Marital infidelities and the military

I have to confess that my post yesterday was a little tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I did think that the women who tempted those generals were not "worth it" (judging by their looks, at least), and I do believe that many, if not most, men in the totally over-sexed Western society end up being sexually frustrated to the point of becoming unable to control even their most basic sexual urges. It is an irony that an completely over-sexed society like the American one ends up producing men who are as sexually frustrated as the Saudis who live in a society which is fantastically repressive in sexual matters...

Anyway, I was thinking about the implications of my thought that these women were not "worth it". As opposed to Anna Kushchenko who would be "worth it"? Can marital infidelity ever be "worth it"?

This brought to my mind an interesting conversation I had once had a long time ago and which I want to share with you.

About twenty years ago or so I had the opportunity to spend a few months working on a project with a former Deputy Commander of the US "Delta Force". I used this opportunity to interview him at length about his career, Delta Force operations and his views on many other topics. One day, we were sitting and discussing the type of soldiers Delta recruited and trained. This was a topic of special interest to me since I had become good friends with an ex-commander of the Soviet KGB Spetsnaz unit "Kaskad" and that through this friendship I had become quite well informed about how Kaskad recruited, trained and operated (The comparison between Delta and Kaskad is not what I want to discuss here, but I will say that the difference in philosophy between these two crack units was immense). Anyway, after listing all the characteristics required to be considered a candidate for Delta, my colleague suddenly said the following: "... and, of course, we never take divorcees".

I thought that I must have misheard, to I asked him to repeat and, sure enough, he repeated that divorced soldiers could not apply to Delta. I have to admit that I was quite astonished and I asked him to explain why divorced soldiers could not become Delta operators. This is the reply he gave me (almost verbatim, I vividly recall this conversation):

"You know, we typically spent anywhere form six to nine months away from our families, and this puts a great deal of stress on everybody. Sadly, a lot of families are not capable of living with these types of hardships, and we would never blame one of our operators if his wife decided that she could not continue to live like that. However, we have a zero-tolerance policy for any marital infidelities or divorces if initiated by any of our men. Why? Because there are only two occasions in a man's life when you take a sacred oath: to your wife, and to your country. If a man is capable of betraying his sacred oath to his wife, he is also capable of betraying his sacred oath to this country, and we don't need men like that in Delta".

At that time I was not married, but I have to admit that his logic made perfect sense to me. You are either of the type who considers your oath as unbreakable or you are not. I have now been blissfully married to a wife which I totally worship for 19 years, and I have to admit that it has been ridiculously easy for me to remain true to my marital vows (I love my wife more with every passing day), but I also have seen friends struggling in their marriages, some even divorcing, and I have to say that each time I see somebody breaking his marital vows I also see somebody whom I simply could never fully trust since he already committed perjury at least once. I personally find the logic of this Delta officer absolutely rock-solid.

Let me immediately add here that I have no idea at all whether this is actually what takes place in Delta or not. I have a hard time believing that Uncle Sam would spend an immense amount of time, efforts and resources training a Delta operator only to kick him out for doing that which is so prevalent in the rest of US society. The officer I interviewed was the only Delta operator I ever spoke to, and maybe he was expressing some wishful thinking of his. I really don't know. But my post today is not about Delta, its about this basic fundamental question:

What does marital infidelity tell us about a man? Can we really make some broad conclusions simply based on the fact that a man cheated on his wife or not? In other words, can a man who cheats on his wife be considered a man of honor or not?  Can such a man be trusted?

To the risk of alienating many of those who will read this, I have to say that I personally believe that cheating on one's spouse is a fundamentally dishonoring act, something which is never "worth it", something which cannot be excused in any circumstances.

In marriage, both spouses literally give themselves to each other. They voluntarily "renounce themselves" for the love and sake of the other, and they accept the same gift from the other person. Think about it: for decades Mrs Petraeus (to use this example) probably lived only for the love and sake of her husband, and he accepted that. He came home, and she fed him. He was sick and she nursed him. He was sad and she encouraged him. And yes, he wanted sex and she gave herself to him. For the full duration of their marriage, the spouses renounce their own wants and needs, and give totally themselves to each other. And then, Mr. Petraeus, like some pimply teenager, suddenly decided that his sexual urges are an emergency which need to be addressed no matter what?!

Forgive me if I come across as a bigoted, intolerant and judgmental enforcer of reactionary morals, but I can think of no circumstance which could excuse the cynical and deeply dishonorable betrayal of a sacred oath (and many years of acceptance of the loving dedication of a spouse) for the sake of some late-life sexual gratification.

Before the modern era (which I think began after World War I), adulterers were often expelled from the officer corps. Yes, I know, many men did have mistresses, often not even well hidden. And the old European society did have a deep hypocritical streak about it. But at least officially the concept of personal honor and the honor of being an officer were upheld. Whereas today, all that is asked from an officer is the ability to be a skilled solider and commander. Personal integrity or honor really do not matter any more.

Now, I understand that the kind of personal immorality which we now see from Generals Petraeus and Allen is to be expected from a military culture which openly accepts homosexuals and refers to them as "gay". I know that the post-Christian Western society has basically degenerated to the point where it is unable to articulate anything around the concepts of "right" or "wrong". A society begins by declaring that "God is dead" and you end up having "leaders of the free world" like Clinton and his infamous "cigar".

But the fact that our society as a whole has gone crazy and is basically unable to categorize something as right or wrong does not mean that this is true in all the segments of society.  This is not true on a personal and family level were there are still plenty of people living according to ethical and moral principles, and this is not necessarily true of the military where somewhat abstract concepts such as "honor" often mean the difference between life and death.

Men in combat are fundamentally dependent upon each other. For example, it is a sacred principle in most elite combat units to never leave a man behind. One common feature of the training of both Delta and Kaskad (nowadays its name has been changed to "Vympel") is that it is centered on the failure or success of the entire group rather than of the individual. This type grueling training is specifically designed to created unbreakable bonds between the various operators who, once in combat, will act as one entity, fully willing to sacrifice oneself for the sake of the others. I find that most interesting as the type of psychology which is developed in special operators is, in fact, exactly the one which traditional Christianity aims to foster between spouses!

Many people are aware of the following verse in the Epistle to the Ephesians of Saint Paul:"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands" (Eph: 5:22) but far less people are aware of the verses which comes right after that:"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it .  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.   So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (Eph: 5:25-28).  Not only does Saint Paul say that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church (!), but he even adds that a husband should sanctify and cleanse his wife making her holy and without blemish.  In other words, even if the wife has "spots" (defects, sins, weaknesses, etc.) Paul exhorts the husband to not only not turn away from such a wife, but to endeavor to make her "without blemish" by his Christ-like infinite love and self-sacrifice for her.  Amazing, no?

There are no excuses here for "my wife is fat" or "she is a bitch", or "I need companionship".  Just as in a special operations unit you do not leave a fellow-operator behind because he is a "jerk" or somebody with whom you had a conflict.  Both in marriage and in elite combat units the "other" is more important than the "self".

The reality is that personal immorality in general and sexual immorality in particular, has devastating effects not only on society in general, but also for the military as in institution.  Sure, our leaders still speak of "honor", but what kind of honor can they be speaking of when they basically deny the very existence of the concepts of "right" and "wrong"?  How can a sexually immoral person be a national leader or a commanding officer?  How can a sexually immoral person even pretend to be a father?

If sexual immorality is debasing for society as a whole because it undermines the very core building unit of any society - the family - it is also especially devastating for the military whose corporate culture is based on the concepts of honor, duty and self-sacrifice. It is really no wonder that the actual performance of the US military has been so bad since, at least, Korea, when it is mostly lead by men with no principles and no morals.

Admiral Fallon called Petraeus "an ass-kissing little chickenshit".  This is as good a definition of an immoral person as I have heard.  Think of Clinton, of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, of Sarkozy, of Moshe Katsav, of Berlusconi and all the rest of them: aren't they all ass-kissing little chickenshits?

I strongly believe that real men (yes, I believe in that concept), at least in my definition, do not cheat on their wifes and I also believe that real men are by definition always deeply moral and principled in all their actions, be it as officers, as husbands, fathers or friends.  Ideas such as "God is dead" or "beyond good and evil" sound very "cool", but their practical application always means the decay and eventual death of the entity which attempts to live by such fallacies.  You begin with such nonsense, and you end up being ruled by an entire generation of ass-kissing chickenshits.

The Saker

What kind of honey-pots are these?!

Its really the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal revisited, but only in an even more pathetic way.  After all, Clinton was "just" the President, and God knows Americans are used to dumb presidents, but this time were are dealing with the real-life equivalents of Captain America: Generals Petraeus and Allen, the hyper-overhyped mega-heroes of American militarism.  And yet these men, lionized as "true American heroes" by the corporate media, were brought down by their inability to control even their most basic sexual urges.

The one thing that strikes me most is this: all the women involved in these scandals (Lewinsky, Broadwell, Kelly) are amazingly ugly and unattractive, are they not?  Look at them:

Monica Lewinsky

Paula Broadwell

Jill Kelley

Is that only me or are these "seductresses" not seductive at all?!  Frankly, to me they look as just about the most boring and dull kind of secretaries you would meet at, say, a Budget Car Rent agency and not at all as women which could turn the heads of some of the most powerful men on the planet...

You might ask whether this matters or not, but in my opinion this might be worth at least thinking about.  Why?  Think about it, if these women have succeeded in making folks like Petraeus or Allen go crazy with lust, what does it tell you about their levels of sexual frustration to begin with?

Furthermore, how would these men have reacted if they had met a *real* honeypot like this lady:

Anna Kushchenko (Chapman)

But no, these generals fell for women whose only noticeable characteristic is their fantastically common, almost insipid, appearance and that, I think, tells us a lot about them: petty men, with petty personalities and petty fantasies.

I almost feel pity for them.

The Saker

Iraq denies cancelling $4.2 bln arms deal with Russia over 'corruption concerns'

RT reports:
 
Iraqi Prime Minister's spokesperson Ali Mussawi told RT that the deal hasn't been cancelled, it is simply under review. He also confirmed it was because of earlier allegations of corruption from the Iraqi side.

Iraqi Defense Minister Saadun al-Dulaimi also confirmed that there was no cancellation of the agreement.

"The deal is going ahead," he said.

Earlier, media reports claimed the deal – which would have made Russia Iraq’s second-biggest arms supplier after the United States – was cancelled.

“When Maliki returned from his trip to Russia, he had some suspicions of corruption, so he decided to review the whole deal. … There is an investigation going on, on this,”Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali Mussawi said.

The deal – which was signed by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and Maliki in October – will either be go through or be cancelled only after the Iraqi anti-corruption committee presents it findings.

Officials in Moscow have not yet commented on the matter. The Russian embassy in Baghdad said it has not received word from the Foreign Ministry, and was not informed about the cancellation by Iraqi officials.

The sale was signed by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and Maliki in October, and would have made Russia Iraq’s second-biggest arms supplier after the United States.

The deal is one of the largest in both the modern history of Russia and for postwar Iraq.

Experts speculated that the package likely would have included shipments of aircraft, helicopters, armored vehicles and air defense weapons.

Though the details of the deal were kept secret, military analysts believe it was competitive enough to spark concerns in Washington, the primary arms dealer for Iraq.

Military experts speculated that the deal may be cancelled due to pressure from Washington, and may result in punitive sanctions.

Director of the Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade Igor Korotchenko told RIA-Novosti news agency that if the deal does get axed, it would be an unprecedented event in the history of Russia's arms trade

“Self-respecting states and governments don’t act this way,” Korotchenko said.

RIA-Novosti also quoted an unnamed arms expert who warned that Iraq may incur harsh sanctions for the move: “If the deals were drawn up in a proper way from the legal point of view, the Iraqi side may suffer multi-million dollar losses by paying off punitive fees.”

The expert went on to add that statements about suspected corruption have never been a legitimate basis for the annulment of contracts, especially in military-technical cooperation.

China and Russia are Acquiring Gold, Dumping US Dollars

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky for Global Research

There is evidence that central banks in several regions of the World are building up their gold reserves. What is published are the official purchases.
A large part of these Central Bank purchases of gold bullion are not disclosed. They are undertaken through third party contracting companies, with utmost discretion. 
US dollar holdings and US dollar denominated debt instruments are in effect being traded in for gold, which in turn puts pressure on the US dollar.  
In turn, both China and Russia have boosted domestic production of gold, a large share of  which is being purchased by their central banks:

It has long been assumed that China is surreptitiously building up its gold reserves through buying local production. Russia is another major gold miner where the Central bank has been purchasing gold from another state entity, Gokhran, which is the marketing arm and central repository for the country’s mined gold production. Now it has been reported by Bloomberg that the Venezuelan Central Bank director, Jose Khan, has said that country will boost its gold reserves through purchasing more than half the gold produced from its rapidly growing domestic gold mining industry.
In Russia, for example, Gokhran sold some 30 tonnes of gold to the Central Bank in an internal accounting exercise late last year. In part, so it was said at the time, the direct sale was made rather than placing the metal on the open market and perhaps adversely affecting the gold price.
China is currently the world’s largest gold producer and last year it confirmed it had raised its own Central Bank gold holdings by more than 450 tones over the previous six years. Mineweb.com – The world’s premier mining and mining investment website Venezuela taking own gold production into Central Bank reserves – GOLD NEWS | Mineweb

The 450 tons figure corresponds to an increase in the gold reserves of the central bank from 600 tons in 2003 to 1054 tons in 2009. If we go by official statements, China’s gold reserves are increasing by approximately 10 percent per annum.

China has risen to now be the largest gold producing nation in the world at around 270 tonnes. The amount bought in by the government initially looks like 90 tonnes per annum or just under, 2 tonnes a week. Before 2003 the announcement by the Chinese central bank that gold reserves had been doubled to 600 tonnes, accounted for similar purchases before that date. Why so small an amount you may well ask? We think local and national issues clouded the central bank’s view as it was the government that bought the gold since 2003 and have now placed it on the central bank’s Balance Sheet. So we would conclude that the government has ensured central bank gold purchasing must continue. “How will Chinese Central Bank Gold Buying affect the Gold Price short & Long-Term?” by Julian Phillips. FSO Editorial 05/07/2009

Russia
Russia’s Central bank holdings are in excess of 20 million troy ounces (January 2010)

(click to enlarge)

Russia’s Central Bank reserves have increased markedly in recent years. The RCB reported in May 2010 purchasing 34.2 tons of gold in a single month. Russian Central Bank Gold Purchases Soar In May – China Too? | The Daily Gold
The diagram below shows a significant increase in monthly purchases by the the RCB since June 2009.


(click on chart to enlarge)

Central Banks in the Middle East are also building up their gold reserves, while reducing their dollar forex holding.
Gold reserves of GCC states is less than 5 percent:

Dubai International Financial Centre Authority economists released a report yesterday calling for local countries to build gold reserves, according to The National.
Despite a high interest in gold, GCC states maintain less than 5 percent of their total reserves in gold. Compared to the ECB, which holds 25 percent of reserves in gold, that leaves a lot of room for growth. http://www.businessinsider.com/gcc-boost-gold-holdings-2010-12#ixzz18FEqpTy3

GCC states should boost their foreign reserve holdings of gold to help shield their billions of dollars of assets from turbulence in global currency markets, say economists at the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (DIFCA).
Diversifying more of their reserves from US dollars to the yellow metal would help to offer central banks in the region higher investment returns, said Dr Nasser Saidi, the chief economist of DIFCA, and Dr Fabio Scacciavillani, the director of macroeconomics and statistics at the authority.
“When you have a great deal of economic uncertainty, going into paper assets, whatever they may be – stocks, bonds, other types of equity – is not attractive,” said Dr Saidi. “That makes gold more attractive.”
Declines in the dollar during recent months have dented the value of GCC oil revenues, which are predominantly weighted in the greenback. GCC urged to boost gold reserves

According to a report in People`s Daily;

The latest rankings of gold reserves show that, as of mid-December, the United States remains the top country and the Chinese mainland is ranked sixth with 1,054 tons of reserves, the World Gold Council announced recently.
Russia climbed to eighth place because its gold reserves increased by 167.5 tons since December 2009. The top ten in 2010 remains the same compared to the rankings of the same period of last year. And Saudi Arabia squeezed to the top 20.
Developing countries and regions, including Saudi Arabia and South Africa, have become the main force driving the gold reserve increase. … .
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European central bank are the major gold sellers, and the IMF’s gold reserves decreased by 158.6 tons. (China’s gold reserves rank 6th worldwide – People’s Daily Online

It should be understood that actual purchases of physical gold are not the only factor in explaining the movement of gold prices. The gold market is marked by organized speculation by large scale financial institutions.
The gold market is characterised by numerous paper instruments, gold index funds, gold certificates, OTC gold derivatives (including options, swaps and forwards), which play a strong role, particularly in short-term movement of gold prices. The recent increase and subsequent decline of gold prices are the result of manipulation by powerful financial actors.

Maliki, Bout and Petraeus - all translated into plain language

Three things this morning:

1) Iraq cancels a 4.2 billion dollars Russian arms deal, alleging that there are allegations of possible corruption.

2) US denies Russian request for the extradition of Viktor Bout.

3) David Petraeus resigns are Director of CIA following the FBI's discovery of his extra-marital affair.

Now in translation:

In the first case we have something totally unheard of: the cancellation of a major weapons deal only one month following its signature.  This is unheard of not only because no responsible country would ever act in such a flimsy way, but also because the excuse is particularly ridiculous: it is well-known every single major international arms deal involves kickbacks, and big ones at that, for some key players.  This does not depend on the countries involved - everybody plays by the same rules.  The same goes for any major energy deal, or major construction project.  What has really happened here is crystal clear: the USA has vetoed this arms deal and Maliki caved in.  What is remarkable here is that Russia (under Medvedev) agreed to cancel the same of S-300 SAMs to Iran under US pressure, only to be "thanked" now with this US veto.  Bottom line: the Obama administration seems to be hell-bent on making relations between Russia and the USA as bad as possible.

The second case, in stark contrast to the first one, is purely symbolic.  The entire "Viktor Bout the Merchant of Death" is a US fabrication cooked up with the sole purpose to show the planet (and Russia) that the USA can do whatever the hell it wants with a Russian citizen and that there is nothing Moscow can do about it.  It would have cost nothing to let the man go now, but instead Uncle Sam as thrown Victor Bout in a dungeon located as far as possible from any Russian consular representation (the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois).  Yet another sign that the Obama administration seems to be hell-bent on making relations between Russia and the USA as bad as possible.

In the third case, we have a major development masquerading as some trivial extra-marital infidelity issue.  "The Director of the CIA is forced to resign because the FBI uncovered that he has had a lover".  Does that make sense to you?  Think about it: how does the FBI work for?  The Department of Justice or, in other words, for the Executive Branch, aka the White House and the Presidential administration.  For the FBI to dare investigate the emails of the DCIA without a direct Presidential order is unthinkable.  Thus, in reality, what happened is this: Obama kicked Petraeus out.  Why?  Well, I cannot say for sure, but I remember that Admiral Fallon - truly a top notch officer - called Petraeus "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" because the main characteristic of Petraeus was his abject subservience to his political bosses and his willingness to parrot whatever the hell the current administration would say.  Maybe now that he has been reelected Obama does not need a spineless sycophant in his corner?

It looks to me like the USA and Russia are both preparing for some type of confrontation and that they are both quite committed to what looks to me like a collision course.

RT TV interviews Syrian President Bashar Assad

Comment: This is the first full-length interview of Bashar Assad I have seen and I have to admit that I am favorably impressed: while Assad does not strike me as particularly impressive, he is most definitely not a clown like Gaddafi or megalomaniac like Saddam. Sofiko Shevarnadze did an excellent job of asking him the right questions, and he did a rather good job answering them. What I miss most in this interview is a sense of vision on his part: all I hear is a determination to go on fighting, but without any explicit rationale about how a victory could be achieved. Frankly, at this point, I don't see him prevailing against US/NATO unless the conflict spreads beyond its current borders.

 The Saker

The real progress in the USA

Josh Ledermand reports for the Huffington Post:

Voter Turnout Shaping Up To Be Lower Than 2008

A drop in voter turnout in Tuesday's election didn't keep President Barack Obama from winning a second term.   Preliminary figures suggest fewer people voted this year than four years ago, when voters shattered turnout records as they elected Obama to his first term.

In most states, the numbers were even lower than in 2004, said Curtis Gans, director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate. Every state but Iowa is showing a smaller turnout than in 2008, Gans said. Still, the full picture may not be known for weeks because much of the counting takes place after Election Day.   "This was a major plunge in turnout nationally," said Gans, who estimated about 126 million Americans voted, for an overall turnout rate of about 57.5 percent.

Bottom line:

Obama: 50.4% (of cast ballots or about 28.9% of registered voters)
Romney: 48.1% (of cast ballots or about 27.7% of registered voters)
No-shows: 42.5% (of registered voters!)

This is real "progress"!

Russian Defense Minister Serdiukov sacked - my version

Something very interesting has just happened in Russia.  Putin has sacked Defense Minister Anatolii Serdiukov and replaced him with Sergei Shoigu.

Sergei Shoigu

The Russian media is buzzing with speculations of what really triggered this move by Putin.  There are a few undeniable and well-known facts: Serdiukov was hated by the military and by many influential Russian politicians.  His reform of the armed forces resulted in a mix bag of good and bad results, although pretty much everybody agrees that these reforms were needed, and that some, if not many, excellent results have been achieved.  As for Sergei Shoigu, he is universally acclaimed as an exceptionally intelligent man - he reportedly speaks 9 languages - with a stellar reputation for honesty.  Lastly, Serdiukov and a few of his close friends have recently been involved in a corruption scandal which has already resulted in several high-level arrests.

And yet, none of that really explains much and there is, I believe, much more to this than meets the eye.  Here is my take on what really happened, based on a mix of facts and educated guesses, but not something I can prove.  I am giving you my best guess:

First, I have come to believe that there are real tensions between Putin and Medvedev who are each supported by different constituencies with different interests and goals.  Yes, the two man present a public facade of unity and warm friendship, but I believe that there are clear signs of covert disagreements between the two.  I can easily give a few examples:  Medvedev admitted that he personally took the decision to support the UN resolution on Libya which was then used by the US/NATO to invade Libya and overthrow Gaddafi; Putin publicly opposed this decision.  When Georgia invaded south Ossetia, Medvedev was indecisive and it took Putin's direct intervention to finally react (Russia lost 24 hours because of that).  Medvedev publicly sacked Alexei Kudrin, a personal friend of Putin whom Putin always supported.  There are more examples which, by themselves, prove little, but which taken together tell me that Medvedev and Putin have some real differences and that they represent very different constitutionalities.

In this context, my feeling is that Serduikov was imposed upon Putin by the power base of Medvedev and that Putin let Serdiukov do the dirty (and difficult!) job of reforming the military while slowly bringing in people who were clear enemies of the Medvedev-Serdiukov camp (such as Rogozin, just to name the main one).  I also suspect that Putin's patrons inside the intelligence community are behind the recent "discovery" of financial scandals around Serduikov and his entourage and that by acting through what is officially a corruption investigation Putin found a way to kick Serdiukov out while looking like he had nothing to do with that.

The nomination of Shoigu is, I believe, another clear sign of a "Putin victory".  Not only is Shoigu a formidable organizer and manager, he is also a very close personal friend of Putin whose loyalty is beyond question.  Unlike Serdiukov, he is respected by the military and he is liked by (the now very influential) Dmitri Rogozin.  If I am correct in my analysis, we should see the current (spineless and super-subservient) Chief-of-Staff Nikolai Makarov be retired before the end of the year and replaced by another general (my vote would go for Shamanov, but he might be too popular and not flexible enough).

The bottom line is this: not only is this latest development excellent news for Russia and the Russian armed forces, it might also be a very strong move of the "Putin camp" against the "Medvedev camp", assuming my gut feeling on the existence of these camps is correct in the first place.  The ultimate proof of the struggle between these two camps would be if Putin found a way to re-integrate Kudrin if not in the government itself (that would be too humiliating for Medvedev), then, last last, into some senior capacity in the Presidential Administration.  True, Kudrin did show up at the anti-Kremlin demonstrations before the elections, but I don't think that Putin would hold that against him.

It will be interesting to follow the events in Russia and, in particular, whether the more pro-Western "Medvedev camp" will continue to lose influence.  My feeling is that there are a lot of policies of the Medvedev camp (Iran sanctions, entry into WTO) which the "Putin camp" had to accept very reluctantly, but which they did not like at all.  If, indeed, we will continue to see a gradual weakening of the "Medvedev camp" this will probably also mean some substantial - but not radical - changes in Russia's internal and foreign policies.

The Saker

PS: fun trivia: the new Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is an ethnic Tuvan and a Buddhist.  Amazing, no?!

A cliffhanger? Hardly....

And now, in my own words

In 2008 I wrote a piece entitled The only two choices for the 2008 Presidential election: Nader vs Solzhenitsyn in which I concluded with the following words:

If you have any faith left at all in the American democracy, then, by all means, vote Nader as any other vote is a vote against the American Republic (and for a Fascist Empire). If you, like myself, believe that the system cannot be reformed no matter what, then stay away from it. Limit yourself to an "internal exile" and follow Solzhenitsyn's advice to live not by lies. This method brought down the Soviet Union and it will also eventually bring down the American Empire.

Now, four years later I will argue that after 4 years of the Obama presidency the first option has now vanished and the only logical, pragmatic and moral choice is to look at reality and act accordingly.  Here are some of the key features of the reality we live in:

1.  There is no correlation whatsoever between what a presidential candidate promises to do and what he then actually does.  While Obama is probably the worst liar in US history, he is far from being alone:  from Papa-Bush's "read my lips, no knew taxes", to Clinton's "liberalism", to Baby-Bush's "modest foreign policy" to, finally, Obama's mega-orgy of broken promises and lies, the undeniable fact is this: there is absolutely no correlation between what you vote for and what you get.

2. Interestingly, US policies, internal and external, are remarkably consistent.  Yes, they are flexible in their tactics, but their strategy and goals do not change: external imperialism internal plutocracy.  Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever that the outcome of elections influences US policies.

3. The choice between the Demoblicans and the Republicrats is, obviously, a false choice.  For the vast majority of Americans that "choice" is as meaningless as the choice between the SA and the SS in Germany: yeah, there are nuances and the two camps hate each other, but they are fundamentally of the same party.

4. No change in US history has ever been achieved by the ballot box.  All the changes in US history have been achieved in the streets and through social movements.

5.  The US regime is not a "one man one vote" democracy but a "one dollar one vote" plutocracy.  Considering that the top 1% own more than the bottom 90%, it is easy to see why voting in the USA makes absolutely no sense at all and, worse, no difference either.

6.  The primary purpose of elections in the USA is to give an illusion of pluralism, of choice, of democracy.  It is to stupidify the people and make any talk of regime change look subversive and un-American (even though even the Founding Fathers did foresee a situation in which the People could overthrow an anti-people regime).

7.  The secondary purpose of elections in the USA is to give the regime a thin but indispensable veneer of legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the planet.

8.  The third purpose of elections in the USA is to make each person voting a de-facto accomplice to the evil deeds of the US regime.  How can a putatively innocent American say "not in my name" when, in fact, he/she gave his seal of approval to the regime itself (by voting) and possibly to the administration in power (by voting for the winning candidate)?

Bottom line: if you go and vote next Tuesday, you will not only act with a total disregard for undeniable facts and basic logic, you will soil your soul by becoming an accomplice to all the actions which the regime in power will commit in your name.  This is why today I will be far more blunt and direct than in 2008 and tell you this: if even the election of Barak Obama - the worst liar in US history - did not convince you of the futility of voting, nothing else will.  If even after Obama you are capable of seriously seriously believing that by voting for the lesser evil you are not voting for evil nonetheless, you are morally bankrupt.  Make no mistake, voting for evil, any evil, is still a vote for evil.

Voting in these upcoming Presidential elections is both terminally stupid and deeply immoral.

What is the alternative?

It is rather obvious: do not vote and, even more importantly, tell all your friends not to vote.  Help them take the Red Pill and bring them back to the real world, not the media-induced illusion they live in.  And then, with your friends, fight the regime itself, the puppeteers rather than their puppets.  How?

Not through violence, no need for that at all.  All that is needed is to follow Solzhenitsyn's advice: live not by lies.   Make sure that the regime does not survive through you, through your vote, for example.  Make fun of it, humor is a devastating weapon.  Never voluntarily show any respect for the regime's symbols.   Sever all your voluntary exposure to the regime's mass propaganda machine otherwise known as the "corporate media". Do not own a TV or a radio, never subscribe to a newspaper, always get your information pro-actively, through the Internet, and only from sources you have good reasons to trust.  Last, but not least, use this once-ever-four-years opportunity that the regime gives you to tell it to go and screw itself, it ain't much, but it sure is better than sheepishly playing it by the rules and, like a dumb and obedient robot, drop your ballot in the box.

We, as individuals, cannot change the world we live in (although united with others we often can).  But what we can do is safeguard our own dignity and honor by denying our participation in, or assistance to, the regime which oppresses us all.

The Saker

A good take on the voting charade

Submitted by The Needle Blog on ZeroHedge

Why I Don't Vote



Democracy has become a religion and anyone who criticises it is labelled a heretic.

How many times have you heard the mantra that ‘if you don’t vote, you can’t complain’? Whereas, actually, the opposite is true, ‘if you do vote, you can’t complain.’ It is no coincidence that the emergence of the philosophical concept of the ‘Social Contract’ runs parallel to democratic development in the modern era.

In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

Source

Democracy legitimises authority.

Every time you vote you sign the Social Contract.

If you vote and your ‘favoured’ candidate does not win, you have absolutely no right to complain because by voting you have accepted the process and are bound by it’s result. It is not a coincidence either that you are asked to put a cross, also used as a replacement for a signature for a person who is illiterate and thus cannot write their name, next to your choice on the ballot.

The policy differences between different candidates are exaggerated. This encourages you to sign the Social Contract by making you believe that you have a real choice. But the choice is an illusion because the true policy differences are slight and 99% of leadership is management, keeping the bureaucratic apparatus of state moving and reacting to events.

For the overwhelming majority it makes little difference which candidate wins any election. Only the wealthy and powerful who can expect some kind of reward, in the form of patronage or largesse, Government contracts etc, for their financial, political, and media support have a dog in the fight.

Your role, by voting, is to legitimise this corruption.

Democracy encourages short-termism. Instead of our leaders planning for a sustainable future they pander to a selfish and fickle electorate who only want jam today and who will punish any politician at the polls who does not give it to them. As a consequence the farsighted, fairminded and responsible leadership that the world needs in the 21st century, is completely absent, made obsolete by an evolutionary process which rewards the shortsighted, corrupt, ambitious, greedy, and vain.

This is a genuine story, In 1974 in the UK there were two general election. The first in February was inconclusive and it led to another in October. In the run up to this second election the leaders of all the main political parties made the most extraordinary undeliverable promises to buy the votes of the British electorate.

I was six years old, and attending my local infants school, when the teaching staff there taught me one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learned. They decided to hold their own school election at a special assembly at which all the parents were invited to attend, though only the children would vote. Before the assembly they took myself and a young girl into separate classrooms, to the young girl they explained the needs of the school and what changes would be beneficial to the pupils education,. To me they just gave one simple instruction “Just get elected.”

The young girl addressed the children, parents, and teachers and made a very sensible address, “more books, longer school hours, and a healthy diet”.

I, on the other hand, decided to stand on a very simple platform of “Chips (fries) everyday, and longer break times.”

The result will come as no surprise, I won by a landslide. As I grew older and began to reflect more on this the lesson became clearer. The electorate will always vote for what they want, rather than what they need. The electorate are no better than a cohort of infant school children.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

Aristotle would have disagreed with Winston Churchill. Aristotle thought that democracy was a perverted form of Government which served the indignant (or capricious) mob at the expense of the broader interests of the state and it’s citizens.

Voting for Libertarianism is oxymoronic. You can not vote for your freedom because the ballot is a signed contract which binds you to a democratic system specifically designed to defraud you of any choice. Only by not voting can you opt out. This does not mean that you will not be subject to the tyranny of the majority but you will be free.

Meet the FSA

Just imagine what these people will do if they ever come to power...

From Bosnia, to Kosovo, to Chechnia, to Libya, these folks have always had the same modus operandi: committing the worst type of atrocities while screaming Allahu Akbar!  I cannot imagine a worse blasphemy.

Yet, these are the people which the US/EU - and some doubleplusgoodtinking imbeciles in the blogosphere - are trying to put in power in Syria.  Sure, these monsters are funded by the KSA and Qatar, but their real masters are in London, Paris, Washington and, of course, Jerusalem.  A satanic alliance indeed.

The Saker