Rasismilla ja putinismilla perustellaan nyt fasismin nostaminen virkamiesten ja kenraalien vallankaappauksena, sananvapauden ja demokratian tuhona Amerikan & amp;Lontoon geopolitiikan eli hyökkäyssotien tukemiseksi.
Pakolaispuheella ja vale-empatialla peitetään se, että Turkki, saudisuvut, mossad, CIA, Lontoon pankit, MI6 rahoittavat ja kouluttavat terroristeja useassa maassa. Myös uudelleensijoittavat terroristeja Eurooppaan poliisivaltioiden terrorin ja vakoilun laajentamiseksi.
Oikeisto perustelee kaiken fasistisen nyt oikeiston luokkaantumisella, itsesäälillä.
Kuten natsit 1928.
Virkamiehet sanovat perustaneensa ideologisen iskuryhmän ja te sanotte että minä liioittelen?
"NATO ON JÄÄNNE AJOILTA, jolloin läntinen sosialidemokratia ajettiin antikommunistisiin asemiin. Otollisen maaperän tälle loi valtioiden sisällä käyty hegemoniataistelu työväenliikkeen johtajuudesta ja kommunistiset diktatuurit, mutta myös suurvaltojen aktiivinen vaikuttaminen valtioiden sisäpolitiikkaan. USA:n tukema sosialidemokratia vei useimmissa maissa voiton Neuvostoliiton tukemasta kommunismista, mutta saman kehityksen jatkona voidaan nähdä myös se, kuinka monissa valtioissa sosialidemokraattinen puolue laimeni lopulta oikeistohenkiseksi hallintopuolueeksi tukemaan finanssieliittiä palvelevaa uusliberalistista oikeistohegemoniaa.
Niin kävi lopulta myös Suomen SDP:n.
Paradoksi on siinä, että Natoon ja USA:han tukeutuvan kommunismin vastaisen projektin jäljet yhä ohjaavat joidenkin sosialidemokraattien ajattelua, vaikka kommunismi Venäjällä on kaatunut jo yli neljännesvuosisata sitten. Ja vaikka Nato-hegemoni Yhdysvaltain nykyinen kansainvälinen toiminta on jopa kapitalistisesta perspektiivistä poikkeuksellisen aggressiivista ja häikäilemättömän imperialistista."Niin kävi lopulta myös Suomen SDP:n.
- Paradoksi on siinä, että Natoon ja USA:han tukeutuvan kommunismin vastaisen projektin jäljet yhä ohjaavat joidenkin sosialidemokraattien ajattelua, vaikka kommunismi Venäjällä on kaatunut jo yli neljännesvuosisata sitten. Ja vaikka Nato-hegemoni Yhdysvaltain nykyinen kansainvälinen toiminta on jopa kapitalistisesta perspektiivistä poikkeuksellisen aggressiivista ja häikäilemättömän imperialistista."
- Onko Suomessa valtiovallan järjestämiä salamurhia?
Uusi maailmanjärjestys, vanha feodaalifasismi
''And you’re telling me I’m the aggressor here? Have you any common sense at all?“ - Vladimir Putin (English translation).
December 2014, President Vladimir Putin answers a question from the BBC's John Simpson about Russia's supposedly aggressive stance.
Vladimir Putin said: Thank you very much for your question. About our exercises, manoeuvres and the development of our armed forces. You said that Russia, to a certain extent, contributed to the tension that we are now seeing in the world. Russia did contribute but only insofar as it is more and more firmly protecting its national interests. We are not attacking in the political sense of the word. We are not attacking anyone. We are only protecting our interests. Our Western partners – and especially our US partners – are displeased with us for doing exactly that, not because we are allowing security-related activity that provokes tension.
Let me explain. You are talking about our aircraft, including strategic aviation operations. Do you know that in the early 1990s, Russia completely stopped strategic aviation flights in remote surveillance areas as the Soviet Union previously did? We completely stopped, while flights of US strategic aircraft carrying nuclear weapons continued. Why? Against whom? Who was threatened?
So we didn’t make flights for many years and only a couple of years ago we resumed them. So are we really the ones doing the provoking?
So, in fact, we only have two bases outside Russia, and both are in areas where terrorist activity is high. One is in Kyrgyzstan, and was deployed there upon request of the Kyrgyz authorities, President Akayev, after it was raided by Afghan militants. The other is in Tajikistan, which also borders on Afghanistan. I would guess you are interested in peace and stability there too. Our presence is justified and clearly understandable.
Now, US bases are scattered around the globe – and you’re telling me Russia is behaving aggressively? Do you have any common sense at all? What are US armed forces doing in Europe, also with tactical nuclear weapons? What are they doing there?
Listen, Russia has increased its military spending for 2015, if I am not mistaken, it is around 50 billion in dollar equivalent. The Pentagon’s budget is ten times that amount, $575 billion, I think, recently approved by the Congress. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy? Is there any common sense in this?
Are we moving our forces to the borders of the United States or other countries? Who is moving NATO bases and other military infrastructure towards us? We aren’t. Is anyone listening to us? Is anyone engaging in some dialogue with us about it? No. No dialogue at all. All we hear is “that’s none of your business. Every country has the right to choose its way to ensure its own security.” All right, but we have the right to do so too. Why can’t we?
Finally, the ABM system – something I mentioned in my Address to the Federal Assembly. Who was it that withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Treaty, one of the cornerstones of the global security system? Was it Russia? No, it wasn’t. The United States did this, unilaterally. They are creating threats for us, they are deploying their strategic missile defence components not just in Alaska, but in Europe as well – in Romania and Poland, very close to us. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy?
If the question is whether we want law-based relations, the answer is yes, but only if our national economic and security interests are absolutely respected.
We negotiated WTO accession for 19 years or so, and consented to compromise on many issues, assuming that we are concluding cast-iron agreements. And then… I will not discuss who’s right and who’s wrong (I already said on many occasions that I believe Russia behaved the right way in the Ukrainian crisis, and the West was wrong, but let us put this aside for now). Still, we joined the WTO. That organisation has rules. And yet, sanctions were imposed on Russia in violation of the WTO rules, the international law and the UN Charter – again unilaterally and illegitimately. Are we in the wrong again?
We want to develop normal relations in the security sphere, in fighting terrorism. We will work together on nuclear non-proliferation. We will work together on other threats, including drugs, organised crime and grave infections, such as Ebola. We will do all this jointly, and we will cooperate in the economic sphere, if our partners want this.
Suomalaistutkija vakuuttaa toistavansa CIA:lta saamaansa tekstiä
Tekstit
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti