i have no complaints about the review of this film: communism is a
heinous, offensive, barbaric, semitic death cult. i am sure everything
they say here is true about the film.
http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/europeview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9332316
my question is, why are the atlanticists so bitter and why are they
getting back into the cold war mindset?
answer:
1. they had written off russia, assuming another drunk like boris
yeltsin would preside over the total rapine and pillage of the country
2. putin has surprised the heck out of them with his firmly
nationalistic perspective, and scream as they might against him, he
doesn't give a rat's ass about the western media's opinion
3. the hydrocarbon bonanza has put russia back on track economically
4. the recent russian test of a missile and its stern warning to
america to back off on the missile defense plan shows things have
undergone a 180-degree change: it is america (post 9/11 and with the
iraq-afghan tar baby to deal with) that's struggling, and russia is
resurgent, including militarily
none of this is necessarily great news for india, because russians
have infiltrated india in a big way, including a famous alleged kgb
mole and others (vide mitrokhin). but this does make it more likely
that it'll be a multipolar world; and it does put the brakes on
china's unhindered rise and plans to grab siberia.
the point is that there is a story behind *why* the nytimes or the
economist or others run certain stories. vide noam chomsky's
'manufacturing consent', it's not 'all the news fit to print', there's
a very subtle agenda on what stories and what perspectives to push,
and which to sweep under the carpet. let us all be informed consumers
of the stuff they peddle. i reiterate my views on 'the economist':
great data, use it; interesting opinions, caveat emptor.
No comments:
Post a Comment