Media in Germany

Courtesy of 'Swiss Policy Research', here's a look at what Mr. Putin inferred

Source; translations and emphases mine. Also, here’s a link to their English-language website, which isn’t as comprehensive as the German version. You’re welcome.

The infographic represents neither an ‘organisation chart’ nor a ‘conspiracy’, but a publicly documented, political-publicistic network. The top level (CFR, NSC, NATO) defines the transatlantic geo-strategy, which is generally depicted by the media listed.

SPR then goes on citing one of Noam Chomsky’s 1997 essays (in German), and here’s the pertinent quote from it:

[Chomsky speaking about Goerge Orwell’s suppressed introduction to Animal Farm] Why does this happen? Well, one, because the press is owned by wealthy people who only want certain things to reach the public. The other thing he says is that when you go through the elite education system, when you go through the proper schools in Oxford, you learn that there are certain things it’s not proper to say and there are certain thoughts that are not proper to have. That is the socialisation role of elite institutions and if you don’t adapt to that, you’re usually out.

Here’s Wikipedia on the members of the Atlantik-Brücke, which is technically an association (Verein) and one of the keys to continued US control over Germany.

More links and content is found on SPR’s website, as linked above.

Bottom Lines

There’s little doubt this situation differs elsewhere, incl. in Russia.

As such, Mr. Putin was performing a ‘limited hangout’ in his conversation with Tucker Carlson, and in this instance, I have no clue as to why the latter didn’t press him further (for surely, Mr. Carlson knows about it).

Which brings us to the more important question: what’s Mr. Putin’s role in this charade?

As a follow-up, I’m a wee bit troubled by Mr. Putin’s positive ‘we’re doing trade with China’ thing, for there are numerous instances in the Chinese success story that simply don’t add up—remember: Klaus Schwab, too, is a huge fan of China, and while I could personally care less about their preferences, why are people like Russia’s president and the head of the WEF that enamoured with the prospect of having an oppressive régime like that one as ‘role model’?

This kind of ‘synergies’ only make sense if one considers the WEF (and the Western elites assembling there) a de facto pro-state capitalist/communist ‘vanguard’ in the Leninist sense of that term.

Big Gov’t and Big Business love ‘compartmentalised monopolies’ (cartels), hence the non-enforcement of anti-trust legislation that is on the books (see Matt Stoller’s work on that one), as well as the enforcers of monopoly ‘capitalism’ like the EU Commission.

So, whatever the particulars of any one Western country, one is faced with a de facto Soviet-bloc style ‘uniparty’—or: ‘vanguard’—running things, and it doesn’t matter if there’s a rainbow of political parties to ‘choose’ from.

This might be the ‘true’ insight into Mr. Putin’s conversation, esp. about history, yet Russia’s (and China’s) role in all of these shenanigans remains thoroughly under-discussed, in particular across ‘alt-media’.

One cannot help but wonder as to why that might be.