Vladimir Putin recently made comments on the seriousness of global conflicts that can lead to nuclear conflict. Patriots worldwide should pay close attention as the globalists build their dangerous nuclear arsenal.
In stark contrast to attempts in numerous western countries to stifle free speech online, Russian President Vladimir Putin defended Internet freedom during a conference...
A prominent Swedish lawmaker asserts that Hungarian billionaire George Soros's influence on European politics and policies make him "one of the most dangerous men,"
War Room Host Roger Stone and Alex Jones go over latest breaking news stating Robert Muller accuses opponents of offering women money to make false claims about him.
Earlier in the
day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that he did not rule
out the possibility that the issue of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty would be addressed at the upcoming talks between
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump.
NATO
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said after the NATO-Russia Council
(NRC) meeting in Brussels on Wednesday that the alliance was ready
to continue a dialogue on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
Treaty with Russia.
"Allies and Russia… shared views on the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty," NATO said in a
statement following the NRC meeting.
In addition, Stoltenberg noted that all allies agreed that the INF treaty has been crucial to Euro-Atlantic security.
"We all agree that the INF Treaty has been
crucial to Euro-Atlantic security… Allies urge Russia again… to ensure
full compliance with the INF Treaty without delay. While we stand ready
to continue dialogue on this issue with Russia, as an Alliance we are
also committed to take effective measures to continue to ensure the
safety and security of all Allies," Stoltenberg said.
Russia,
on its part, said that INF treaty is important as a factor
in maintaining European and global stability, Permanent Mission to NATO
noted.
The NATO-Russia Council, which brings together the 29 Allies and
Russia, met in Brussels on Wednesday to exchange views on a wide range
of topics, including issues related to military activities, reciprocal
transparency and risk reduction; the situation in and around Ukraine;
Afghanistan; and hybrid challenges. According to the statement released
by NATO press service, NATO and Russia provided briefings on major
exercises "in the spirit of transparency."
The council was established on May 28, 2002 and was effectively
suspended by the alliance in 2014-2016 over the situation in Ukraine.
The latest NATO-Russia Council meeting was held in late May at NATO
headquarters in Brussels.
China is reportedly enrolling military scientists into
western universities to gain intel on areas like “hypersonic missiles
and navigation technology.”
The nation’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) came up with the moniker
“Five Eyes countries” to denote the preferred targets for infiltration
(America, U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), according to a new
report released by a think tank tied to Australia’s defense ministry.
“Dozens of PLA scientists have obscured their military affiliations
to travel to Five Eyes countries and the European Union, including at
least 17 to Australia, where they work in areas such as hypersonic
missiles and navigation technology,” reads
the official report. “Those countries don’t count China as a security
ally but rather treat it as one of their main intelligence adversaries.”
Additionally, the groundbreaking report details how the PLA has
inserted thousands worldwide over the past decade as “students or
visiting scholars” while continuously augmenting their findings as
peer-reviewed literature in “strategic and emerging technology sectors.”
“The PLA has sponsored more than 2,500 military scientists and
engineers to study abroad and has developed relationships with
researchers and institutions across the globe,” reports the think tank.
“Those scientists work in strategic and emerging technology sectors such
as quantum physics, signal processing, cryptography, navigation
technology and autonomous vehicles.”
Moreover, a PLA outlet bluntly describes the intelligence campaign as “picking flowers in foreign lands to make honey in China.”
Correspondingly, China has pursued other continents for different
reasons, specifically Africa, to such a degree that it has been accused
of engaging in a “new colonialism” and even “debt trap” diplomacy due
to the host countries becoming deeply indebted to Chinese lenders.
For example, in early September, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged $60 billion
to African leaders with “no political strings attached” to expand
China’s “Belt and Road” initiative (BRI) to build ports and other
infrastructure.
BRI could prove to be lucrative for China as the infrastructure
projects will be financed by loans from China’s state-owned banks while
being built by Chinese contractors.
Alternatively, African leaders are historically keen to accept
Chinese offers because they “come without demands for safeguards against
corruption, waste, and environmental damage.”
In these excerpts from a buried 60 minutes interview George Soros explains that "I am there to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do." He also describes his experiences at age 14 with his Jewish identity hidden in Nazi Germany, where he helped to confiscate property from other Jews. In tapes and video here Soros describes this as "one of the happiest times" of his life… "a very happy making exhilarating experience…"
George Soros admits Nazi collaboration with no regrets
Mr. Lucas, Don’t Take Your Readers for Fools! by Prof. Vladimir Golstein
So Edward Lucas, the columnist at The Times, the long time contributor to the notoriously Russophobic Economist and the author of 2008 The New Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the Threat to the West, where he fully exhibits his own paranoia about the dangers of Putin’s Russia, has came up with a new theological and cultural diagnosis.
Paranoia is the religion of Putin’s Russia. Not communism, not
capitalism, not Orthodoxy, not atheism. Just plain old paranoia.
Why, and how? Argument number #1 is that RT has put him on the list
of ten top Russophobes. Lucas’ complaint: the list is haphazard and
flimsy. Fine, any list is haphazard and flimsy – it just points to some
people or organizations that like to come up with ridiculous charges and
accusations, not dissimilar from his own “academic” investigations. So
what? Having never produced anything academic himself, Mr. Lucas can’t
expect any academic study from RT, can he?
Argument #2. Mr. Lucas had found an academic study to his liking — Ilya Yablokov’s Fortress Russia
— that discovered that Russian conspiracy theorists, who were on the
margins in the 1990s have come to the forefront in the current
situation. Yablokov has studied Russian TV and found its style paranoid.
Yablokov’s conclusion: the US is a paranoid Empire to be sure, but
mainstream TV does not usually cater to it, as opposed to the mainstream
Russian TV. Maybe, even though CNN and Fox would surely provide serious
competition.
Without any desire to defend the rather combative style of Russian TV
talk shows where guests clash, fight, and play the roles assigned to
them by the hosts, I am certain that these shows do address real foreign
policy concerns. Any detached observer looking at the map and seeing
NATO bases all around Russia is bound to ask questions. Any detached
observer listening to Western news and hearing the endless bacchanalia
of Russia this, Russia that, is bound to get nervous. Any detached
observer, having witnessed endless the West’s bombing campaigns, wars,
invasions, regime changes, mass migrations and destruction, is bound to
get a bit edgy about western intentions. And it would not be paranoia.
It would be plain common sense.
And what about Russian history? Hasn’t the country been invaded again
and again throughout its history? The latest invasion, that of Nazi
Germany, is still remembered by all Russians, since one can hardly find a
family that did not lose someone in that awful war. Last time Germans
and Ukrainians got together, my relatives were brutally murdered in
Kiev, mowed downed – along with thousands others in Babi Yar. So even
living in the United States, I do get nervous when Ukrainians, helped by
their European admirers, burn people in Odessa. Genetic memory is a
stubborn thing, you know. So can you really blame Russians for getting a
bit anxious about the events in Ukraine, Mr. Lucas, or as the happy
denizen of the murderous British Empire, that one that killed, burned,
shot, and starved others, you can’t imagine what fears of prosecution
are actually all about?
Wait a minute, says Mr. Lucas. “German Unification, EU and NATO
enlargement, Ukrainian independence”: These recent events on the borders
of Russia — are haphazard. There never was a master plan. Well, if it
looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it has to be a duck. In fact,
there are rarely master plans for anything, unless we are talking about
Hillary’s campaign to justify her spectacular loss of 2016 presidential
campaign. What we’re witnessing, however, is the plain old confluence of
interests and appetites that results in wars, sanctions and invasions.
Just read some basic history, Mr. Lucas, before you present yourself as
the heroic conspiracy theories slayer.
Argument # 3. Russians do a lot of mischief to themselves:
corruption, bribes, oligarchs. That’s for sure. But so what? Russian
corruption is bad, and one hopes that Russians will get rid of it. But
it does not mean there are no countries that want to invade and loot the
place, and squeeze away local oligarchs. Even paranoid people have
enemies, as the maxim goes. There’s plenty to steal in Russia. Do you
think, Mr. Lucas, that western oligarchs want to leave it all to
Russians? Don’t underestimate your own sponsors. They don’t like it.
Furthermore, oligarchs and corruption are rampart in Great Britain
and US, and still these countries are running on paranoia and arming
themselves to the teeth. And what about Poland, the Baltic States,
Ukraine – the countries that do indeed thrive on paranoia? But their
paranoia fits western narratives, so it’s “our kind of paranoia.” As
opposed to Russian paranoia, which is obviously a wrong kind of
paranoia. What about the paranoia of the trigger-happy Israel, which
manifests itself in endless violence and military excursions against its
neighbours? So Israel has Judaism for religion, Poles have Catholicism,
but Russians have Paranoia. A strange doctrine, and new.
And then, Lucas totally reverses himself, and says – that the west
should not stoke Russia’s siege mentality by a military build up on its
borders and endless provocations. Finally! Lucas dares to rise to the
occasion and criticize the West … but we rapidly learn why. This
righteous indignation is provoked by Trump’s and Bolton’s proposal to
withdraw from the INF treaty. But even this criticism is turned on its
head. This new arms race is bad, because it will help Russia to “crack
down, lash out and make it look more important than it is.”
In other words, NATO countries should not place their war-heads in
Roumania or Poland, they should not claim that they could actually win a
nuclear war (something that only American theoreticians, including
former Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, do) – they should not do any of
those things because these actions will make Russians think that they
are more important than they are. That would be a really dangerous case
of paranoia. Much more dangerous than the destruction of life on earth
as we know it.
But Lucas does not stop there; playing the role of Candide must be
way too enjoyable. He claims that compiling the list of “Russophobes” is
a “childish bad habit” – never mind the Magnitsky list, nor plenty of
other lists compiled by the State Department, the Mueller investigation,
social media police and numerous other western outlets, whose endless
lists still can’t satisfy the lust for more and more sanctions against
more and more individuals. Those lists are the sign of profound
maturity, no doubt.
And in a true demagogic fashion, Lucas concludes: we’ve been paying
too much attention to “nasty but grand Russians.” We should celebrate
Russia’s “colossal contribution to world culture.” Oh, so Russia is
important after all. How refreshing. Let’s wipe Russia off the map with
nukes, and then enjoy Russian ballet at Covent Garden or Russian novels
in their BBC adaptations.
Russia must develop the capability to destroy the US in a single
swift blow if it wants to persuade the Americans to end the nuclear
arms race and return to the negotiating table, military expert
Konstantin Sivkov said.
In order to curb the
aggression from the West, Moscow shouldn’t compete with Washington in
number of nukes, Sibkov wrote in a new article. The president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems believes that an “asymmetrical response” would work much better for Russia, as it is able to produce nuclear weapons with a yield of more than 100 megatons.
If “areas with critically dangerous geophysical conditions in the
US (like the Yellowstone Supervolcano or the San Andreas Fault)” are targeted by those warheads, “such an attack guarantees the destruction of the US as a state and the entire transnational elite,” he said.
The
production of around 40 or 50 such mega-warheads for ICBMs or
extra-long-range torpedoes would make sure that at least a few of them
reach their target no matter how a nuclear conflict between the US and
Russia develops, the expert said.
Such scenario “again makes a large-scale nuclear war irrational and reduces the chances of its breakout to zero,” Sivakov said.
The possession of such weapons by Russia is what would finally make
Washington start talking to Moscow and give up on its sanctions policy
towards Russia, the expert said.
On Monday, US President Donald Trump warned Russia and China that Washington intends to build up its nuclear arsenal until “people come to their senses.”
Trump
reiterated his commitment to unilaterally abandon the landmark
Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe (INF) treaty, saying that “Russia has not adhered to the agreement,” neither in form or in spirit.
Moscow decried the US plans, saying that an American withdrawal from the INF would “make the world more dangerous.”
The Russian presidential press-secretary, Dmitry Peskov, said that Trump’s words were “a de facto declaration of intent to launch an arms race,” adding that Russia would act to protect its national interests in view of statements like this.
In
recent years, Moscow and Washington have repeatedly accused each other
of violating the 1988 INF deal. While the US has alleged that Russia has
developed missiles prohibited by the treaty, Russia insists that the
American anti-missile systems deployed in Eastern Europe can actually be
used to launch intermediate-range cruise missiles.
The night before his latest court appearance, Tommy Robinson's legal team delivered to the judge the statement of evidence Tommy was planning on reading out in court today.
It is believed that this statement led the judge to halt today's trial and instead hand the case over to the Attorney General — which is exactly the result Tommy and his legal team were hoping for.
Outside the Old Bailey this morning, as promised, Tommy Robinson read this statement to thousands of supporters
We are quickly approaching a globalist induced showdown that may involve
nuclear weapons. Putin recently warned the rest of the world that they
are not to be trifled with.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that any attack on the country would be met with “retribution” and that Russians would “go to heaven as martyrs” while the aggressors would “just drop dead.”
Alex Jones presents video footage of Former Chair of the Federal Reserve of the United States Alan Greenspan making it clear that the organization is independent from the President and uses the power of interest rate hikes to control the economy.
The FBI’s latest probe into President Trump’s SCOTUS pick, Brett
Kavanaugh, found no evidence against him and the chairman of the
Senate Judiciary added there was “no hint of misconduct.” Also, the FBI
could not find anyone to “attest to any of the allegations” against
Kavanaugh. Additionally, Trump’s approval rating surged as the number of
Americans filing for unemployment fell to a 49-year low. Joining
today’s show is Millie Weaver sharing how Americans are dealing with
such a divided nation.
President Trump’s lawyer blasted the New York Time’s article claiming Trump committed tax fraud as “100% false” and “highly defamatory. ” The massive NYT hit piece is 15,000 words. Also, catch our exclusive interview with the "Donald Trump" of Iran whose mission is to free his country of the Islamic Republic. Joining today’s show is comedian Owen Benjamin discussing how the establishment left ruined comedy and due process. Call and tune in now!
The federal debt rose over a trillion dollars this fiscal year, making
the total now over $21 trillion. This gain marks the eighth fiscal year
out of the last eleven in which the debt increased by at least one
trillion dollars. Also, the left’s attacks on Supreme Court Justice
nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, continue to fail amid their constant efforts
to delay his confirmation.
West Attacks Russia with Piketty’s Overblown Claims About ‘Oligarch’ Wealth
Blowing
Thomas Piketty’s academic fraud, Awara’s new study debunks the myths
about overreaching oligarch grip on the Russian economy and supposed
extreme economic inequality in a global comparison
There
is no love lost between the Russian people and the oligarchs. You just
can’t erase from history the theft of the century when the 1990s
oligarchs looted the country through sham privatizations staged by the
liberal government. The press has done its best to imprint the memory of
those years of robber capitalism on the Western public. It’s a
scandalous memory all too easy to exploit and rehash for the purpose of
vilifying Putin and “his cronies.” At the same time, everybody seems to
have forgotten how the present ruling plutocrats of America made their
capital a century earlier.
The
United States has already slapped sanctions on influential Russian
businessmen, which they refer to as oligarchs. They are supposedly
punished for their proximity to the Russian president who is
incriminated with imaginary charges of meddling in US elections, a nerve
agent attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter in England, and
other fabricated allegations. And echoing antisemitic racial slurs of
Hitler’s Germany, now with the Russians as the villains, the UK
parliament has launched a crusade against “dirty Russian money” of the
Russian “super-rich kleptocrats.”
But,
the real reasons to go after Russian “oligarchs” and the “super-rich”
have nothing to do with a newfound sense of social justice or their
supposed ties with the Russian president. (By the flawed logic of the
accusers anybody who is rich in Russia must be connected with the
president). This time around this image of malign Russian oligarchs is
used by the West in a full-frontal attack on Russian capital and
Russia’s industry as the United States is hysterically trying to find
ways to contain the country. By attacking Russian business tycoons, in
addition to the state corporations, the US strives to block out Russian
industry from the West and the wider world.
New study demonstrates that talk about Russia’s economic inequality has been greatly exaggerated
Yet, the idea that the rich own a vastly disproportionate share of the Russian national wealth has been disproved in a recent study by the Moscow based https://www.awaragroup.com.
The study takes aim at Thomas Piketty’s high-profile report about
Russia’s economic inequality. The Awara report does not aim at
deflecting from the problem of economic inequality in Russia as the
authors merely want to put the problem in its right global proportion.
Economic inequality is not any more “extreme” in Russia — as Piketty
falsely claims — than in the major Western countries in general. In
fact, the Awara study shows that it could be less.
The
Awara report exposes the bias and reveals the multitude of
methodological errors, distortions and misrepresentation of data, which
have informed the Piketty report. After identifying the deficiencies,
Awara adjusted the main findings to reflect the actual data. The
corrected data shows that instead of owning more than 70% of the
national wealth, the share of the top 10 percent of the population was
39% of private wealth and 32% of total national wealth.
Below
charts demonstrates the differences in the Piketty study and the
corrected data of Awara. Top chart from the Piketty report, bottom,
Awara’s corrected findings.
Correspondingly,
instead of earning 45–50% of national income as claimed by Piketty, the
top 10% of Russians earned less than 30% of the income. The Piketty
research team had said that their study expressly replaces the findings
of earlier income inequality studies like that of the EBRD, which had
allocated 30% of income to the Top 10% richest. After revealing the
multitude of flaws in the Piketty study, Awara found it natural to
return to those earlier findings. his also puts the wealth figures in
perspective as it is obvious that the share of wealth must closely
correlate with the share of income.
Western propaganda can’t decide if Russia is owned by oligarchs or by the state
A
big contribution towards mitigating economic inequality is delivered by
Russia’s substantial public property. But in his study Thomas Piketty
has written off the value of Russia’s public wealth as if it did not
play any role as an equality inducing factor. It is actually very
strange when one set of Western propagandists claim that Russia’s state
sector has totally taken over the economy comprising 70% of the total,
and another (like Piketty) maintains that the super-rich owns 70% of
Russia’s wealth. It seems to us that the propagandists better make up
their mind.
The
Awara study reports that experts conclude that the state sector makes
up a much higher share of the Russian economy than it is the case in all
Western countries. The estimates vary from 35% — 70%. The European Bank
of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has estimated that the share
of the public sector (state sector) of the total economy was 35% in
2009. Experts agree that the state sector share has grown since. The
Russian competition authority, the Anti-Monopoly Committee, estimated in
its annual report for 2015 that the state sector had grown to comprise
70% of the Russian economy.
Small business enterprise value exceeds that of the Russian billionaires
A
remarkable finding in the Awara report is that the total value of small
and medium businesses (including shadow business) at 35% of total
business assets stands way higher than all of “oligarch” wealth, and
even at the same level as the combined wealth of the top 10 percent
(39%). (Hereby, it should be noted that there is overlap between the
categories of small and medium business wealth and top 10 percent
wealth).
The
35% share assigned to small and medium businesses (SMEs) is backed up
by reference to a study done by the global consultancy EY together with
the European Investment Bank, which assessed that SMEs cover 20–25% of
Russia’s GDP, in addition to estimates of the size of the shadow
economy. The Russia statistics authority (Rosstat) has the shadow
economy at 10–14% whereas liberal economists assess it at 32%.
When everything else failed, Piketty conjured up Russian “offshore wealth”
When
all the other methodological biases, misrepresentations and distortions
failed to produce the screaming inequality — which the scholars
undoubtedly had set out to prove — they resorted to adding, some
supposed “offshore wealth” to the possessions of the top 10% of
Russians. We have all heard about assets Russian “oligarchs” have
abroad, like the Chelsea football club, villas and yachts, therefore
this one would seem like a safe bet. When the figures don’t prove that
the superrich in Russia are so much richer than the Western plutocracy,
throw in their offshore wealth. What Piketty therefore did was to add
offshore wealth to the tune of the equivalent of 75% of the GDP to the
richest top 10%. And Voila! The Piketty figures show extreme inequality
for Russia in comparison with other countries.
Not
only is there no evidence on the amounts and distribution of such
“offshore wealth,” but it also represents a major transgression of
Piketty’s own method as such assets abroad have not been taken into
consideration in the studies concerning any of the other countries that
his research team has examined. After all, the Piketty studies are
supposed to represent global comparisons of economic inequality — the
comparison is the very point they make. Yet Piketty blatantly breaches
his own method just to make Russia look bad. See, no such “offshore
wealth” has been summed up to the wealth of the rich in any of the other
countries studied.
Piketty’s colonial ideal model
Obviously,
the offshore wealth (i.e. assets outside home country) of the
capitalist classes of the major Western countries is vastly more (as a
share of) than that of the Russian rich. Just think about the holdings
of the Western transnational corporations around the world. But Piketty
et co. don’t even want to consider the Western transnational capital,
going so far as to totally exclude foreign owners as factors of
inequality in a given country. In their colonial model foreign owners
are a benign class, above criticism. With this kind of logic, Piketty
runs into total absurdities. Praising the relative inequality of Eastern
European countries, he puts the success down to their colonial economic
model, as the Pikettys express it: “the fact the holders of top capital
incomes tend to be foreigners rather than domestic residents
contributes to lower top income shares in countries like the Czech
Republic or Poland or Hungary (as compared to countries like Russia or
Germany). I.e. foreign owned countries tend to have less domestic
inequality (other things equal).”
So,
in Piketty’s perverted logic it is good that foreign capitalists own
everything, because that makes the natives more equal between
themselves. But in case of Russia it is the other way around, because
some nasty rich Russians own property in third countries, it makes
Russia’s wealth distribution more inequal.
Why would you call the Russian rich “oligarchs” but those of the West “billionaires”?
Why
does the media call the Russian rich “oligarchs” while their peers in
the West are just “billionaires”? The reason is obvious, oligarch sounds
nastier and therefore it must be reserved for the Russians. That’s what
Piketty does, too, calling his report “From Soviets to Oligarchs,”
thereby clearly flaunting his biases. This is precisely what drove him,
to tarnish the Russian state by alleging it’s a country ruled by a vile
oligarchy and Putin’s cronies.
The
Awara study demonstrates that the true income and wealth figures on
Russia — especially when considering Russia’s substantial state
sector — does in no way qualify Russia as an oligarchy any more than any
of the other major economic powers in the world. But even if that would
not have been the case and Russia’s wealth distribution would be as
Piketty mendaciously claims, then still there would be no reason to pick
on Russia by calling it an oligarchy. An oligarchy is foremost a
political concept signifying that real power in a given country rests
with a small number of super-wealthy people termed oligarchs. But, the
fact that a country would have a skewed division of wealth with a
disproportionate share of billionaires would yet not mean that the
country is an oligarchy in the true political meaning of the concept.
And certainly, the Russia of today does not qualify as one. It has been
widely acknowledged that since his ascendance to Russia’s presidency
(2000) Vladimir Putin has effectively stripped the super-wealthy
individuals from the political power they actually wielded in the 1990s.
Throwing around that disparaging epithet, Piketty has completely
omitted any analysis of the political aspect of supposed Russian
oligarchy. This clearly demonstrates his ideologically bias to revile
the Russian nation and to flag his politically motivated preconceived
conclusions
Piketty relies on Forbes billionaire gossip
Apart
from the trickery with “offshore wealth,” Piketty builds his case on
“data” drawn from the Forbes’s billionaire gossip. Of course, the Forbes
billionaire data is an interesting and entertaining source and
certainly can serve to guide the reader in the direction of who are the
billionaires of one or another country. However, it seems that the
Forbes exercises considerable editorial discretion in its reporting
exposing and exaggerating the wealth of some billionaires while choosing
not to disclose that of certain other billionaires. In any case, it is
not a scientific study. The methods of compiling the data are not
explained and sufficient details of the composition of the alleged
wealth is not disclosed. The validity of that data would then at best be
dubious, even in a transparent study.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
The
Awara report is not only a criticism of the dubious studies of the
Piketty team, but also more in general an attempt to reveal how scholars
manipulate public opinion under the cover of statistical methods to
advance their ideological or pecuniary objectives. In this regard, the
Piketty studies excellently illustrate the old adage “Lies, damned lies,
and statistics.” A perfect case of how authority combined with the
persuasive power of numbers is employed to bolster false arguments.
Awara
explains the glaring differences in its findings with gross
methodological errors and skewed or even fabricated data in the Piketty
study. When the transparent data sources failed to back up Piketty’s
prejudices about Russia, he resorted to blatant distortions.
In
general, the Piketty reports never demonstrate to what extent the
scholars have relied on one or another set of source data, rather their
method is like a recipe for a potpourri, throw in generous amounts of
Forbes billionaire data, a bit of survey data, some homemade tax
tabulations, and stir everything with a Pareto spatula. The scholars
merely tell that they have relied on those sources to make the blend,
but the share of emphasis on one or another set of source data is not
given and the choices are not discussed. There are also no
scientifically falsifiable computations, which would show how the
various data sources would supposedly have been mathematically combined
to yield the results that these scholars claim to be their science. This
is in itself renders the Piketty reports invalid as academic science
and relegates them merely to the level of personal opinions.
Their
starting point is said to be earlier household income survey data,
which then is “corrected,” as they claim, with income tax data on
high-income individuals, supposedly drawn from the referenced fiscal
data. But the fiscal data does not represent any “raw tabulations by
income bracket” as the scholars wrongly maintain. Furthermore, that data
source does not contain any data on “high-income-taxpayers income tax
data,” as was further gratuitously claimed. The national accounts and
wealth inequality data is then somehow applied to all that in order
to — supposedly — “impute tax-exempt capital income.”
Obviously,
there cannot possibly be any mathematical model that could achieve the
feat of combining the multitude of those disparate and overstretching
data sources. In reality, the Piketty scholars have by an artful
manipulation of the sources picked and chosen what aspects of all that
welter of data to refer to in order to verbally motivate their
conclusions. All the references to statistical models serve only as
smoke and mirrors designed to lend academic credibility to the resulting
computations.
The Piketty study is a potpourri of sources without any falsifiable scientific method to combine them.
Propaganda for war
There
is no doubt that the scandalous history of Russian “oligarch” wealth
and contemporary urban legends about the malicious grip of oligarchs on
Russia have initially informed the Piketty scholars in their quest to
prove “extreme inequality” in Russia. More than that, I am inclined to
see the Piketty report as one more installment in the Russia bashing
propaganda in line with notorious propaganda hoaxes like Assad’s
supposed chemical attacks, the Salisbury incidents, Russian Olympic
doping scandal, invasion of the Ukraine etc. At the end of the day, the
question is about propaganda for war, which we must expose.
The Piketty research team is financed by the European Union, needless to say.
President Trump secured a new trade deal involving Canada and Mexico in a pact that fulfills a signature campaign promise. The NAFTA replacement, now called “US-Mexico-Canada agreement,” has already caused stocks to surge with a DOW boost of over 250 points. Also, the Supreme Court opened its new term with only eight justices as Trump’s SCOTUS pick, Brett Kavanaugh, has yet to be confirmed due to sexual assault allegations.
Unpersoning of Alex Jones Accelerates - Over the weekend, Alex Jones
confronted a leftist anti-free speech event meant to slander Jones and
President Trump, and was escorted out by police despite being physically
attacked.
President Trump called out the globalists at the United Nations in late September.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has lashed out in desperation, making what could be her last stand for globalism.
Meanwhile, populism and outrage reach a crescendo as the United Nations migration plan and its heavy toll decimate the sovereignty revered by the people.
The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it has hit the
ringleaders responsible for a terrorist attack on a military parade in
Ahvaz on September 22, which killed 30 people and injured over 60. READ
MORE: https://on.rt.com/9fi4
The Senate Judiciary Committee will decide whether to move forward with
Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. The prosecutor brought in by Senators said
she wouldn't press charges against the nominee after hearing his
testimony as well as that of his accuser. We look into all angles
surrounding the Supreme Court battle and explain what's really going on.
Tune in!
Liberteon