Ex-KGB Defectors Discuss Modern America



Comments

Tony said…
See here's the thing Laurence: KGB defectors are an inherently unreliable source. They are persona non grata in both Russia and (in terms of employment) the US. Pretty much their only source of income is public speaking at events where knowledge of a communist state is a valuable commodity. There aren't many of these events 20 odd years after the collapse of the USSR, and those that there are tend to focus on scholarly questions, not reminiscences from some former policemen (. Sooooo, turning to 'freedom forums' or putting in a paid hatchet job for some other political body that wants to legitimise its claims are pretty much their only source of income. If you offered that man a hundred quid he'd sing any commie tune you wanted him to. You really can't rely on this. If it had even a 1% chance of being true, why didn't Romney publicise it to win the election? The mere fact that he spent a billion dollars looking for dirt and didn't find all this juicy stuff you are coming across quite openly online suggests his fact-checkers took a look and said 'jesus, even WE can't make that stick'
Tony said…
Furthermore, did you bother to check this source yourself?

In the first video we hear from Yuri N. Maltsev. Maltsev is, according to his biog, an economist of the Austrian school. The Austrian school preach an ultra-libertarian and fundamentally anti-Catholic economic doctrine that basically argues no government intervention - whether in sickness, poverty, or morality - should ever be tolerated. Indeed they are allied to the moral doctrines of Ayn Rand, who believes self-interest and rabid atheism are the only appropriate social model. He was not, as you claim, a KGB agent, but a professor of economics who 'defected' to the US in 1989, at which time anyone could leave the Soviet Union (this was perestroika). He has recently appeared on the Glenn Beck show (nuff said, a mormon former crack addict who openly admits to being an entertainer who uses political commentary to make money from the gullible)

Maltsev is a member of the Heartland Institut - "a conservative and libertarian think-tank" (and is as such philosophically incompatible with Catholicism) that works for the (all on their webpage) tobacco lobby, oil industry, healthcare providers, and insurance companies. He also works for the Heritage Foundation - a radical libertarian group that advocates abortion, contraception, and gay marriage. He is speaking at the Pikes Economic Forum (website is 'limitedgovernment.org'). Clearly, the rhetoric of limited government and lack of moral norms is convenient to billionaires

So, clearly they are anti-Democrat - they are funded by the billionaire corporations that cause untold social harm and feed off misery. Surely a Catholic can see through this stuff? I worry that you can't balance your interest in conspiracy with your faith and that you are a) now supporting anti-Catholic groups and b) don't fully understand what a conspiracy is. This man, who is a member of a radical atheist school of thought working for crooked billionaire smear groups to defame any social policy that works against their direct financial interests, is the conspiracy. He is not lifting the lid on a conspiracy you idiot - the man is himself working for the conspiracy group. They are conspiring to fund pressure groups who try to influence the public mind (cultural Marxism) into radically un-Catholic ideas.

because his form of economics was
Mike said…
Tony says that the “Heartland Institut …works for the (all on their webpage) tobacco lobby, oil industry, healthcare providers, and insurance companies.”
I looked up the website of the Heartland Institute to check this claim but could not immediately find any confirmation. Perhaps Tony could be more specific in directing us to this information.
What I did find was this:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/11/09/thirty-one-lawsuits-filed-over-contraception-mandate
This report says: “Multiple states and other plaintiffs are continuing their lawsuits against President Obama’s administration over his mandate that employers provide coverage for contraception and abortifacients, despite being rebuffed by a federal judge.” Strange for such a pro-abortion, anti-Catholic organisation to report this.
What I do know about the Heartland Institute is that it organises an annual conference on climate change which has the climate alarmist fraternity (CAF) pulling their hair out – except for Michael Mann because he seems to have very little left. The CAF regularly accuse the HI of being funded by the oil industry but have never produced any evidence to support this claim. But, heck, if you want to discredit an argument the ad hominem arguments are the best to use, aren’t they?
This graphic nicely sums up how big the HI budget on climate change is compared to the amount spent by the US government.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/01/follow-the-money-why-heartland-is-a-big-threat/
Incidentally, suppose that the Heartland Institute does work for the oil industry. So what? Is it some sort of crime to work for the oil industry? Is it some sort of crime to work for healthcare providers? Is it some sort of crime to work for insurance companies? If working for these organisations is a crime then there’s an awful lot of people in the UK committing crimes and the government is conniving in these crimes by taking huge amounts of tax from these organisations.
Then there’s this:
“Abortion Facts” website, owned and sponsored by the Conservative media outlet, Heritage Foundation, is deceiving thousands of unsuspecting women daily, into thinking they deliver something other than anti-abortion and anti-choice ramblings. The only “facts” about that website is that they are trying to advance a political agenda.
http://www.just-say-why.com/blog/index.php/2007/10/13/heritage-foundation-suffers-corrupt-foundations/
Seems like not everybody agrees with Tony that Heartland advocates abortion.
Tony makes mighty big acclaims but it would be nice to see more than just hyperbole and abuse (‘you idiot’) to support what he claims.