Future Prospects of the Conquest of Space

The space travel veteran said in Berlin that the space research conducted over the past 60 years has shown that people face a larger task than the conquest of space: namely, preserving nature on earth.

His point of view was supported by German astronauts Sigmund Jähn and Thomas Reiter.

“If you look down from there on our beautiful planet, you are thrilled by its beauty, on the one hand. But on the other, you are frightened how vulnerable our planet is. And you become very thoughtful when you fly over these many regions where conflicts take place,” Reiter said.

“If we continue this way, we will destroy the ground for the future of the mankind,” Jähn said. “We must understand that any stupid things and crimes that we are doing with our small earth does not go unpunished. So, it is time to protect the earth!” the cosmonaut concluded.

Source: Russian, German Cosmonauts Reveal Future Prospects of ‘the Conquest of Space’

How to think about Vladimir Putin

President Putin with the elected representatives, turned the economy of Russia around, to give Russia back to the people of Russia. The middle class appeared by 2004 and continues to increase to this day. Over 30% of the Russian population is now middle class while the west sinks into poverty. Unemployment is very low so Russia is being careful on immigration. Very little of what he and the elected Duma and Senate have done is told to the western audience. While the west continues to spend trillions on war Russia built a rapid rail system between Moscow and St. Petersburg. A nine hour trip now takes under three environmentally friendly hours.

Source: How to think about Vladimir Putin

Which Washington Crimes Matter Most? by David Swanson + Flynn’s Head Rolls. Is Trump’s Next? by Finian Cunningham

I am outside looking in and see big media calling 62 million American citizens the “deplorables”. The 62 million who voted for President Trump are being targeted. Every time the media moguls and other crooks blame someone for the election results it’s a slap in the face to those who voted. It’s sneaky and the behavior borders on criminal.

Source: Which Washington Crimes Matter Most? by David Swanson + Flynn’s Head Rolls. Is Trump’s Next? by Finian Cunningham

Global Currency Fairness and US Policies

Until the mid-twentieth century, the gold standard was the dominant monetary system, based on a fixed quantity of gold reserves stocked in national banks, which limited lending. At that time, the United States managed to become the owner of 70% of world’s gold reserves (excluding the USSR), therefore it pushed its weakened competitor, the UK, aside resulting to the creation of the Bretton Woods financial system in 1944. That’s how the US dollar became the predominant currency for international payments.

But a quarter century later this system had proven ineffective due to its inability to contain the economic growth of Germany and Japan, along with the reluctance of the US to adjust its economic policies to maintain the dollar-gold balance. At that time, the dollar experienced a dramatic decline but it was saved by the support of rich oil exporters, especially once Saudi Arabia began to exchange its black gold for US weapons and support in talks with Richard Nixon.

President Richard Nixon in 1971 unilaterally ordered the cancellation of the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold, and instead he established the Jamaican currency system in which oil has become the foundation of the US dollar system. Therefore, it’s no coincidence that from that moment on the control over oil trade has become the number one priority of Washington’s foreign policy. In the aftermath of the so-called Nixon Shock the number of US military engagements in the Middle East and other oil producing regions saw a sharp increase. Once this system was supported by OPEC members, the global demand for US petrodollars hit an all time high. Petrodollars became the basis for America domination over the global financial system which resulted in countries being forced to buy dollars in order to get oil on the international market.

Analysts believe that the share of the United States in today’s world gross domestic product shouldn’t exceed 22%. However, 80% of international payments are made with US dollars. The value of the US dollar is exceedingly high in comparison with other currencies. That’s why consumers in the United States receive imported goods at extremely low prices. It provides the United States with significant financial profit, while high demand for dollars in the world allows the US government to refinance its debt at very low interest rates.

Under these circumstances, those hedging against the dollar are considered a direct threat, to US economic hegemony and the high living standards of its citizens. Therefore political and business circles in Washington attempt by all means to resist this process.

This resistance manifested itself in the overthrow and the brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who decided to switch to Euros for oil payments, before introducing a gold dinar to replace the European currency.

Despite Washington’s desire to use whatever means to sustain its position within the international arena, US policies, are increasingly faced with opposition. A growing number of countries are trying to move from the US dollar along with its dependence on the United States, by pursuing a policy of de-dollarization. Three nations active in this domain are China, Russia and Iran. These countries are trying to achieve de-dollarization at a record pace, along with some European banks and energy companies that are operating within their borders.

Crimea-2

The Russian government held a meeting on de-dollarization in spring of 2014, where the Ministry of Finance, announced the plan to increase the share of ruble-denominated contracts and the consequent abandonment of dollar exchange.

Last May at the Shanghai summit, the Russian delegation manged to sign the so-called deal of the century which implies that over the next 30 years China will buy $ 400 billion worth of Russia’s natural gas while paying in Rubles and Yuan. In addition, in August 2014 a subsidiary company of Gazprom announced its readiness to accept payment for 80,000 tons of oil from Arctic deposits in Rubles that were to be shipped to Europe.

Payment for the supply of oil through the Eastern Siberia – Pacific Ocean pipeline can be transferred in the Yuan. Last August while visiting the Crimea, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced that the petrodollar system should become history while Russia is discussing the use of national currencies in mutual settlements with a number of countries.

These steps recently taken by Russia are the reason behind the West’s sanction policy. (Ukraine and Crimea are a cover story hiding the facts)

There is little to no hope, the United States will survive its own wave of chaos, as it continues to lash out across the world. (with allies such as Canada, headed by millionaire PM Justin Trudeau,  you will hear more about foreign affairs than domestic problems)

Read More at Source: The Global De-dollarization and the US Policies | New Eastern Outlook

Reasons Western Media Lie about President Putin

The Official Reasons

We all know the governments of the West, lead by the US and the UK, have turned against Russia. There are many reasons offered by our media: Russia tried to stop the Ukraine from joining the EU. Russia helped the pro-Russian rebels shoot down MH-17. Russia invaded the Crimea illegally. Thousands of Russian troops and tanks are fighting in the Ukraine. Some of us think these claims are war propaganda for the citizens of the West used to justify sanctions against Russia and increasing military tensions.

The Geo-political Reasons

Less widely discussed but much more important are the Geo-political reasons which look at the areas of conflict between the economic interests of the US and those of Russia and China. At the moment the EU is heavily dependent on energy from Russia. The US would like to stop this. The conflict in the Ukraine is an important part of the process of economically separating the EU from Russia. But there is also a wider agenda. China and Russia lead the BRICS group of countries consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The BRICS countries want to develop a world wide economic system that does not depend the US dollar. They want to be independent of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World bank. China has also suggested to Europe that they join together with Russia and themselves in what they call the New Silk Road, stretching across the whole of Eurasia, from Lisbon to Shanghai. Needless to say there is no immediate place for the US in this plan, so this gives another reason to cut the economic ties between Russia and the EU.

The Secret Reason – The War that Didn’t Happen

While these factors are all important, there is another factor which is never discussed in the Western media. The trigger for the sudden hostility against Russia and Putin can be found in almost unreported events which took place late in August and early September 2013. What happen in that crucial period is that a planned NATO surprise attack on Syria was stopped by Russia. This was probably the first time since WWII that a military attack planned by the West was confronted by sufficient force to require its cancellation. The people in the West will not be told because their belligerent, tough-talking leaders “blinked”. They backed down and decided to change their plans. The new plan: Undermine the Ukraine and seize Crimea for NATO. This obviously didn’t work either, and the mess they created is still with us.

The Planned US-French Attack on Syria

Early in the morning of Saturday, August 31, 2013, an American official called the office of President Hollande telling him to expect a call from Obama later in the day. “Assuming that the evening phone call would announce the commencement of U.S. air strikes (against Syria), Hollande ordered his officers to quickly finalize their own attack plans. Rafale fighters were loaded with Scalp cruise missiles, their pilots told to launch the 250-mile-range munitions while over the Mediterranean.”(1) In other words, at this point in time the French pilots and the US forces were only waiting for the final command from President Obama to begin their attack. However, later that same day, at 6:15 pm, Obama called the French President to tell him that the strike scheduled for 3:00 am, September 1, would not take place as planned. He would need to consult Congress.(2)

Why Did the US Change Plans?

It is difficult for us to know all of the manoeuvres which took place behind the scenes during August and September, 2013, but the final outcome is clear. After years of increasing tensions and threats, the US and its allies decided not to launch a direct attack on Syria as planned. Given the rhetoric and military deployment directed against Syria seemed to follow the script used for Iraq and Libya, there has been little discussion in the West about why the US and its friends suddenly changed their plans. Now with hindsight we can see that this failed direct attack led to an increased indirect attack and the rise of what is know known as ISIS.

Two of the obvious reasons

I can see for this sudden change are not the sort of things the political leaders of the West want to discuss. One is the fact that these wars are very unpopular. As a result of countless lies and failures revealed about the pointless and savage wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, it seems that some of the politicians are listening to their citizens. How else can you explain the unexpected decision of the British Parliament on Thursday, 29 August, to vote against the UK taking part in any strikes on Syria?

The other reason is the extent of the military build-up by Syria, Russia and even China.(9) The Russians and Chinese have not only blocked the US in the Security Council. They “voted” with their military hardware. They are not happy about what the US planned for Syria and made it quite clear that they would use force to stop them. When was the last time the Chinese ever sent warships to the Mediterranean? Russia and China are clearly not happy with the way the US decides to invade one country after another.

Read more: WHY DOES THE WEST HATE PUTIN? THE SECRET REASON: australianvoice

RIP Eurovision 1956-2016 – Neil Clark

Mark the date. Saturday May 14, 2016, the day the music died and a song contest whose well-intentioned original aim of national harmony has become the latest front in the Western elite’s obsessional and relentless new Cold War against Russia.

A blatantly political song by Ukraine – which should not have been allowed in the contest in the first place as it clearly broke the European Broadcasting Union’s ‘No Politics’ rules – was declared the ‘winner’ of the Eurovision Song Contest, even though the country which got the most votes from the general public was Russia.

What helped Ukraine ‘win’ were the ‘national juries’ panels of so-called ‘music industry professionals’ who were given 50 percent of the votes and who only put Russia in joint fifth place, with 81 fewer points than Ukraine.

What we saw, as some on Twitter have commented, was a replay of the 2000 US Presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush, when Gore got the most votes, but the neocon-backed Bush made it to the White House. The Establishment may give us plebs a say, but it has mechanisms to make sure that it gets the result it most desires.

The prospect of a Russian Eurovision win and next year’s contest being held in Moscow certainly seems to have caused great panic in Western Establishment circles. We’ve already got the next football World Cup scheduled to be held in Russia in 2018 – an event which has come under attack from Russophobes who are calling for boycotts or for the tournament to be transferred; having Eurovision in Russia as well would clearly be too much for them.

For daring to resist Western regime change plans, in Syria and elsewhere, Russia may not be hosting international events watched by millions of people around the world!

What elites in democratic US and Europe are terrified of is people being allowed to decide things without any undemocratic blocks being in place.

If the plebs, after all the brainwashing and pro-Establishment propaganda, do happen to vote the ‘wrong way’ then they’re told they simply have to vote again, as the Irish were told when they refused to support the EU’s Lisbon Treaty in a referendum in 2008. And does anyone seriously doubt that if the British do decide to vote for Brexit on the 23rd, the EU won’t try to get the result reversed?

(Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative.)

Read More at Source: RIP Eurovision, 1956-2016 — RT Op-Edge

Our Economic System is Designed to Fail – Ron Paul

The current economic system is designed to fail, but so was socialism. That’s according to former GOP Congressman Ron Paul, who told RT’s Boom Bust show that we need to go toward a system of property ownership, voluntary contracts and individual liberty, while getting rid of central banks.

RT: Do you think this poll is just politics, or do you agree that there is something wrong with the US economic system as it operates today?

Ron Paul: I think the problem is all in semantics. When they say they oppose today’s capitalism, I oppose today’s so-called capitalism. I don’t even like the world “capitalism,” I like “free markets.” But if you say “free markets” and “capitalism” together, we don’t have that. We have interventionism. We have a planned economy, we have a welfare state, we have inflationism, we have central economic planning  by a central bank, we have a belief in deficit financing. It is so far removed from free-market capitalism that it’s foolish for people to label it free market and capitalize on this and say: “We know it’s so bad. What we need is socialism.” That is a problem.

That is a problem in definitions and understanding of what kind of policies we have. I am a champion of free markets, but not of the current system that we have today. I am highly critical of it, because it is designed to fail. It is designed to reward the rich; it is designed inevitably to destroy the middle class, and also to finance some of the worst things in government: all the deficits with the welfare state and for the warfare state. So yes, it’s failing. People should reject what we have, but they shouldn’t reject liberty and freedom and sound economic policies, because that is not the problem. The problem is we don’t have enough free markets.

RT: In the same poll it is said that Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, has been the most popular candidate for America’s 18-29 year olds. Despite the fact that he is now losing steam, as we’ve seen on the campaign trail, what does it really say to you about what’s driving this voting pattern?

RP: He’s tapped into something, something that I’ve talked about for years and tapped into when I was a candidate. And that is to describe the frustrations, the evil, and the nonsense of what we have. The problem with Bernie and myself is that he sees it quite differently. He thinks that it’s too much freedom and too much capitalism. And I see it as too much government; it’s too much of interventionist planned economy, which leans itself to fascism. But the young people might not understand the economics and what free markets are really all about, and they don’t understand central banking. And Bernie doesn’t understand that we have to get rid of central planning – from the Central Bank – if we want to help these people.

The current economic system is designed to fail, but so was socialism. What we need to go toward is property ownership, voluntary contracts and individual liberty in getting rid of the central bank.

But yes, I am not a bit surprised – it is a good sign that they are upset and they ought to be. What I have in mind is to show them the difference between what we have and what we should have. And believe me, it is not going toward this ancient tradition of government and socialism. That is what the 20th century was all about, whether it was a fascist system in Germany, or the Soviet system of communism – this all has been a failure. Then you might talk about a real alternative. The young people have a justification; they are justified in detesting what we have, because it has served the rich and has really hurt the poor and the middle class.

Read More Source: ‘Our economic system is designed to fail’ – Ron Paul — RT Op-Edge

5 Things Most People Don’t Understand About the National Debt | MONEY

The debt debate got a big lift last week when financial commentator James Grant argued last week that every man, woman, and child effectively owes $42,998.12 thanks to Washington’s free-spending ways.

#1) The federal government’s books are not like a family’s finances

In his article, Grant says: “To understand our financial fix, put yourself in the position of the government. Say you earn the typical American family income, and you spend and borrow as the government does. So assuming, you would earn $54,000 a year, spend $64,000 a year and charge $10,000 to your already slightly overburdened credit card. I say slightly overburdened–your outstanding balance is about $223,000.”

Grant goes on to add that a big difference between you and Uncle Sam is that the federal government has a central bank to manipulate the economy, the currency, and interest rates to make life easier for Washington policymakers.

But that’s exactly the point. The federal government has a lot more financial flexibility than an American family to manage its mountain of debt.

Financial adviser William Bernstein, author of The Four Pillars of Investing, adds that a family’s finances are much more dependent on the strength of the economy than the federal government’s is. Workers, for instance, may have trouble accessing credit if they’re out of work, their homes are losing value, and the economy is lousy. The federal government, by contrast, can issue new debt and refinance old bonds at better terms when the economy is slowing and interest rates are falling.

Read the full story at the Source: 5 Things Most People Don’t Understand About the National Debt | MONEY

Russia Open to Cooperation with West

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discusses the role of Russia in international relations, stressing the need for cooperation between Moscow and the West.

History doesn’t confirm the widespread belief that Russia has always camped in Europe’s backyard and has been Europe’s political outsider. I’d like to remind you that the adoption of Christianity in Russia in 988 – we marked 1025 years of that event quite recently – boosted the development of state institutions, social relations and culture and eventually made Kievan Rus a full member of the European community. At that time, dynastic marriages were the best gauge of a country’s role in the system of international relations. In the 11th century, three daughters of Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise became the queens of Norway and Denmark, Hungary and France. Yaroslav’s sister married the Polish king and granddaughter the German emperor.

Numerous scientific investigations bear witness to the high cultural and spiritual level of Rus of those days, a level that was frequently higher than in western European states. Many prominent Western thinkers recognized that Rus was part of the European context. At the same time, Russian people possessed a cultural matrix of their own and an original type of spirituality and never merged with the West. It is instructive to recall in this connection what was for my people a tragic and in many respects critical epoch of the Mongolian invasion. The Russian poet and writer Alexander Pushkin wrote: “The barbarians did not dare to leave an enslaved Rus in their rear and returned to their Eastern steppes. Christian enlightenment was saved by a ravaged and dying Russia.” We also know an alternative view offered by prominent historian and ethnologist Lev Gumilyov, who believed that the Mongolian invasion had prompted the emergence of a new Russian ethnos (ethnic group) and that the Great Steppe had given us an additional impetus for development.

However that may be, it is clear that the said period was extremely important for the assertion of the Russian State’s independent role in Eurasia. Let us recall in this connection the policy pursued by Grand Prince Alexander Nevsky, who opted to temporarily submit to Golden Horde rulers, who were tolerant of Christianity, in order to uphold the Russians’ right to have a faith of their own and to decide their fate, despite the European West’s attempts to put Russian lands under full control and to deprive Russians of their identity. I am confident that this wise and forward-looking policy is in our genes.

It wouldn’t be accurate to assume that everyone was happy about this state of affairs. Repeated attempts to return this country into the pre-Peter times were made over subsequent centuries but failed. In the middle 18th century Russia played a key role in a pan-European conflict – the Seven Years’ War. At that time, Russian troops made a triumphal entry into Berlin, the capital of Prussia under Frederick II who had a reputation for invincibility. Prussia was saved from an inevitable rout only because Empress Elizabeth died a sudden death and was succeeded by Peter III who sympathized with Frederick II. This turn in German history is still referred to as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg. Russia’s size, power and influence grew substantially under Catherine the Great when, as then Chancellor Alexander Bezborodko put it, “Not a single cannon in Europe could be fired without our consent.”

During at least the past two centuries any attempts to unite Europe without Russia and against it have inevitably led to grim tragedies, the consequences of which were always overcome with the decisive participation of our country. I’m referring, in part, to the Napoleonic wars upon the completion of which Russia rescued the system of international relations that was based on the balance of forces and mutual consideration for national interests and ruled out the total dominance of one state in Europe. We remember that Emperor Alexander I took an active role in the drafting of decisions of the 1815 Vienna Congress that ensured the development of Europe without serious armed clashes during the subsequent 40 years.

The First World War claimed lives and caused the suffering of countless millions of people and led to the collapse of four empires. In this connection, it is appropriate to recall yet another anniversary, which will be marked next year – the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Today we are faced with the need to develop a balanced and objective assessment of those events, especially in an environment where, particularly in the West, many are willing to use this date to mount even more information attacks on Russia, and to portray the 1917 Revolution as a barbaric coup that dragged down all of European history. Even worse, they want to equate the Soviet regime to Nazism, and partially blame it for starting WWII.

Without a doubt, the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Civil War were a terrible tragedy for our nation. However, all other revolutions were tragic as well. This does not prevent our French colleagues from extolling their upheaval, which, in addition to the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity, also involved the use of the guillotine, and rivers of blood.

The underlying problem of Western policy is that it disregarded the global context. The current globalized world is based on an unprecedented interconnection between countries, and so it’s impossible to develop relations between Russia and the EU as if they remained at the core of global politics as during the Cold War. We must take note of the powerful processes that are underway in Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.

Rapid changes in all areas of international life is the primary sign of the current stage. Indicatively, they often take an unexpected turn. Thus, the concept of “the end of history” developed by well-known US sociologist and political researcher Francis Fukuyama, that was popular in the 1990s, has become clearly inconsistent today. According to this concept, rapid globalization signals the ultimate victory of the liberal capitalist model, whereas all other models should adapt to it under the guidance of the wise Western teachers.

The west habitually accuses Russia of “revisionism,” and the alleged desire to destroy the established international system, as if it was us who bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 in violation of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, as if it was Russia that ignored international law by invading Iraq in 2003 and distorted UN Security Council resolutions by overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime by force in Libya in 2011. There are many examples.

This discourse about “revisionism” does not hold water. It is based on the simple and even primitive logic that only Washington can set the tune in world affairs. In line with this logic, the principle once formulated by George Orwell and moved to the international level, sounds like the following: all states are equal but some states are more equal than others. However, today international relations are too sophisticated a mechanism to be controlled from one center. This is obvious given the results of US interference: There is virtually no state in Libya; Iraq is balancing on the brink of disintegration, and so on and so forth.

A reliable solution to the problems of the modern world can only be achieved through serious and honest cooperation between the leading states and their associations in order to address common challenges. Such an interaction should include all the colors of the modern world, and be based on its cultural and civilisational diversity, as well as reflect the interests of the international community’s key components.

Our approaches are shared by most countries of the world, including our Chinese partners, other BRICS and SCO nations, and our friends in the EAEU, the CSTO, and the CIS. In other words, we can say that Russia is fighting not against someone, but for the resolution of all the issues on an equal and mutually respectful basis, which alone can serve as a reliable foundation for a long-term improvement of international relations.

Our most important task is to join our efforts against not some far-fetched, but very real challenges, among which the terrorist aggression is the most pressing one. The extremists from ISIS, Jabhat an-Nusra and the like managed for the first time to establish control over large territories in Syria and Iraq. They are trying to extend their influence to other countries and regions, and are committing acts of terrorism around the world. Underestimating this risk is nothing short of criminal shortsightedness.

Source and complete article: Lavrov: Russia open to widest possible cooperation with West — RT Official word

A Stock-Market Crash of 50%+ Would Not Be a Surprise

After long eras of over-valuation, like the period we have been in since the late 1990s (with the notable exceptions of the lows after the 2000 and 2007 crashes), stocks have also often transitioned.

Why isn’t anyone talking about those facts?

Three reasons:

  • First, as mentioned, no one in the financial community likes to hear bad news or to be the bearer of bad news when it comes to stock prices. It’s bad for business.
  • Second, valuation is nearly useless as a market-timing indicator.
  • Third, yes, there is a (probably small) chance that it’s “different this time,” and all the historically predictive valuation measures are out-dated and no longer predictive.

The third reason is the one that everyone who is bullish about stocks these days is implicitly or explicitly relying on: “It’s different this time.”

Just so you know, every time there is a long bull market like the one we’ve had, people come up with lots of reasons to explain why it’s different this time.  (And understandably so! Everyone wants the bull market to continue, and no one wants to miss further gains.) They did that in the late 1920s. They did that in the late 1990s. They did that in 2007. Usually, however, it isn’t different this time, and normality reasserts itself with a vengeance.

Rest of the story at A Stock-Market Crash of 50%+ Would Not Be a Surprise — Or The Worst-Case Scenario | David Stockman’s Contra Corner