Wednesday, June 7, 2017

"We are going to have to rebuild within this ‘Wild, Wild West’ of information flow some sort of curating function..." - Barack Obama

def-Curator--one who has the care and superintendence of something; especially :  one in charge of a museum, zoo, or other place of exhibit

Question: You are saying that right now, the political storm in Washington rests on absolutely unsubstantiated allegations.

Vladimir Putin: It is not based on allegations, but on the desire of those who lost the elections in the United States to at least improve their standing through anti-Russia attacks, by accusing Russia of interference. The people who lost the elections do not want to admit that they really lost, that the one who won was closer to the people and better understood what ordinary voters want.
They are absolutely reluctant to admit this, and prefer deluding themselves and others into thinking it was not their fault, that their policy was correct, they did all the right things, but someone from the outside thwarted them. But it was not so. They just lost and they have to admit it.

1--Internet speech wars (must read)

About 87 percent of Americans use the Internet and 74 percent use social media, the Pew Research Center recently found. For campaigns, this means that the communications gatekeeping function is as obsolete for campaign consultants as it became for network-news executives last century.

Read more at:

2--Craig Murray; The man who knows who leaked the DNC emails

both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
The CIA’s Absence of Conviction 329

The problem is there is no such evidence. There can’t be because both the DNC and Podesta emails were leaked by Washington insiders, to my certain knowledge. I repeat that, to my certain knowledge. Hillary’s pathetic election claim that the security services had information it was the Russians, depended on a statement that the leak was “consistent with Russian methods and objectives”. Look at that statement very carefully. It says “we have no evidence whatsoever, but the President has asked us to blame the Russians”. As I say, I know it wasn’t the Russians. The only “evidence” ever shown to me by those blaming the Russians is that an alleged hacker calling himself “Guccifer” sometimes uses Cyrillic. Which may or may not be true, but as “Guccifer” was neither the source of, nor a conduit for, the leaks it is utterly irrelevant.

3--CNN caught staging fake news

4--2017; Tipping pt for MSM?

What the mainstream media cannot squarely face is that 2016 became the tipping point, the year when they no longer control the narrative, the year the traditional means of population control by the 1% stopped working properly.

2017 will see the Establishment reaction to this. Control of “Fake” news by social media, and “ghost banning” are two of the weapons which will be used. The obvious weakness of the people’s social media revolution is its heavy reliance on the corporations Twitter and Facebook. There is every evidence that their fellow billionaires are working hard and with success to ensure that the new billionaire controllers of Facebook, Twitter, Google and Wikipedia become properly committed to the corporate news management agenda. We have already seen governments move across the Western world to increase powers of internet censorship “to counter radicalisation”, and expect these to be both strengthened and deployed against non-official news.

The 1% have all the money and we don’t because they are powerful, unscrupulous, sociopathic and very resilient. 2017 I suspect will be the year it becomes plain that new social networking media beyond corporate control are required, but I am confident the internet will work that one out by its collective genius. 2016 will be seen as a turning point. But there are still a great many hard battles ahead.

5--Hillary at Code 2017

Macedonians stole the election?

6--Dems anti Trump hysteria

The Post declared: “It’s about Mr. Trump’s ill-explained and gratuitous attempts during the transition and since to do the bidding of Russian President Vladimir Putin, including trying to unwind the sanctions against Russia imposed by President Barack Obama after the election meddling was discovered… The ‘big story’ is why Mr. Trump has frantically attempted to shut down the Russia investigations, including through the firing of FBI Director James B. Comey.”

The Sunday interview programs all began with the latest terror attack in Britain and quickly pivoted to the investigations of the Trump administration. Rice, interviewed on the ABC News “This Week” program, was the most strident in articulating the Democrats’ McCarthyite-style demonization of Russia, repeating the litany of unsubstantiated claims and outright lies that have become Democratic gospel.

7--Oliver Stone--  "As an ex-KGB agent you must have hated what Snowden did with every fiber of your being?

Vladimir Putin--   No, Snowden is not a traitor. He didn't betray the interests of his country. Nor did he transfer information to any other country, which would have been damaging to his own country or to his own people. Everything Snowden did he did publicly.

Oliver Stone-- Did you agree with what he did?

Oliver Stone--Did you think the NSA had gone too far in its eavesdropping?
Vladimir Putin-- Yes, certainly. In that matter snowden was right. But you asked me and I gave you a direct answer. I don't think he should have done it. If he didn't like his work, he should have simply resigned. But he went further. That's his right. But since you're asking me, I think it's wrong.

Oliver Stone-- So you're saying, he shouldn't have whistelblown but should have resigned in principle, like Mr Putin did when he resigned from the KGB.
Vladimir Putin-- Yes, I think so. I hadn't thought about it that way. But, yes, I think you are right. I resigned because I didn't agree with the actions undertaken by the government.

Oliver Stone--So you do agree that the NSA went too far. So how do you feel about Russian Intelligence activities in their surveillance.
Vladimir Putin-- I think they are working quite well. Our intelligence services always conform to the law.  That's the first thing. And, secondly, trying to spy on your allies, if you really consider them allies and not vassals, is just indecent. Because it undermines trust. And it means in the end it damages your own national security.

8--Vladimir Putin: First of all, yes, I would like to share my reflections and thoughts on what is happening and on the reasons for this Russophobia. It is evident and in some countries is simply going beyond all bounds.

Why is this so? I think this is because we are seeing the emergence of a multipolar world, and this is not to the monopolists’ liking. Monopolies are not good things, as we know, but monopolists always fight to keep hold of them, in all sectors and all areas of life.

A multipolar world is emerging and this is partly due to Russia’s efforts to stand up for its interests, for its legitimate interests, let me stress. That is one aspect.

The second aspect is that some of our partners in some countries began making attempts a while back to contain Russia and limit its lawful desire to protect its national interests. They do this through all kinds of actions that are outside the framework of international law, including economic restrictions. Now, they see that this is not working and has produced no results. This irritates them and rouses them into using other methods to pursue their aims and tempts them to up the stakes. But we do not go along with these attempts, do not offer pretexts for action. They therefore need to invent pretexts out of nowhere.

How long will this last? I do not think it will go on forever, because sooner or later, people will wake up to the fact that this is counterproductive and harmful to all. Of course, it causes us some harm, but it also harms those who initiate these policies. I think that people are already coming around to this realisation. We see some very clear change in the situation, change for the better. I hope that this trend will continue.

9--Putin mops the floor with M Kelly

“When Al-Qaeda was created in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union, they didn’t know that it would strike the U.S. on 09/11.”

“It is not Assad whom we are protecting there. We are protecting the Syrian statehood. We don’t want their interior to be a situation similar to that in Libya, or in Somalia or in Afghanistan, and in Afghanistan, your army has been present for many years, but the situation is not changing for the better. We want to preserve the Syrian statehood. And on the basis of resolving this fundamental issue, we would like them to move towards settling the Syrian issue through political means. Yes, probably everyone that’s there is to blame for something, but let’s not forget that were it not for an active interference from outside, the civil war would probably not have broken out.”

“I’d like to ask you a question, why didn’t everyone go right away to inspect the air base, to the spot where chemical weapons allegedly had been used? Why didn’t they want to go to see the aircraft that had been allegedly used to perform this strike? The answer is very simple. Because they were afraid that everything, the truth, would come to light....

“The U.S. has very far—yes, there was an explosion there, people suffered, for which we offer our condolences. But we also know what terrorism is all about. We have seen its manifestations and no one should try to use terrorists to address short term political interests, and there are attempts at that. Yes, there are attempts at using terrorists against—say, Assad.
“Why use them? Because no one else would fight. I do not think it’s worthwhile using these terrorists today, because tomorrow it’s gonna cost you a lot. When Al-Qaeda was created in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union, they [U.S. policymakers] didn’t know that it would strike the U.S. on 09/11. We’ve got to think about negative ramifications in the long term.”

“When Al-Qaeda was created in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union, they didn’t know that it would strike the U.S. on 09/11.”

Using terrorists? Really? Vladimir Putin said that the U.S. is using terrorists against Assad and that the same terrorists are likely to bite back.
Shouldn’t Megyn Kelly challenge that? RT cut the tape they posted to the Youtube at the end of Putin’s statement, but NBC no doubt had tape of the entire event, though they used only one short clip.
Don’t most Americans who watch NBC imagine that the U.S. is fighting terrorists in Syria? Shouldn’t they know if Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. of instead “using terrorists” against Bashar-al-Assad? Wouldn’t they want to hear Megyn Kelly respond to that? Or ignore it? But damn if that tape wasn’t left on NBC’s cutting room floor

Vladimir Putin: I have already commented on this issue many times. There was a question on this topic from one of your colleagues today. He put it very cautiously at the news conference, saying that ‘there are allegations that Russian hackers…’ Who is making these allegations? Based on what? If these are just allegations, then these hackers could be from anywhere else and not necessarily from Russia.
As President Trump once said, and I think that he was totally right when he said it could have been someone sitting on their bed or somebody intentionally inserted a flash drive with the name of a Russian national, or something like that. Anything is possible in this virtual world. Russia never engages in activities of this kind, and we do not need it. It makes no sense for us to do such things. What for?
I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones. These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration

Changing things is not easy, and I say this without any irony. It is not that someone does not want to, but because it is a hard thing to do. Take Obama, a forward-thinking man, a liberal, a democrat. Did he not pledge to shut down Guantanamo before his election? But did he do it? No, he did not. And may I ask why not? Did he not want to do it? He wanted to, I am sure he did, but it did not work out. He sincerely wanted to do it, but did not succeed, since it turned out to be very complicated.
This is not the main issue, however, even though it is important, since it is hard to fathom that people have been walking there in chains for decades without trial or investigation. Can you imagine France or Russia acting this way? This would have been a disaster. But it is possible in the United States and continues to this day. This refers to the question on democracy, by the way.

I referred to this example just to show that it is not as simple as it may seem. That said, I am cautiously optimistic, and I think that we can and should be able to reach agreements on key issues.

Question: You are saying that right now, the political storm in Washington rests on absolutely unsubstantiated allegations.
Vladimir Putin: It is not based on allegations, but on the desire of those who lost the elections in the United States to at least improve their standing through anti-Russia attacks, by accusing Russia of interference. The people who lost the elections do not want to admit that they really lost, that the one who won was closer to the people and better understood what ordinary voters want.
They are absolutely reluctant to admit this, and prefer deluding themselves and others into thinking it was not their fault, that their policy was correct, they did all the right things, but someone from the outside thwarted them. But it was not so. They just lost and they have to admit it.
When they do, I think it will be easier for us to work. However, the fact that this is being done using anti-Russia tools is not good, as it brings discord into international affairs. Let them argue among themselves, so they can prove who is stronger, who is better, who is smarter, who is more reliable and who sets a better policy for the country. Why involve third countries? This is very distressing. But it will pass, everything passes, and this will pass as well.

Vladimir Putin: I do not think I have the right to determine the political future of Syria, be it with or without al-Assad. This is for the Syrians themselves to decide. Nobody has the right to claim the rights that belong to the people of another country. This is the first thing I wanted to say.

Question: After Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, many people spoke about a new era in Russian-US relations. However, these relations do not seem to have made a new start. The NATO leaders spoke about the Russian threat at their summit last week.
Are you disappointed by the US attitude?
Vladimir Putin: No, I am not. We had no special expectations. The US President is steering a traditional US policy. Of course, we remember that during his election campaign, and also after he was elected and assumed office, President Trump spoke about his intention to normalise the relationship with Russia and said that it cannot be any worse. We remember this.
However, we also see and realise that the political situation in the United States is influenced by those who have lost the elections but refuse to accept their defeat, and who continue to use the anti-Russia card and various allegations most actively in the political infighting. This is why we are in no hurry, we are ready to wait, yet we strongly hope that Russian-US relations will become normal again sometime in the future.

Question: However, regarding NATO, some of your neighbours want to ensure their security through NATO. Is this a sign of mistrust to you, something that causes a scandalous attitude?

Vladimir Putin: For us this is a sign that our partners in Europe and in the United States are, pardon me, pursuing a short-sighted policy. They do not have the habit of looking one step ahead. Our Western partners have lost this habit.

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Western politicians told us (it was not documented on paper but stated quite clearly) that NATO would not expand to the East. Some German politicians at the time even proposed creating a new security system in Europe that would involve the United States and, by the way, Russia.

If that had been done, we would not have the problems we have had in recent years, which is NATO’s expansion to the East up to our borders, the advance of military infrastructure to our borders. Perhaps, the United States would not have unilaterally withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

This treaty was a cornerstone of current and future security. The missile defence facilities in Europe – in Poland and Romania – would not have been built, which, undoubtedly, creates a threat to our strategic nuclear forces and disrupts the strategic balance – an extremely dangerous development for international security. Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history, it is not a movie.

We have to proceed from the current situation. In this respect, we need to think about what we want from the future. I think we all want security, peace, safety and cooperation. Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.
You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues.

What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia.
FBI spy machine

By the way, if you really want to know why Hillary los, Counterpunch editor, Jeffrey St. Clair, spells it out in black and white. Check it out:

Clinton lost the white vote by almost the exact same margin that Obama did to Romney in 2012....
The problem... is that Trump did 2% better with blacks than Romney did and Hillary performed 5% worse than Obama for a total spread of 7% less than the 2012 margins.
Even more startling.... is that Trump won a higher percent of Hispanic votes (29%) than Romney (27%) and Hillary won a much smaller share of Hispanic votes (65%) than Obama (71%) for a total decline of 8% from 2012.
Even so, Hillary should have won the election. Why? Because Trump got 1.5 million fewer votes than Romney....
The fatal problem is that Hillary got 5.4 million fewer votes than Obama, many of those black and Hispanic voters, and lost 6 states that Obama won twice: Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio." ("Roaming Charges: Whitelash, White Heat?")

This is the simplest, most credible explanation I have read about why Hillary lost the election. Trump did slightly better among blacks and Hispanics, and fewer people voted because they couldn't stand either candidate. That's it in a nutshell. Thomas frank quote the do nothing Dems-- blyth

he people who created the terrorists are now telling us how to fight them\

No comments:

Post a Comment