The Saker interviews Paul Craig Roberts

On Russia, the Deep State, Role and Power of the Elites, and the Global Economy

PREFATORY NOTE
[dropcap]I [/dropcap]had wanted to interview Paul Craig Roberts for a long time already. For many years I have been following his writings and interviews and every time I read what he had to say I was hoping that one day I would have the privilege to interview him about the nature of the US deep state and the Empire. Recently, I emailed him and asked for such an interview, and he very kindly agreed. I am very grateful for this opportunity.

—The Saker

The Saker: It has become rather obvious to many, if not most, people that the USA is not a democracy or a republic, but rather a plutocracy run by a small elite which some call “the 1%”. Others speak of the “deep state”. So my first question to you is the following. Could you please take the time to assess the influence and power of each of the following entities, one by one. In particular, can you specify for each of the following whether it has a decision-making “top” position, or a decision-implementing “middle” position in the real structure of power (listed in no specific order)

Federal Reserve
Big Banking
Bilderberg
Council on Foreign Relations
CIA
Goldman Sachs and top banks
“Top 100 families” (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Dutch Royal Family, British Royal Family, etc.)
Israel Lobby
Freemasons and their lodges
Big Business: Big Oil, Military Industrial Complex, etc.
Other people or organizations not listed above?

Who, which group, what entity would you consider is really at the apex of power in the current US polity?

Paul Craig Roberts: The US is ruled by private interest groups and by the neoconservative ideology that History has chosen the US as the “exceptional and indispensable” country with the right and responsibility to impose its will on the world.

In my opinion the most powerful of the private interest groups are:

•The Military/security Complex
•The 4 or 5 mega-sized “banks too big to fail” and Wall Street
•The Israel Lobby
•Agribusiness
•The Extractive industries (oil, mining, timber).

The interests of these interest groups coincide with those of the neoconservatives. The neoconservative ideology supports American financial and military-political imperialism or hegemony.

There is no independent American print or TV media. In the last years of the Clinton regime, 90% of the print and TV media was concentrated in 6 mega-companies. During the Bush regime, National Public Radio lost its independence. So the media functions as a Ministry of Propaganda.

Both political parties, Republicans and Democrats, are dependent on the same private interest groups for campaign funds, so both parties dance to the same masters. Jobs offshoring destroyed the manufacturing and industrial unions and deprived the Democrats of Labor Union political contributions. In those days, Democrats represented the working people and Republicans represented business.
.
The Federal Reserve is there for the banks, mainly the large ones.
.
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Federal Reserve was created as lender of last resort to prevent banks from failing because of runs on the bank or withdrawal of deposits. The New York Fed, which conducts the financial interventions, has a board that consists of the executives of the big banks. The last three Federal Reserve chairmen have been Jews, and the current vice chairman is the former head of the Israeli central bank. Jews are prominent in the financial sector, for example, Goldman Sachs. In recent years, the US Treasury Secretaries and heads of the financial regulatory agencies have mainly been the bank executives responsible for the fraud and excessive debt leverage that set off the last financial crisis.

“The neoconservative ideology supports American financial and military-political imperialism or hegemony…”

In the 21st century, the Federal Reserve and Treasury have served only the interests of the large banks. This has been at the expense of the economy and the population. For example, retired people have had no interest income for eight years in order that the financial institutions can borrow at zero costs and make money.

No matter how rich some families are, they cannot compete with powerful interest groups such as the military/security complex or Wall Street and the banks. Long established wealth can look after its interests, and some, such as the Rockefellers, have activist foundations that most likely work hand in hand with the National Endowment for Democracy to fund and encourage various pro-American non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in countries that the US wants to influence or overthrow, such as occurred in Ukraine.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he NGOs are essentially US Fifth Columns which operate under such names as “human rights,” “democracy,” etc. A Chinese professor told me that the Rockefeller Foundation had created an American University in China and is used to organize various anti-regime Chinese. At one time, and perhaps still, there were hundreds of US and German financed NGOs in Russia, possibly as many as 1,000.

I don’t know if the Bilderbergs do the same. Possibly they are just very rich people and have their proteges in governments who try to protect their interests. I have never seen any signs of Bilderbergs or Masons or Rothchilds affecting congressional or executive branch decisions.

On the other hand, the Council for Foreign Relations is influential. The council consists of former government policy officials and academics involved in foreign policy and international relations. The council’s publication, Foreign Affairs, is the premier foreign policy forum. Some journalists are also members. When I was proposed for membership in the 1980s, I was blackballed.

Skull & Bones is a Yale University secret fraternity. A number of universities have such secret fraternities. For example, the University of Virginia has one, and the University of Georgia. These fraternities do not have secret governmental plots or ruling powers. Their influence would be limited to the personal influence of the members, who tend to be sons of elite families. In my opinion, these fraternities exist to convey elite status to members. They have no operational functions.

The Saker: What about individuals? Who are, in your opinion, the most powerful people in the USA today? Who takes the final, top level, strategic decision?

Paul Craig Roberts: There really are no people powerful in themselves. Powerful people are ones that powerful interest groups are behind. Ever since Secretary of Defense William Perry privatized so much of the military in 1991, the military/security complex has been extremely powerful, and its power is further amplified by its ability to finance political campaigns and by the fact that it is a source of employment in many states. Essentially Pentagon expenditures are controlled by defense contractors.

The Saker: I have always believed that in international terms, organizations such as NATO, the EU or all the others are only a front, and that the real alliance which controls the planet are the ECHELON countries: US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand aka “AUSCANNZUKUS” (they are also referred to as the “Anglosphere” or the “Five Eyes”) with the US and the UK the senior partners while Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the junior partners here. Is this model correct?

Paul Craig Roberts: NATO was a US creation allegedly to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion. Its purpose expired in 1991. Today NATO provides cover for US aggression and provides mercenary forces for the American Empire. Britain, Canada, Australia, are simply US vassal states just as are Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the rest. There are no partners; just vassals. It is Washington’s empire, no one else’s.

The US favors the EU, because it is easier to control than the individual countries.

The Saker: It is often said that Israel controls the USA. Chomsky, and others, say that it is the USA which controls Israel. How would you characterize the relationship between Israel and the USA – does the dog wag the tail or does the tail wag the dog? Would you say that the Israel Lobby is in total control of the USA or are there still other forces capable of saying “no” to the Israel Lobby and impose their own agenda?

Paul Craig Roberts: I have never seen any evidence that the US controls Israel. All the evidence is that Israel controls the US, but only its MidEast policy. In recent years, Israel or the Israel Lobby, has been able to control or block academic appointments in the US and tenure for professors considered to be critics of Israel. Israel has successfully reached into both Catholic and State universities to block tenure and appointments. Israel can also block some presidential appointments and has vast influence over the print and TV media. The Israel Lobby also has plenty of money for political campaign funds and never fails to unseat US Representatives and Senators considered critical of Israel. The Israel lobby was able to reach into the black congressional district of Cynthia McKinney, a black woman, and defeat her reelection. As Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: “No American President can stand up to Israel.” Adm. Moorer could not even get an official investigation of Israel’s deadly attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.

Anyone who criticizes Israeli policies even in a helpful way is labeled an “anti-Semite.”

In American politics, media, and universities, this is a death-dealing blow. You might as well get hit with a hellfire missile.

The Saker: Which of the 12 entities of power which I listed above have, in your opinion, played a key role in the planning and execution of the 9/11 “false flag” operation? After all, it is hard to imagine that this was planned and prepared between the inauguration of GW Bush and September 11th – it must have been prepared during the years of the Clinton Administration. Is it not true the the Oklahoma City bombing was a rehearsal for 9/11?

Paul Craig Roberts: In my opinion 9/11 was the product of the neoconservatives, many of whom are Jewish allied with Israel, Dick Cheney, and Israel. Its purpose was to provide “the new Pearl Harbor” that the neoconservatives said was necessary to launch their wars of conquest in the Middle East. I don’t know how far back it was planned, but Silverstein (owner of the twin towers—Eds.) was obviously part of it and he had not had the WTC for very long before 9/11.

As for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, US Air Force General Partin, the Air Force’s munitions expert, prepared an expert report proving beyond all doubt that the building blew up from the inside out and that the truck bomb was cover.⁽¹⁾ Congress and the media ignored his report. The patsy, McVeigh, was already set up, and that was the only story allowed.

The Saker: Do you think that the people who run the USA today realize that they are on a collision course with Russia which could lead to thermonuclear war? If yes, why would they take such a risk? Do they really believe that at the last moment Russian will “blink” and back down, or do they actually believe that they can win a nuclear war? Are they not afraid that in a nuclear conflagration with Russia they will lose everything they have, including their power and even their lives?

Paul Craig Roberts: I am as puzzled as much as you. I think Washington is lost in hubris and arrogance and is more or less insane. Also, there is a belief that the US can win a nuclear war with Russia. There was an article in Foreign Affairs around 2005 or 2006 in which this conclusion was reached. The belief in the winnability of nuclear war has been boosted by faith in ABM defenses. The argument is that the US can hit Russia so hard in a preemptive first strike that Russia would not retaliate in fear of a second blow.

The Saker: How do you assess the current health of the Empire? For many years we have seen clear signs of decline, but there is still no visible collapse. Do you believe that such a collapse is inevitable and, if not, how could it be prevented? Will we see the day when the US Dollar suddenly become worthless or will another mechanism precipitate the collapse of this Empire?

Paul Craig Roberts: The US economy is hollowed out. There has been no real median family income growth for decades. Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman used an expansion of consumer credit to take the place of the missing growth in consumer income, but the population is now too indebted to take on more. So there is nothing to drive the economy. So many manufacturing and tradable professional service jobs such as software engineering have been moved offshore that the middle class has shrunk. University graduates cannot get jobs that support an independent existence. So they can’t form households, buy houses, appliances and home furnishings. The government produces low inflation measures by not measuring inflation and low unemployment rates by not measuring unemployment. The financial markets are rigged, and gold is driven down despite rising demand by selling uncovered shorts in the futures market. It is a house of cards that has stood longer than I thought possible. Apparently, the house of cards can stand until the rest of the world ceases to hold the US dollar as reserves.

Possibly the empire has put too much stress on Europe by involving Europe in a conflict with Russia. If Germany, for example, were to pull out of NATO, the empire would collapse, or if Russia can find the wits to finance Greece, Italy, and Spain in exchange for them leaving the Euro and EU, the empire would suffer a fatal blow.

Alternatively, Russia might tell Europe that Russia has no alternative but to target European capitals with nuclear weapons now that Europe has joined the US in conducting war against Russia.

The Saker: Russia and China have done something unique in history and they have gone beyond the traditional model of forming an alliance: they have agreed to become interdependent – one could say that they have agreed to a symbiotic relationship. Do you believe that those in charge of the Empire have understood the tectonic change which has just happened or have they simply gone into deep denial because reality scares them too much?

Paul Craig Roberts: Stephen Cohen says that there is simply no foreign policy discussion. There is no debate. I think the empire thinks that it can destabilize Russia and China and that is one reason Washington has color revolutions working in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. As Washington is determined to prevent the rise of other powers and is lost in hubris and arrogance, Washington probably believes that it will succeed. After all, History chose Washington.

“Russians think that there is some kind of misunderstanding about Russian intentions…”

The Saker: In your opinion, do presidential elections still matter and, if yes, what is your best hope for 2016? I am personally very afraid of Hillary Clinton whom I see as an exceptionally dangerous and outright evil person, but with the current Neocon influence inside the Republicans, can we really hope for a non-Neocon candidate to win the GOP nomination?

Paul Craig Roberts: The only way a presidential election could matter would be if the elected president had behind him a strong movement. Without a movement, the president has no independent power and no one to appoint who will do his bidding. Presidents are captives. Reagan had something of a movement, just enough that we were able to cure stagflation despite Wall Street’s opposition and we were able to end the cold war despite the opposition of the CIA and the military/security complex. Plus Reagan was very old and came from a long time ago. He assumed the office of the president was powerful and acted that way.

The Saker: What about the armed forces? Can you imagine a Chairman of the JCS saying “no, Mr President, that is crazy, we will not do this” or do you expect the generals to obey any order, including one starting a nuclear war against Russia? Do you have any hope that the US military could step in and stop the “crazies” currently in power in the White House and Congress?

Paul Craig Roberts: The US military is a creature of the armaments industries. The whole purpose of making general is to be qualified to be a consultant to the “defense” industry, or to become an executive or on the board of a “defense” contractor. The military serves as the source of retirement careers where the generals make the big money. The US military is totally corrupt. Read Andrew Cockburn’s book, Kill Chain.

The Saker: If the USA is really deliberately going down the path towards war with Russia – what should Russia do? Should Russia back down and accept to be subjugated as a preferable option to a thermonuclear war, or should Russia resist and thereby accept the possibility of a thermonuclear war? Do you believe that a very deliberate and strong show of strength on the part of Russia could deter a US attack?

Paul Craig Roberts: I have often wondered about this. I can’t say that I know. I think Putin is humane enough to surrender rather than to be part of the destruction of the world, but Putin has to answer to others inside Russia and I doubt the nationalists would stand for surrender.

In my opinion, I think Putin should focus on Europe and make Europe aware that Russia expects an American attack and will have no choice except to wipe out Europe in response. Putin should encourage Europe to break off from NATO in order to prevent World War 3.

Putin should also make sure China understands that China represents the same perceived threat to the US as Russia and that the two countries need to stand together. Perhaps if Russia and China were to maintain their forces on a nuclear alert, not the top one, but an elevated one that conveyed recognition of the American threat and conveyed this threat to the world, the US could be isolated.

Perhaps if the Indian press, the Japanese Press, the French and German press, the UK press, the Chinese and Russian press began reporting that Russia and China wonder if they will receive a pre-emptive nuclear attack from Washington the result would be to prevent the attack.

As far as I can tell from my many media interviews with the Russian media, there is no Russian awareness of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Russians think that there is some kind of misunderstanding about Russian intentions. The Russian media does not understand that Russia is unacceptable, because Russia is not a US vassal. Russians believe all the Western bullshit about “freedom and democracy” and believe that they are short on both but making progress. In other words, Russians have no idea that they are targeted for destruction.

The Saker: What are, in your opinion, the roots of the hatred of so many members of the US elites for Russia? Is that just a leftover from the Cold War, or is there another reason for the almost universal russophobia amongst US elites? Even during the Cold War, it was unclear whether the US was anti-Communist or anti-Russian? Is there something in the Russian culture, nation or civilization which triggers that hostility and, if yes, what is it?

Paul Craig Roberts: The hostility toward Russia goes back to the Wolfowttz Doctrine:⁽²⁾

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

While the US was focused on its MidEast wars, Putin restored Russia and blocked Washington’s planned invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran. The “first objective” of the neocon doctrine was breached. Russia had to be brought into line. That is the origin of Washington’s attack on Russia. The dependent and captive US and European media simply repeats “the Russian Threat” to the public, which is insouciant and otherwise uninformed.

The offense of Russian culture is also there–Christian morals, respect for law and humanity, diplomacy in place of coercion, traditional social mores–but these are in the background. Russia is hated because Russia (and China) is a check on Washington’s unilateral uni-power. This check is what will lead to war.

If the Russians and Chinese do not prepare for, do not expect, a pre-emptive nuclear attack from Washington, they will be destroyed.

ABOUT PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
[box] Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics.^[1] He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy. During the 21st century, Roberts has frequently published in Counterpunch, writing extensively about the effects of the Bush (and later Obama) administrations related to the War on Terror, which he says have destroyed the US Constitution‘s protections of Americans’ civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process. He has taken positions different from former Republican allies, opposing the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, and criticizing Israel’s policies and actions against the Palestinians.^[2][/box]

^NOTES

(1)

WHO REALLY BROUGHT DOWN THE MURRAH BUILDING?

The Opinions of General Partin and Other Bomb Experts

“My knowledge comes from practical handling of explosives,” added Gronning. “And my belief is that 4800 lb. of ANFO wouldn’t have scuffed the paint on the building.”

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]rigadier General Benton K. Partin, U. S. Air Force, retired, has 25 years experience in explosives and ballistic weapons design and testing. General Partin also served as the Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory.

Partin has this to say:

“When I first saw the picture of the truck bomb’s asymmetrical damage to the Federal building in Oklahoma, my immediate reaction was that the pattern of damage would have been technically impossible without supplementary demolition charges at some of the reinforced concrete bases inside the building, a standard demolition technique.

“For a simplistic blast truck bomb, of the size and composition reported, to be able to reach out on the order of 60 feet and collapse a reinforced column base the size of column A7 is beyond credulity.”

General Partin further explained that; “The total incompatibility with a single truck bomb lies in the fact that either some columns collapsed that should not have collapsed or some of the columns are still standing that should of collapsed and did not.”

“Reinforced concrete targets in large buildings are hard targets to blast. I know of no way possible to reproduce the apparent building damage through simply a truck bomb effort.”

“It is easy to determine whether a column was failed by contact demolition charges or by blast loading (such as a truck bomb),” Partin wrote in his letter to Congress. “It is also easy to cover up crucial evidence as was apparently done in Waco. I understand that the building is to be demolished by May 23rd or 24th. Why the rush to destroy the evidence?”

He concludes; “This is a massive cover-up of immense proportions.”

The statement below is made by an Israeli terrorist expert who used his experience with bombings in the Middle East. In making his deductions he used film footage of the bombing just hours afterwards:

“It is clear that they used certain methods which were used in the Middle East. I mean using a car bomb, putting it in front of the building, and maybe planting inside the building itself . My feeling is that it was not just an explosion outside, which is clear it was outside as well, but also inside the building. So it is more than one man. It’s a network.”

Sam Gronning, a professional blaster for more than thirty years, says:

“I have been a blaster for over thirty years and there is no doubt in my mind that ANFO could not have been by itself the medium for that powerful an explosion…. even enhanced at that distance, I doubt that an external explosion could of created that extensive damage at the reported weight of the bomb.”

“My knowledge comes from practical handling of explosives,” added Gronning. “And my belief is that 4800 lb. of ANFO wouldn’t have scuffed the paint on the building.”

“No truck bomb of ANFO out in the open is going to cause that kind of damage we had there… In thirty years of blasting, using everything from 100 percent nitrogel to ANFO, I’ve not seen anything to support that story… I have set off 16000 pounds of ANFO and was standing upright just
1,000 feet away from the blast.”

Gronning went on to say that even a bomb that big wouldn’t have caused the damage seen at the Murrah building.

Dr. Roger Raubach, who has a Ph. D. in physical chemistry and is now the technical director of a chemical company has this to say;

“I don’t care if they pulled up a semi-trailer with twenty tons of ammonium nitrate; it wouldn’t do the damage we saw there.”

David Hoffman, author of “The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror” (Published by Feral House) wrote the following (taken from a chapter in that book):

Yet Rick Sherrow, who wrote an article for Soldier of Fortune magazine entitled “Bomb Blasts & Baloney,” contends that the General’s assessment of the bombing is somehow inaccurate. Sherrow claims that the pressure wave that would have struck the building from the [rapidly deteriorating] blast of the ANFO bomb (375 p. s. i. according to Partin’s figures) would be more than enough to destroy reinforced concrete columns, which Sherrow claimed in his article disintegrate at 30 p. s. i. (pounds per square inch).

Sam Gronning doesn’t concur. “That’s bullshit!!” exclaimed Gronning. “Thirty p. s. i. wouldn’t take out a rubber tire!”

Citizens monitoring police radios heard the following conversation on the morning of the 19th: First voice: “Boy, you’re not gonna’ believe this!” Second voice: “Believe what?” First voice: “I can’t believe it; this is a military bomb!”

When J. D. Cash, a journalist writing for the McCurtain County Gazette,, tried to interview members of the Bomb Squad, Fire Department and Police, he was generally told by potential interviewees, “I saw a lot that day, I wish I hadn’t. I have a wife, a job, a family, I’ve been threatened, we’ve been told not to talk about the devices.”

The most amount of force produced by even a perfectly made ANFO bomb weighing 4800 pounds, is 1,457 p. s. i. by the time it hit the glass of the Federal building. It’s a law of physics that the destructive capabilities of a bomb fall off dramatically only a few feet from the blast.

By the time the blast front made contact with the column nearest to the bomb, the pressure would have decreased to 375 p. s. i., far below the 5,600 p. s. i. compressive yield strength of concrete. Even using General Partin’s very conservative figure of 3,500 p. s. i. for the compressive yield strength of concrete, you would still require nine times the potential damage pressure from the bomb at that distance. Furthermore, the government would have us believe that the same bomb was able to blast through an additional seven major concrete columns. If we are to believe the absolute absurdity of the governments “science”, then we should also endorse the practices of voodoo and witchcraft, for they both have the same amount of credibility.

Simply stated, it is a physical, chemical and thermodynamic impossibility for a 4800 pound ANFO bomb, at a distance of approximately 20 feet away, to of inflicted the kind of damage the government said it did.

As reported widely on CNN & news stations across the nation on the day of the bombing, up to four primed bombs were found inside the building by bomb detecting dogs. The BATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) later said they were dummy bombs, but why would bomb sniffing dogs find, or be needed to locate dummy bombs which are clearly marked as such; furthermore, why would munitions technicians spend so much time diffusing “dummy” bombs? KFOR-TV said that another bomb had been located strapped to a column next to the day-care center.

Around the noon hour, Channel 4 had as their guest Dr. Randall Heather, a terrorist expert. Dr. Heather stated: “We got lucky today, if you can consider anything about this tragedy lucky. We have both of the bombs that were defused at the site and they are being taken apart. We will be able to find out how they were made, and possibly who made them. These bombs are very sophisticated high explosives with maybe a little fertilizer damped around them.”

The Oklahoma City bombing has earned the nickname “Mannlicher-Carcano Bomb,” after the cheap Italian-made rifle with a defective scope that was allegedly used to kill President Kennedy. Attorney Jim Garrison joked that the governments nuclear physics laboratory could explain how a single bullet could travel through President Kennedy & Governor Connally five times while making several U-turns, then turns up in pristine condition (an event that no firearms expert in the world has ever been able to duplicate) on a hospital gurney.

In the Oklahoma bombing case it seems the government is attempting to perform a similar feat of light and magic. The fact is that a non-directional, low velocity 4800 pound ANFO bomb, parked 20-30 feet from a modern steel-reinforced super-structure could never have caused the pattern or degree of damage that they say it did.

⁽²⁾PC ROBERTS SEEMS TO BE TEMPORIZING WITH RECENT PUBLIC MEMORY when he states that US animosity toward Russia should be traced back only to the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

“”Paul Craig Roberts: The hostility toward Russia goes back to the Wolfowttz Doctrine…”

Actually it goes back way longer than that, to the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917, which the US, along with Germany, France, Britain, Japan and others tried to overthrow from the moment it was born. At the time, when the Soviet state was young, still under Lenin, the Soviet Union was a nation on its way to becoming a great power but not yet there by any means. While the young revolutionary presented no real threat to the established powers at the time, the West hated and feared it because of its potential demonstration example—the success of socialism, which could have ignited the [imagination of the] working classes in their respective countries and colonies.

So, it’s always been a class question. Even today when Russia is formally a capitalist nation, the US plutocracy and its vassal states cannot trust the Russians because Russia still contains many political currents that lean socialist and communitarian, and the situation remains in flux. The Communist party is the second most popular party in Russia today, and its fortunes keep climbing. The Russian army still parades holding the hammer and sickle emblems high. Russia has a far more “alive” [and diversified] political culture than the US where practically everything is dead and passive, and there are no visible currents offering alternative visions or options. In Russia there are, from monarchy to anarchy to communism. Some of the whore counselors of the West know this, and consequently fear it. —P. Greanville, with Branford Perry.

[printfriendly]

What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?