigators spent the election night of 2016 at Hillary’s headquarters to take part in the expected celebration of Hillary Clinton’s victory. Another investigator at one time was one of the Clinton Foundation lawyers. Mueller’s right-hand man was a lawyer for a computer engineer who installed a vulnerable e-mail server for Hillary Clinton. It is documented that 9 of the 16 Mueller team investigators donated large sums of money to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

What was Mueller thinking while assembling his openly anti-Trump team? A man who has made his way to the very top of the Washington swamp is not a naif. Perhaps the Washington elites are not as smart as their lapdog press pretends.

It’s impressive that the pause before Trump’s counterpunch lasted a full year. For twelve months Trump was mostly picking fights with pseudo-reporters. And then someone turned on the green light. Almost every day, America began to learn the detials of the unprecedented “witch hunt,” in which the investigation of Mueller is just the tip of the iceberg. The method and frequency of public disclosure of this information indicate that the people behind it are perfectly aware of the news cycle.

After only one month of Trump’s counterpunches, most Americans are questioning the objectivity of Mueller and his team. The reputation of Mueller’s team drops further every day. This is also facilitated by the fact that all the official charges put forward by the Mueller team so far are unrelated to either Trump or Russia. FBI agent Strzok (who was fired from Mueller’s team for ardent anti-Trumpism) mentioned that this whole “Russiagate” against Trump started simply as an “insurance policy” for the Washington swamp in case of Trump’s win. Nobody needs to explain to Americans what it means.

Since it became known that it was agent Strzok, a Hillary supporter, who not only initiated the Russian investigation but also the termination of the case against Hillary Clinton for criminal negligence in possession of top secret documents, many are calling for the “investigation of investigators.” Of course, the criminalization of American politics will make our country look and feel very similar to the proverbial banana republics. Nevertheless, the Democrats have made their choice in favor of this particular method of political vendetta.

If evidence is presented that the Obama administration used FSU disinformation to obtain permission from the secret FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign, the reputation of the Democrats and Obama will be destroyed. It is no secret to anyone that the Watergate scandal has led to the fact that the use of government institutions to spy on political opponents has become a real political taboo in America.

The surrealism of the situation lies in the fact that the Russian attempt to influence the elections in America seems to have been confirmed. Republicans should have listened to the Democrats when they accused Russia of interfering in the election process in America — the Democrats knew exactly what they were talking about.

They knew that this Russian attempt was carried out not through Donald Trump, but through Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link

The Three Bullets of Francesca Mann


Francesca Mann met with absolute evil — and she shot it.

On October 23, 1943, the next train with the Jews – about 1,700 people — arrived at the death camp (Konzentrationslager) Auschwitz II-Birkenau. Unlike all other trains arriving at Auschwitz, it was a real passenger train, not a cattle train. Also, none of their arriving Jews wore the yellow Star of David on their clothes.

Arriving Jews were greeted warmly by the “representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich” Franz Hössler, who announced that this is their last stop before crossing the border with Switzerland, from where they would travel to different countries of South America. Just a few formalities remain — disinfection, shower, and then — long-awaited freedom. Few people guessed that they were in southern Poland, not in southern Germany, and that Hössler was actually an SS First Lieutenant (SS-Obersturmführer).

All of them, representatives of the wealthiest Jewish families of occupied Poland, dreamed of  freedom. A secret Nazi program for “obtaining visas to the countries of South America” was created specifically for them. The headquarters of this program was set up by the Gestapo in the Hotel Polski in Warsaw. The cost of a fake exit visa to Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Guatemala or Bolivia was about $1,500 per person (more than $20,000 at today’s rate). The program was deliberately designed for the wealthy. The plan was devilishly tricky – a minimal number of Jews were in fact allowed to travel to neutral countries for the exchange of German prisoners of war, and this ensured a continuous inflow of Jewish money into the treasury of the Third Reich.

The Hotel Polski was in the “Aryan zone” of Warsaw, outside the Warsaw Jewish ghetto. One of the couriers between the ghetto and the hotel was the 26-year-old Francesca Mann.

Francesca Mann was her stage name. She was a Jewish ballerina and dancer, one of the most famous, talented, and beautiful women in Poland. Her maiden name was Manheimer, and her husband, Marek Rosenberg, was the son of a wealthy Warsaw jersey merchant.

The privileged status of Francesca manifested itself in everything. Only she could flaunt fur coats inside a dirty ghetto. Only she was allowed to leave the ghetto for the “Aryan zone” anytime. Of course, the Gestapo kept her in the dark, so Francesca sincerely believed that she was helping wealthy Jews find freedom. She knew too much and perhaps suspected something, so the Gestapo ordered her on the very first train to South America with a layover in Auschwitz.

What happened upon arrival in Auschwitz we only know from the words of the eyewitnesses who survived.  Most of them were prisoners who were forced to work at the camp. Their testimonies differ in detail, but they agree on one thing – the beautiful woman from Warsaw went down in history as a hero.

In the locker room in front of the gas chamber (camouflaged as the showers) Krema 2, the SS supervisors ordered all women to undress. Approximately half of the women followed the order, but the rest felt that something was wrong. The SS men began using gun stocks to drive the women into the gas chamber amid horrific screams and crying.

The tense situation was defused by Francesca Mann. She escaped from the screaming crowd to a group of SS guards and, to the astonishment of the men, began to perform a striptease.  

This openly sexy dance by such a brilliant professional dancer had the SS guards hypnotized. Finally, Francesca undressed entirely remaining only in her high-heeled shoes. In the blink of an eye, she took off her shoes and smashed the face of a nearby Sergeant (SS-Oberscharführer) Quackernak with the sharp heelpiece.

The shocked Quackernak dropped his weapon and covered his bloody face with both hands. Francesca used this moment to pick up his pistol and shoot Sergeant Josef Shillinger, one of the most odious sadists of Auschwitz, twice in the stomach. She then aimed at Quackernak but missed, the bullet instead hitting Master Sergeant (SS-Hauptscharführer) Emmerich. Her shots served as a signal, and several hundred furious and desperate women attacked a dozen SS men.

Commandant of Auschwitz Lt. Colonel (SS-Obersturmbannführer) Rudolf Höss came running at the sound of the shots. He ordered the SS men to block all the exits from the building and shoot all the Jews who were in the locker room.

Schillinger died the same day on his way to the hospital. Emmerich remained lame for life. Quackernak was sentenced by a military tribunal in 1946 to be hanged for his participation in mass executions of civilians and Soviet prisoners of war. Hössler was hanged in the same year.

At the military tribunal after WWII, Höss was accused under his leadership, three and a half million Jews were killed. He filed a protest, because according to the statistics of the Third Reich during his command of the death camp of Auschwitz, not three and a half, but only two and a half million Jews were killed, and the rest allegedly died of various illnesses. Höss was executed by hanging in 1947 in the same death camp he had commanded – in Auschwitz.

Dr. Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

Francesca Mann met with absolute evil — and she shot it.

On October 23, 1943, the next train with the Jews – about 1,700 people — arrived at the death camp (Konzentrationslager) Auschwitz II-Birkenau. Unlike all other trains arriving at Auschwitz, it was a real passenger train, not a cattle train. Also, none of their arriving Jews wore the yellow Star of David on their clothes.

Arriving Jews were greeted warmly by the “representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich” Franz Hössler, who announced that this is their last stop before crossing the border with Switzerland, from where they would travel to different countries of South America. Just a few formalities remain — disinfection, shower, and then — long-awaited freedom. Few people guessed that they were in southern Poland, not in southern Germany, and that Hössler was actually an SS First Lieutenant (SS-Obersturmführer).

All of them, representatives of the wealthiest Jewish families of occupied Poland, dreamed of  freedom. A secret Nazi program for “obtaining visas to the countries of South America” was created specifically for them. The headquarters of this program was set up by the Gestapo in the Hotel Polski in Warsaw. The cost of a fake exit visa to Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Guatemala or Bolivia was about $1,500 per person (more than $20,000 at today’s rate). The program was deliberately designed for the wealthy. The plan was devilishly tricky – a minimal number of Jews were in fact allowed to travel to neutral countries for the exchange of German prisoners of war, and this ensured a continuous inflow of Jewish money into the treasury of the Third Reich.

The Hotel Polski was in the “Aryan zone” of Warsaw, outside the Warsaw Jewish ghetto. One of the couriers between the ghetto and the hotel was the 26-year-old Francesca Mann.

Francesca Mann was her stage name. She was a Jewish ballerina and dancer, one of the most famous, talented, and beautiful women in Poland. Her maiden name was Manheimer, and her husband, Marek Rosenberg, was the son of a wealthy Warsaw jersey merchant.

The privileged status of Francesca manifested itself in everything. Only she could flaunt fur coats inside a dirty ghetto. Only she was allowed to leave the ghetto for the “Aryan zone” anytime. Of course, the Gestapo kept her in the dark, so Francesca sincerely believed that she was helping wealthy Jews find freedom. She knew too much and perhaps suspected something, so the Gestapo ordered her on the very first train to South America with a layover in Auschwitz.

What happened upon arrival in Auschwitz we only know from the words of the eyewitnesses who survived.  Most of them were prisoners who were forced to work at the camp. Their testimonies differ in detail, but they agree on one thing – the beautiful woman from Warsaw went down in history as a hero.

In the locker room in front of the gas chamber (camouflaged as the showers) Krema 2, the SS supervisors ordered all women to undress. Approximately half of the women followed the order, but the rest felt that something was wrong. The SS men began using gun stocks to drive the women into the gas chamber amid horrific screams and crying.

The tense situation was defused by Francesca Mann. She escaped from the screaming crowd to a group of SS guards and, to the astonishment of the men, began to perform a striptease.  

This openly sexy dance by such a brilliant professional dancer had the SS guards hypnotized. Finally, Francesca undressed entirely remaining only in her high-heeled shoes. In the blink of an eye, she took off her shoes and smashed the face of a nearby Sergeant (SS-Oberscharführer) Quackernak with the sharp heelpiece.

The shocked Quackernak dropped his weapon and covered his bloody face with both hands. Francesca used this moment to pick up his pistol and shoot Sergeant Josef Shillinger, one of the most odious sadists of Auschwitz, twice in the stomach. She then aimed at Quackernak but missed, the bullet instead hitting Master Sergeant (SS-Hauptscharführer) Emmerich. Her shots served as a signal, and several hundred furious and desperate women attacked a dozen SS men.

Commandant of Auschwitz Lt. Colonel (SS-Obersturmbannführer) Rudolf Höss came running at the sound of the shots. He ordered the SS men to block all the exits from the building and shoot all the Jews who were in the locker room.

Schillinger died the same day on his way to the hospital. Emmerich remained lame for life. Quackernak was sentenced by a military tribunal in 1946 to be hanged for his participation in mass executions of civilians and Soviet prisoners of war. Hössler was hanged in the same year.

At the military tribunal after WWII, Höss was accused under his leadership, three and a half million Jews were killed. He filed a protest, because according to the statistics of the Third Reich during his command of the death camp of Auschwitz, not three and a half, but only two and a half million Jews were killed, and the rest allegedly died of various illnesses. Höss was executed by hanging in 1947 in the same death camp he had commanded – in Auschwitz.

Dr. Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link