4:58:00 PM
Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:59 CET
The Borg collective, with Vladimir Putin exiled to the far left.
Media
reports on Saturday claimed that Russian President Putin was planning
to spurn the G20 leaders breakfast on Sunday and leave the farcical
psychopathic love-in early. Within a few hours however, a Kremlin
spokesman denied that Putin had any such plans. If the idea of an early exit did
happen to cross the mind of the Russian president, it would be entirely
understandable. From the moment Putin arrived in Australia, most of the
G20 leaders have acted like the discourteous, arrogant, obnoxious
quislings of empire they are.
Merkel: "But what'll we do about Putin!"
Obama: "We haven't tried calling him a poopy-head yet...might work..."
Right off the plane the childish 'snubbing' began with the Australian PM and the Queensland Premier failing to show up to greet Putin at the airport, the lowly Australian Deputy Sec. of Defense and Governor of Queensland greeting the 'strong man' instead. Less than five minutes after Putin's motorcade had left however, Australian Attorney-General and Queensland Deputy Premier, who were apparently waiting in the wings, showed up to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She's a lackey of empire and therefore deserves a higher class of sycophantic politician. Lucky her.
On Saturday, Canadian quisling Prime Minister Harper, who was recently inducted into the Western false flag terrorism hall of fame, is alleged to have greeted Putin with the words: 'I guess I'll shake your hand, but I'll only have one thing to say to you - get out of the Ukraine.'
A reasonable response to such arrogance would have been, "mind your own
f**king business, Harper" (along with a well-timed tweak of his nose),
but Putin is a gentleman and, apparently, responded with the more diplomatic "unfortunately it is impossible - because we are not there."
How he suffers such fools is anyone's guess. Maybe it was part of his
KGB training ('Dealing with assholes while keeping your composure 101').
Next up was the pusillanimous British PM David Cameron who, at a press
conference on Friday, channeled his inner hysterical Zionist and compared Russia to Nazi Germany:
"Russian action in Ukraine is unacceptable. We have to be clear about what we are dealing with. It is a large state bullying a smaller state in Europe. "We have seen the consequences of that in the past and we should learn the lessons of history and make sure we don't let it happen again,"
Dave really, really, really doesn't like Nazis
Dave's advisers apparently failed to brief him that there was no
need to drag up the overused Nazi reference to make his point. There are
many better and more recent examples of larger states bullying smaller
states on which he could have drawn. The US and British invasion and
occupation of Iraq in 2003 for example; or the NATO bombardment of Libya
and assassination of its leader Muammar Gaddafi; or the US and British
governments' use of proxy Muslim mercenaries in Syria in an effort to
overthrow the democratically elected President Assad. Alternatively,
Dave could have just admitted that the Ukraine conflict was sparked by a US State Dept. coup, designed to force the Ukrainian people to disassociate themselves from Russia. Another rather clear case of a large state bullying a smaller one. But who's counting?
Dave was, however, in no mood for honesty, as was obvious from his subsequent comments in a speech to the Australian parliament where he again criticised the Russian nation for its adoption of an "authoritarian" model of capitalism and, in comparison, extolled the virtues of the British press and judicial system:
Dave was, however, in no mood for honesty, as was obvious from his subsequent comments in a speech to the Australian parliament where he again criticised the Russian nation for its adoption of an "authoritarian" model of capitalism and, in comparison, extolled the virtues of the British press and judicial system:
"Our free and fearless press shines a light wherever it is needed, without fear or favour. Of course that can make life difficult - but it helps drive out the corruption that destroys so many countries.
"Our governments lose cases in court, because we don't control the courts.
"It is no accident that the most successful countries in the world are those with the absence of conflict or corruption and the presence of strong property rights and institutions.
The operative words here are "wherever it is needed", with the British government deciding which particular areas need a light shone on them and which should remain in the dark.
That the British press works entirely in 'favor' to the British
government and its warmongering has repeatedly been made clear over the
last 12 years each and every time the British government has come under
scrutiny for criminal activity.
The British 'free and fearless press', perfuming up government lies since WW1
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the British press consistently ignored evidence
that the rationale for the invasion was entirely fabricated by British
government spin doctors. The British press incessantly spread government propaganda about Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program; the British press 'catapulted' British government propaganda and lies about Gaddafi "bombing his own people"; the British press widely disseminated the lie that the Assad government had used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians when it was the US and British government-backed 'Syrian rebels' that carried out the attack.
As for the British courts, the same applies. In fact, when the British
government is officially accused of criminal activity, British courts
are side-stepped in favor of an 'inquiry', where the British government
appoints a member of the British government to investigate the possible
criminal activities of the British government. Can you guess the result?
The Hutton inquiry into the murder (by the British government) of
weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly, for example, was an obvious whitewash.
The Chilcot inquiry, into the manufacturing, by the British government
(in league with the US government), of false evidence to justify the
invasion of Iraq and the murder of 1.5 million Iraqis was also a screamingly obvious whitewash. So please, Dave, spare us the BS.
To be honest, why anyone listens to anything this man has to say when he
is an obvious apologist for pedophilia in high places is beyond me. Referring
to renewed allegation of a "VIP paedophile ring", Cameron said that
such allegations were conspiracy theories and that 'conspiracy
theorists' would have to 'look elsewhere'.
The British government, very successful at covering up pedophilia in the British government
The fact that Cameron's own Home Secretary, Teresa May, has admitted that there very likely was a cover up of a British government paedophile ring by her department in the 1980s
is irrelevant to Dave. Anyone who suggests that the UK is anything
other than a shining example for the world to follow is a 'conspiracy
theorist'.
As for Dave's claim that "the most successful countries in the world are
those with the absence of conflict or corruption", I would simply say
that the absence of evidence of conflict and corruption is not evidence
of the absence of conflict and corruption. In the case of the British
government, they simply cover up the evidence of corruption and export
the conflict to other nations and then steal their resources.
Dave also took exception (or was he just scared?) to four Russian navy
ships stationed off the coast of Australia to coincide with Putin's
ill-advised attendance at the confederacy of dunces. In interviews hours
before the meeting, Dave described the ships' presence as
"international machismo". Dave is, of course, no macho man, preferring
to feign freedom and democracy while carrying on British warmongering
and destruction of civil societies around the world in a more covert,
duplicitous and cowardly way.
Get me out of here, I'm not a psycho!
Obama was next to weigh in on the bovine-fecal-matter-fest and Putin-bashing extravaganza. During a speech to University of Queensland students,
Obama claimed that "Russian aggression in Ukraine" was a "threat to the
world" (no less), primarily because of the shoot down of MH17 which, he
reminded the students, "took so many innocent lives, among them your
citizens". To bullshit your audience at an international gathering is
one thing, to use that bullshit to incite emotionally-charged hatred
towards a fellow guest at the gathering is quite another.
No wonder Putin is planning to leave early. As I said, he should have known better. Then again, maybe he does. In an interview
with German TV channel ARD recorded a few days before the G20, Putin
pointed out that, since Russian banks have extended $25 billion in loans
to the Ukrainian economy:
"if our European and American partners want to help Ukraine, how can they undermine the financial base by limiting our financial institutions' access to world capital markets? Do they want to bankrupt our banks? In that case they will bankrupt Ukraine. Have they thought about what they are doing at all or not? Or has politics blinded them? As we know eyes constitute a peripheral part of brain. Was something switched off in their brains?"Although he may not have been aware of it, with that last remark Putin was getting pretty close to the ultimate truth of the matter. When normal humans imagine others feeling pain, the empathy regions of their brains show typical patterns of activation. In the case of psychopaths however, these brain regions show no activation and are, effectively, switched off.
His articles have appeared on many alternative news sites and he has been interviewed on several internet radio shows. His articles can also be found on his personal blog JoeQuinn.net
No comments
Post a Comment