Both play out suspiciously well on the strategic chess board
The Liberty Beacon
Dr. Kevin Barrett
The word insurrection, relentlessly applied by mainstream media to the January 6 election fraud protests, obviously needs quotes around it. Could the same be true of Wagner’s move on Moscow?
Ken Meyercord, who used to host the most controversial TV talk show in Washington, DC, emailed me this morning:
With the talking heads pontificating on what happened in Russia and what it all means, I feel as unqualified as any to offer my own observations, which, as is my custom, diverge from the mainstream and are laden with conspiratorial undertones. In a nutshell, I believe the Russian government just resolved a problem they had very successfully. Allow me to explain.
On June 10th the Russian Defense Ministry issued an order that all volunteer detachments, e.g., the Wagner Group, would have to sign contracts with the government (I garnered this fact from an article in today’s Washington Post, one of the rare times when a useful tidbit appeared in a Post article). How to enforce this order, especially with the Wagner Group, who were on the front line, armed and dangerous? How about getting them off the frontlines back into Russia proper where they could be surrounded and disarmed. In this scenario, Prighozin, once lambasted as Putin’ chef and close ally, displayed his loyalty to the boss (and note, in his “rebellion” he had harsh words for the Russian military but not for Putin) by leading his troops, a la the Pied Piper of Hamlin, out of Ukraine. Supporting my theory, are these facts:
- The faux march on Moscow, which could have been stopped by the Russian military before it got past the city limits of Rostov-on-Don but was allowed to proceed several hundred miles unmolested, then was abruptly turned around;
- Having faithfully done his job, it would be unseemly for Prighozin to be rewarded by being arrested for treason (as he should have been); instead he gained refuge in Belarus, Russia’s closest ally, where he probably will enjoy a comfortable retirement from the mercenary business (Note, if Prighozin was a witting agent of the Ukrainians in staging his rebellion, as some maintain, he would have ended up in Ukraine or some NATO country)
Having gotten the Wagner fighters where they wanted them, the Russians can now proceed to demobilize them or send them outside Russia where they can still be useful (e.g., Africa). There could be some hardline Wagnerites who will still put up a fight, but they’re incidental.
According to my scenario, Putin, rather than being shown to be on shaky ground, has come out on top, stronger than ever. He’s not too concerned about all the Putin-bashers on this side of the frontline having a field day declaring his imminent demise. In fact, he must be laughing himself silly over the headline in that very same Post: “Mutiny by Prighozin is gravest challenge to Putin’s reign”.
So, that’s my two-cents… well, cent-and-a-half, worth. Take it for what it’s worth.
Being a journalist, I had to ask him the hard questions, beginning with:
You could be partly right. But reports say the Wagner troops are returning to their former positions in “Ukraine.” So what was the point of luring them to Russia if they’re just going back where they were before?
What “reports”? Reliable source? Some hardliners may be making their way back on their own (why would they?), or they could be going back once having contracted with the Russian military and under that military’s supervision. Let’s see how things unfold before arriving at any firm conclusions (or taking ourselves too seriously).
Pepe Escobar agrees that the answer to “cui bono?” is “Putin.”
ER: Notice the ‘Draining the Swamp’ reasons given below by perceptive dude, Pepe Escobar – ‘amassing a list of traitors and 5th, 6th columnists’ and ‘freedom to deploy CTO martial law powers’. Sound familiar?
So, just as having a fake “insurrection” on January 6th 2021 benefited the American Deep State, the recent “insurrection” in Russia appears to benefit Putin’s wing of the Russian Deep State. In both cases, the mopping up of “insurrectionists” and heightened surveillance of their sympathizers exerts a net stabilizing effect on the regime. (ER: Here we part company. Backchannel sources say Putin has been fighting his own deep state battalions.)
RFK Jr. a Psy-opper?
RFK Jr. has been voicing a lot of opinions and analysis on a variety of subjects, such as the war in Ukraine (fact-based), vaccines – all of them (ditto), oligarchal corporate power, etc. But he’s been picked up by people for abiding by some statements that are flatly untrue. Such as on Putin being a ‘monster’ (we believe that’s what he said on Joe Rogan) and for comments made elsewhere on support for Israel, denying a whole bunch of realities in the process. Barrett is especially knowledgeable on the Israel topic. And for that matter, so is RFK Jr.
Now let’s move on to another potential psy-op: RFK Jr.’s shameful episodes of kissing Zionist tush. In this case, the “cui bono” beneficiary is thunderingly obvious: RFK Jr. the presidential candidate. Whatever his chances of winning were before he came out as a rabid Zionist kisser-upper, they have increased by a couple of orders of magnitude thanks to his decision to court, or at least mollify, the Lobby that owns and operates Washington.
Before his repeat performances of the mandatory asinum in oscula ritual, RFK Jr. had been relentlessly demonized as a conspiracy theorist. And though the CIA owns the trademark on that pejorative thought-stopper, said intellectual property, like so much else, has been hijacked by the Zionists: Today, being called a “conspiracy theorist” primarily means that you are under suspicion of being an “anti-Semite” (another term that needs quotes around it). By making it that much more difficult for the consent manufacturers to label him an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, and thereby prevent him from ever working in this town again, RFK Jr. has taken a big step towards neutralizing his biggest “electability negative.”
I apologize for belaboring the obvious: Of course RFK Jr. benefits politically from implanting his lying lips firmly upon Zionism’s foulest and hairiest nether regions. What is less obvious is that the unsavory spectacle could be not only an insincere charade, but it could even have been designed to backfire on the Zionists. Consider, for example, RFK Jr.’s biggest lie ever: his claim that Israel doesn’t deliberately kill children. As I wrote in this week’s American Free Press:
In a June 10 interview with Glenn Greenwald, Kennedy bizarrely said: “Israel is going to the West Bank and killing children — it’s never doing that deliberately, never, and nobody has ever said it is.” In reality, hundreds of millions of people in the region, and all serious Middle East journalists including Israeli journalists, know that Israel deliberately murders Palestinian children as a matter of de facto national policy. Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked among other top Zionist leaders openly advocates the murder of “little snakes” (Palestinian children) and the mothers who give birth to them.
When Israeli soldiers finish their training, they celebrate by wearing T-shirts boasting about their deliberate sniper killings of Palestinian children. One such shirt shows a child in a rifle sight. The Hebrew lettering says: “The smaller they are, the harder it is.” Another shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with her belly in the cross-hairs. It reads: “One shot two kills.” Israeli snipers routinely brag about slaughtering children with tweets like “I killed 13 kids today.”
As Justin Raimondo observed, Israel kills children “for the fun of it.” It regularly celebrates new annual child-killing records. In A Gaza Diary, Chris Hedges famously described witnessing Israeli soldiers barking out obscene insults over loudspeakers to lure Palestinian children within range, then gunning them down for the sheer enjoyment of child-murder. Hedges: “Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered…but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”
Saying “Israel doesn’t deliberately kill children” is kind of like saying “the United States never dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki” or “Ukrainian nationalists have never deliberately killed their ethnic Russian fellow Ukrainians.” It’s such an obvious and outrageous big lie that it discredits the side it pretends to support. And it invites detailed correction, such as the one supplied above.
RFK Jr. is not stupid. When he feigns ignorance of Roger Waters’ anti-Zionism, and tells us with a straight face that Israel doesn’t deliberately kill Palestinian children, he almost seems to be humoring the Zionists in such an outrageous way as to signal to us, the people in the know, that he is in fact being ironic: He knows full well who Roger Waters is and what he does, and he knows full well about Ayelet Shaked’s “little snakes” and the one-shot-two-kills shirts and Chris Hedges’ testimony and the famous British Medical Journal article and the assertions of all the human rights groups.
The word humoring applies to situations in which one plays along with the insanity of an insane person: We respond to a lunatic who thinks he is Napoleon by saying “oui, mon général.” We address sexually confused people with their preferred pronouns. And we tell the Zionists how wonderful they are and that of course we know that they never deliberately kill children.
Should We Like Them Less?
Would I like Putin and RFK Jr. any less if I decided that they are, or appear to be, psy-oppers? In Putin’s case, no. As an ex-KGB chief and canny political leader of a severely threatened nation-state, he is obviously not going to be above the occasional psy-op in service to strategic ends. Putin tells far more of the truth than his enemies do, his goals are for the most part laudable or at least reasonable, and I never thought he was a saint, or even someone I would consider a hero. He’s just a competent, relatively decent leader, occasional psy-op or no. (ER: And there have been several Putins, begging the question as to what the real agenda is here and who’s setting it.)
But in the case of RFK Jr., I must admit that his Zionist effusions have helped me curb my enthusiasm. Even if they are a psy-op designed to win him the presidency so he can turn on his Zionist enablers, there is something unsavory about a man whose candidacy is predicated on truth telling the biggest and most outrageous lies (even with a wink); a man whose primary political goal is “ending the corrupt merger of state and corporate power,” failing to acknowledge that the worst example of that corrupt merger of state and corporate power is the Zionist Power Configuration that dominates the former USA; in short, a man whose biggest asset is his stuttering sincerity coming off as so transparently insincere.