Dear friends,
The survey is now closed and I am happy to report that 1’067 of you have replied to the questions. What I want to do today is to post all the results question by question along with my evaluation of the results. But first I want to thank you for participating in this survey which is extremely important and interesting for me. Some of the results have surprised me and feel much better now that I know what most of you think about the issues raised.
Now let’s look at the questions one by one:
I had suspected that some of you were not thrilled about the new design. Still a strong majority does like it and another 19% can live with it. I am sorry for the 11% who miss the old blog. What I can say is this: I personally find it *much* easier to work with the new design and I personally do like the presentation. Yes, there is a lot on the first page and sometimes some sections are loading slow, but we are working on that. This problem (loading time) is not really the design fault’s but rather a problem of a partner company to the company which hosts our blogs. The good news is that I now have an extremely competent IT team which is working on this issue and I am sure that a solution will be found.
To those who miss the old strictly chronological presentation I can only repeat my advice: instead of using the URL http://10.16.86.131/ use this one: http://10.16.86.131/latest-articles/.
I might ask my webmaster to make some changes in the future, but these would be incremental and not radical. I think that the basic structure of the blog is sound. For example, it make it possible to keep articles on the home page when in a purely chronological presentation they would get “pushed down” by incoming articles. Word Press is also *infinitely* more flexible and capable than blogger and, for example, makes it possible for me to benefit from the assistance of an entire moderation team. So, let’s look at the issue next:
That sure looks to me like a standing ovation for the moderation team! This makes me very happy. First, the folks doing the moderation are a very nice group of very good people (I wish you could chat with them like I do), and I know that they put a lot of effort into their work. Honestly? I wish they were a tad more strict with Para 2 of the Moderation Policy but maybe they are right in being more flexible and tolerant than I would be. Bottom line: this works and that again proves to me that the move to WordPress was a good one. I wish I could convey to you all how much life has become easier for me now that I do not have to moderate hundreds of comments each day (I even did that from my car!) and how delighted I am to be able to deal with other blog related issues now.
To all the moderators: THANK YOU!!
Next, the Saker Podcasts:
Unlike the moderators, the podcasts are not getting anything near a unanimous support. 17% of you (almost 1/5th!) outright don’t like them, and another 26% are lukewarm about them. Which tells me that I am doing something wrong. One thing which I will consider is to make a thematic podcast rather than a open-ended Q&A with readers. Several friends have already advised me to do so, so I will try that and see if you like that better.
I personally enjoy recording these podcasts. It gives me the feeling of an informal interaction with you and a way to simply put into words my ideas without having to worry about the more formal written expression.
Still, 57% do like these podcasts and I will continue recording them in the hope that this figure will slowly rise. To those who really hate them – my apologies. Please simply ignore them.
I remind you all that the original idea for a regular podcast was to create an opportunity to remind you that you can support my work with your donations, so let’s look at the issue next:
I have to tell you honestly that your replies here totally took me by surprise. I had expected that 50%-60% of you would tell me to stop pestering you with requests for support and instead a whopping 88% of you want me to keep posting reminders. Hmmm. This is weird. So let me be very candid about this.
Your support makes a huge difference to me and my family. Basically, you have made it possible for me to work roughly 6-8 hours per day on the blog (not only the posting here, but all the behind-the-scenes work needed to make it all happen) and pay the bills. At the same time, I am always very embarrassed to raise the topic of money and to make things worse, I have recently been accused by a person I thought of as a friend of being a money-driven hypocrite. Though I know that to be a lie, it still makes it even more uncomfortable for me to address the issue of donations. What I have decided for sure is that I will never post advertisements and I will never post “for pay” only contents. No ads and 100% free contents are a fundamental principle of this blog. I also don’t want to constantly post reminders in big bold red letters on top of the page or on each posted article. My inclination is to post a visible but not obnoxious reminder that you can support my work maybe once a month, something along the “fund-raising drives” organized by Pacifica Radio. What do you think of that idea?
Other ideas such as creating a “Saker store” (with Tshirts or other items) don’t seem very doable to me. I don’t like the “thermometer” idea either. One idea which I would be willing to explore is creating some kind of “Saker Blog Supporter Group” which could coordinate fund-raising for this, and possibly other, Saker blogs. Crowd funding is another option, but it requires an initial investment which I am not able to make right now. So, for the time being, I guess I will have to think about this issue.
By the way, I want to remind you all that each Saker blog is totally independent not only editorially but also financially. So please, if you can, try to support the work of the other Saker blogs!
By the way (-: and since you asked me to remind you of this :-) please support my work by making a donation today if you have not done so yet!
Now let’s look at the interviews:
Unlike the Saker podcasts, this one does get a quasi-unanimous endorsement. Okay – I hear you and I will try to do more of these interviews. I can tell you that I have one quite amazing one in the works, but you will have to be patient as the person I interviewed has agreed to record a video of his replies! I am also interested in your suggestions about whom you would want me to interview.
As you know, a member of the Saker Community will be traveling to the Donbass next week and I have high hopes that this will be a perfect opportunity to create some contacts with local personalities which can then result in interesting interviews. I can also tell you that I have high hopes that another member of the Saker Community will be invited to the May 9th Parade in Moscow and will officially represent our Community at that event. Since this is still very much to be confirmed, I cannot go into details, but let’s just say that I hope that this will also result into some fruitful contacts for us all.
Next, the issue of priorities for the blog:
My reply is simple: I agree. The war in the Ukraine is the single most important event on the planet right now. This is the first frontal confrontation between the AngloZionist Empire and post-Soviet Russia and what is at stake is nothing short of the future of our planet. If Russia caves in, then that is the end, at least for the foreseeable future, of the worldwide resistance to Empire. Likewise, if the USA is clearly defeated in the Ukraine (i.e. if a neutral Ukrainian Federation is created), then that will be the end for the US planetary hegemony. Both sides understand that fully and both sides will put everything they have to prevail. There is no doubt in my mind at all that Russia will prevail, not because I am a ultra-nationalist flag-waving Russian hurray-patriot, but because I truly believe that the USA completely miscalculated its Ukrainian policy and that now nothing can save it. However, this will be a long process and a very dangerous one. This is why I think that the war in the Ukraine is THE crucial topic I must continue to focus on. That is not to say I will neglect other important developments (the resistance to Empire in the Middle-East, Latin America or even Western Europe), but that my main focus of efforts will remain the Ukraine, at least for the foreseeable future.
Lastly, the issue of what my own priorities should be:
Pretty even results. So, first, let me apologize to those who rightly feel that I have neglected the discussions in the comments section. This is true. The reason for this is that I have been overwhelmed with behind-the-scenes problems including the departure of my webmaster, the time-consuming task of arranging interviews, discussion with the Saker Community Executive Committee (SCEC) on various organizational issues, etc. I have also had personal meetings with people who could help the blog in the future. So there is a lot of work which needs to be done but which is never visible on the pages of this blog. The reality is that this one-man-blog has turned into a large community with no less than 100 people very directly involved to support 7 blogs in 5 languages. Furthermore, I am also working on regular contacts with our 7 “brothers in arms” to try to coordinate our work. So while we are all together making a difference, I promise you that the amount of work behind-the-scenes is at least equal to the amount of work I put in the “visible” part of the blog.
Still, once various “balls” start “rolling” I hope to have some more free time to participate in the discussions. Frankly, this is one thing I miss from the old blog – our conversations. So while I think I did the right thing by considering that providing you with information is priority #1, I will try my utmost to balance out my workload in a way which allows me to participate more actively to the (often very interesting) discussions.
One last thing about this issue of priorities: I have hired three volunteers to work as my research assistants for the Ukraine and they have been providing me with daily SITREPs. All three are very sharp and fully bi-lingual specialists who have already done a great job. There are still a few kinks that need to be addressed here and there, but my hope is that eventually these three research assistants will be able to produce a daily fact-centered Ukraine SITREP directly, without my supervision, leaving me with the responsibility for analysis. We are not quite there yet, but I have good hopes that this will happen in a not too distant future.
I am delighted with the results of this survey and I thank you all for participating.
Now, please feel free to comment and share you reactions, ideas and suggestions and I will make an extra effort to participate in the conversation and reply to questions or comments.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
Dear The Saker,
I am glad you are happy with the results. In regard to the podcasts – some thoughts.
Firstly, you shouldn’t be disheartened. I think the podcasts shouldn’t be seen as a fund raising tool but another way to have a discussion or give information. Some like to listen; some like to read. Many people probably just don’t have the time or some may not be able to afford to listen to them, and hence why the results were not as positive as you had hoped. Also, the suggestion the thematic podcasts may be of more interest and may increase listeners.
In regard to donations – you do what you fell comfrotable with. Agree though that a reminder should be done monthly.
Rgds,
Veritas
I agree on the pod cast, I for one like to read so don’t get down about them. Great site.
Agreed. I gave a neutral/negative answer about the podcasts (can’t remember which) for the same reason: there’s nothing inherently wrong with them, it’s just that they’re time-consuming and you can’t easily skim them.
I assume they also take a lot of time to make, and thus may not be the wisest use of the Saker’s limited resources.
Still, when I happen to have some time on my hands, I enjoy them.
any “anonymous”post automatically gets a reply-“welcome new commentator your donations would be much appreciated” -could be in the box just before you click post as well……
encourages identity?
is against freedom of “anonymous” where they are in threatening situations/want to protect themselves?
Some people, a lot of people, feel safer as anonymous. Do we want to annoy them by asking for a donation every time they post? is it to be a tax on security?
Some people even run away from sites that ask them to log in to comment. I know I don’t even READ a site sometimes, when it starts out by putting a big box in my face asking me to tell them how good they’re doing.
Donations are from those who feel this is worth paying something for. They just need reminding sometimes, how much time has gone past since last time.
Thank you Saker for your contribution to our understanding of current events and our quest for truth.
I am not surprised by the results. The participants of this blog are mature and competent individuals who are, in my mind, “Truth Warriors”. I have come to the point of reading the comments with the same expectancy as your own articles.
The contribution of the moderators is critical and they are doing an excellent job at ensuring that a certain order prevails and to prevent the sabotage by trolls and others of the same category.
Your approach is also unique in that you know what you are talking about, you are animated by a keen sense of truth and justice, and you have no reservation in sharing your most intimate thoughts. You are constantly looking for feedback and you are prepared to make the changes necessary to keep improving your work.
If a tree is judged by the fruits that it bears, the products of this blog tell everything.
I am looking forward to a continuing participation, and will continue to view your blog as my first point of contact for understanding current world events.
I am somewhat shocked at the low number of survey participants. With article readership/views in the multiple thousands, one would assume the survey participation would be several thousand more people.
It explains the low financial support at times.
I suspect the phenomenon is from years of conditioning and mind-massaging that scares people out of an opinion, frightens them from participating and weakens their will to resist the ideology that is destroying the future, their life and the joy of living.
If you wonder why the mediocrities rule the world, run the big corporations and get re-elected in democratic nations, cities and states, all it takes is for enough men and women to do nothing, as Edmund Burke so aptly noted.
Shake off the fear and speak up. You will be marched off to the death mill if you stay on the sidelines. They are coming for everyone!
I can tell you for certain, the rulers fear the ruled. They fear and tremble at the smallest group of resistors. They live in stark terror of any resistance because they know one thing clearly—they are evil and good will wipe them out. It is why they are nihilists and intent on destroying everything of value, and all that speaks the Truth.
They are indistinguishable from ISIS, AQ, fascists, nazis and deviant psychopaths everywhere.
$3000 business suits are no different than the black shrouds and face hoods. They pay for the throat slashers and liver-eaters. They budget with your money for the bombs and missiles that blow apart children, women and old people anywhere there are not Russian defense systems.
Grow a pair, express yourself. Leech out the fear from your consciousness and you will sleep better knowing you did that little bit for Freedom and Justice.
thanks, Larchmonter, for the rousing post. I, too, believe they fear the ruled. I believe they prey upon the black community because they fear black power. Now, they prey upon us all, as they now fear everyone. I am certain they want to disarm the public only because of their personal fears and not out of any concern for public safety. The planned Jade Helm exercises are probably an expression of that concern, with Texas and Utah designated as “hostile” (meaning well-armed and aware) territory.
One of my step-brothers was married to a Mormon woman for several years. She once surprised me by telling me that the Mormons discuss 9/11 and the impending collapse of the dollar in their meetings and prepare for the worst. There is a large invisible opposition in this country. They may be preparing to suppress it.
Thank you, Saker, for your ongoing excellence. I appreciate everything you have done to inform and to create a community of opposition to the empire.
“they are evil”
saker’s own moderators are evil.
KK thinks it is ok for one man to have the wealth of one years output of Nigeria & Iran combined. I kid you not, see
/alain-soral-answers-part-1/#comments
Kat Kan on April 01, 2015 · at 4:26 am UTC
“A trillionaire can sit at home, as a recluse, his money under the mattress, just employ a few people to do his going out for him. He is no harm to anyone.”
On a blog such as this where opinion is not censored, the moderator’s job is just to keep out swearing, abuse of persons or groups, and commercial spam. It could be contracted out to serial killers on death row (even in a war crimes prison) — purity of soul by whatever definition is neither required, nor easily determinable by reference to economic theories.
purity of soul by whatever definition is neither required, nor easily determinable by reference to economic theories.
If you think one man can have to himself $1trillion while 35,000 die/day of starvation I think, being a reasonable man, it is rather straightforward to determine IMpurity of sul by that.
I am really interested to know exactly how an oligarch actually thinks and can consider themselves to be pure of thought.
Can you, therefore, please expand – if you consider it fine for your notional trillionaire to exist while these children die can you explain why you think you may be pure of soul (if you do think that).
the Saker said:
“First, the folks doing the moderation are a very nice group of very good people (I wish you could chat with them like I do)”
saker, you are having a laugh – right?
It is April fool’s day after all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day
=================
anonymous, if you’re going to call me evil, at least have the courage to put a name to your comments.
=================
“A trillionaire can sit at home, as a recluse, his money under the mattress, just employ a few people to do his going out for him. He is no harm to anyone.”
You need to stop being emotional about good/evil and look at how things work, maybe with some hope of finding solutions. Just half understanding the problem would be a start. What do statistics mean? words like wealth and income mean? do people really starve because of ONE rich individual? have people not starved by the millions in societies where NOBODY was rich? where the “people” owned everything?
That mythical trillionaire is merely withdrawing that amount of wealth from circulation (and let’s say he inherited it, did nothing evil to get it). If it’s in the form of land, say a string of private islands, how is that different from the State or a King owning a big tract of land? who is hurt by it?
If the trillions are in cash? then he is withholding 1 trillion from circulation. Exactly what central banks keep doing all the time to control money supply and inflation. Withholding or releasing money is an economic tool; theoretically if well used it can prevent deep depressions and big bubbles. Is that evil?
Or let us say he alone has as much money (or money and other wealth) as the lowest 25% of the population. And we take it away from him and give it to those poor people. This by definition would DOUBLE their “wealth”. The ones with a single-room shack in a favela would suddenly have two rooms. Someone with one set of clothes would suddenly have two sets. The person with enough money for 3 days’ food could afford 6 days. NONE would have enough for more than a short burst of higher consumption; none would have3 enough to invest in creating more income.
================
There is nothing inherently evil about money or having it. There can be bad in how it is used. One level of bad is if it is used to create more income BY disadvantaging other people. At a higher level is, doing so in breach of laws meant to protect those weak ones. Then even more bad if used corruptly to circumvent those laws. Then at the top, using it for political power to change those laws for own benefit.
Andrew
statistics?emotional?
Facts,more to follow, it’s late here in the Uk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
Poverty reduction is a major goal and issue for many international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank. The World Bank estimated 1.29 billion people were living in absolute poverty in 2008. Of these, about 400 million people in absolute poverty lived in India and 173 million people in China. In terms of percentage of regional populations, sub-Saharan Africa at 47% had the highest incidence rate of absolute poverty in 2008. Between 1990 and 2010, about 663 million people moved above the absolute poverty level. Nevertheless, given the current economic model, built on GDP, it would take 100 years to bring the world’s poorest up to the standard poverty line of $1.25 a day.[6] Extreme poverty is a global challenge; it is observed in all parts of the world, including developed economies.[7][8] UNICEF estimates half the world’s children (or 1.1 billion) live in poverty.[9]
world gdp = $73Trillion
world population = 7.3 Billion ( http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ )
average gdp/person = $10,000
SO?
or more accurately, so what?
It is great that you are concerned about other people and their problems. But while you just quote big numbers you ARE just being emotional, maybe overwhelmed by the sheer size of the numbers?
To do the tiniest thing about it, you need to see the causes. There are MANY causes, and they differ from place to place and time to time. So then you need to see the processes that add up to become causes, and the various processes for removing the causes.
World poverty is NOT caused by someone somewhere else having a lot of money. Certainly can’t be solved by taking it away from those people. It is not a static one-off situation. Becoming rich or poor, becoming fat or starving, are long-term PROCESSES. That is what you have to seek.
What is world average GDP supposed to mean? do you know what GDP measures? do you know it has nothing to do with poverty or hunger rates?
Do you know how meaningless an average figure is? 10 people have 8000 and 10 have 12,000 the average is 10,000. Or one has 100,000 and 19 have 5000 and you get abt 10,000 average., Which is more “equal” or “fair”? but the average doesn’t tell you.
Also GDP is value of production, doesn’t mean anyone actually got that as income. Developing countries can get huge GDP growth, caused by things like the value of shares going up, while actual number of people in poverty goes UP.
Good discussion.
To prove your point about GDP ‘measures’: the UK recently included prostitution and illegal drug circulation in its latest round-up. These vices are hardly indicators of good health in a society.
Which brings me to the next point: my personal ‘utopia’ would radically overhaul the basis on which GDP is measured, using ‘quality of life’ rather than ‘standard of living’ as the template. It would integrate ecological factors – clean air, non- polluting energies etc. into the paradigm and track physical health/happiness/social integration throughout lifetimes as the strongest indicator of success.
Robert F. Kennedy on what GNP means.
Below is a quote from Bobby Kennedy on what the Gross National Product means and more importantly what it does not mean. He would have a made a fine economist…
“Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product … if we should judge America by that – counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
“Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”
Robert F. Kennedy Address, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, March 18, 1968
Kennedy obviously did not fit in with the system. Apart from all the other no good ideas, he would not sign off on Operation Northwoods. Bit like smoking and drinking. Short life span. (I smoke and drink) not good.
“SO” / “What do statistics mean? words like wealth and income mean?”
well, if you were starving or living in a box maybe your statistic might be important?
There is right NOW massive plenty for ALL – year after year after year = $10,000/year/person. An abundance – nobody need struggle, nobody need starve.
“There are MANY causes, and they differ from place to place and time to time.” [for hardship / starvation]
These are precisely 2 by number:
(i) natural forces (e.g famine)
(ii) man’s own inequality to man
If a single individual (Tom Stuker) can fly 500,000 per year for his own pleasure (http://gadling.com/2012/12/31/tom-stuker-flew-over-1-million-miles-this-year-why/) why is it far-fetched that anybody should live in poverty (or die)? do you think that is acceptable?
“World poverty is NOT caused by someone somewhere else having a lot of money.”
In a world of plenty (i.e. average income of $10,000/person, what exactly is it caused by?
Certainly can’t solved by taking it away from those people.
If average income is $10,000/person, why not?
It is not a static one-off situation. Becoming rich or poor, becoming fat or starving, are long-term PROCESSES.
That’s bullshit – Mark Zuckerberg is worth $35.1B, he was born in 1984. This is the result of the heinous capitalist system.
What is world average GDP supposed to mean? do you know what GDP measures? do you know it has nothing to do with poverty or hunger rates?
It’s world GDP divided by world population – i’ve quoted poverty rates in this post.
Do you know how meaningless an average figure is? 10 people have 8000 and 10 have 12,000 the average is 10,000. Or one has 100,000 and 19 have 5000 and you get abt 10,000 average., Which is more “equal” or “fair”? but the average doesn’t tell you.
if you were one of the 400 million people in absolute poverty the $10,000 average is just a number – but you would be enormously grateful to be in receipt of such amount.
Also GDP is value of production, doesn’t mean anyone actually got that as income. Developing countries can get huge GDP growth, caused by things like the value of shares going up, while actual number of people in poverty goes UP.
Do you think that because you were
(i) lucky to be born to privilege or
(ii) smart or
(iii) motivated
that it is OK for 400 Million to live in poverty while you suckle the fat?
Your obfuscation aside, can you now please address my points starting at /alain-soral-answers-part-1/#comments Kat Kan on April 01, 2015 · at 4:26 am UTC
Anonymous, you are displaying ignorance of the most basic economic terms.
GDP is not income earned. It is value created. That includes things like building a dam or producing electricity, which can’t really be divided into scraps to share out among people in other lands.
If you want to be serious, do some research on how much food is produced in the world. If you include meat, don’t forget to make the right deductions from the plant food for those amounts that will be fed to the animals. Don’t forget to include losses in transport and storage. Remember not all agriculture is for food, so deduct those.
Then map out where it is from, and work out the cost of getting it to where people need it, and give us a hint who would pay the transport?
=================
“That’s bullshit – Mark Zuckerberg is worth $35.1B, ”
Do you seriously think he has 35 billion DOLLARS?
He has shares that are “valued” at that amount. It is not even paper money. It is thin air money. Not real. If he suddenly tried to sell his shares, they’d be worth NOTHING. Everyone would think “the founder is getting out, there must be something really wrong there” and sell their shares too, with nobody wanting to buy. So the value would go down.
So, because most of his “wealth” is not real money, nobody is being deprived of anything by his having it.
===================
However, as Saker pointed out, you are repeatedly breaching the rule against personal attacks, and the rule against twisting what someone said. So you will be barred if you persist with those. If you want to contribute something positive to this blog, you are welcome to stay.
The trillionaire’s possession of money is a side issue. The way in which money is used to determine who produces what, who wants that production, and how that production is distributed is the issue. Even how that money is valued is more significant – whether it is legal tender – than the amount owned or hoarded by the individual.
The trillionaire could have all his money in the mattress, that is true, but what if that money is useful only in some countries and not in the country where he is living?
Consider also that there are people in the UK (and elsewhere) who are like that trillionaire: they are pensioners living in homes that have risen in value due to property speculation in the areas where they live. They may be rich on paper but if they were to sell, they could be hit with massive capital gains taxes and other charges that they might not be able to afford.
“That mythical trillionaire is merely withdrawing that amount of wealth from circulation (and let’s say he inherited it, did nothing evil to get it). If it’s in the form of land, say a string of private islands, how is that different from the State or a King owning a big tract of land? who is hurt by it?”
That’s like saying the British Royal Family aren’t evil because they inheritedi it – these people are some of the most corrupt individuals on earth.
http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/16vev1/is_inheritance_moral/
“It seems to be assumed that the act of inheritance is fine and normal, but surely a philosopher should not merely assume things based on tradition – after all slavery and other terrible things would have seemed ‘natural’ only a few centuries ago. (And even today in some quarters of the world).
The argument that it is moral would be that it is like a gift and is up to the giver what they do with their property which has already been taxed etc. anyway.
But on the other hand the recipient has done nothing to earn said wealth and given the large amounts of wealth often involved and the effects over generations of accruing wealth (which becomes easier due to the opportunities for investment, compound interest and other advantages) it can have major social effects.
It seems strange that we readily accept that people have no power over which family they are born into, yet we accept that such circumstances may grant someone with huge advantages.”
@ Anon,
Q; A trillionaire can sit at home, as a recluse, his money under the mattress, just employ a few people to do his going out for him. He is no harm to anyone.
R; We’re all different, but it would help if you tried to understand what KK actually says [and that’s obviously not what you think it is].
Perhaps using the above out of context and leaving out the comparison to ‘oligarchs’ sends you argument in a askew trajectory toward the flanks of some unimpressive, virtual Alps?
“We’re all different”
True – but at least 400 million live in absolute poverty.
I think I understand exactly what KK says – and I don’t like it.
Can you do some offline thought transfer with KK (through the Alps if necessary) and get back to me with a more favourable description please.
@ Anon,
KK referred to oligarchs and their armed militias. They are way more dangerous than a person who sits on his money. By omitting that comparison, your argument became dishonest.
Billionaires who do interfere in other countries however [or, like Adelson, even in the US], should be lined up, water-boarded a bit for fun and good measure and send out to find Usama Bin Laden’s very watery grave.
armed militias
say what?
At 11:15 on 2nd Apr I searched for “armed militias” on this page and only find your reference.
Where does KK refer to this?
Here /alain-soral-answers-part-1/#comments is the question that KK has still not replied to:
Anonymous on April 01, 2015 · at 11:40 am UTC
“A trillionaire can sit at home” – I note (horrified): it seems you wouldn’t mind an individual being worth an entire years output of Nigeria (the richest country in Africa by GDP with 174 million people PLUS Iran (77 million population). Thank goodness, there are no $trillionaires (yet). The richest man on earth is, apparently, worth less than 0.1 $trillion
“He is no harm to anyone” did you not read this? 35,000 starve/day http://www.starvation.net/
“An oligarch is a wealthy person who uses his wealth for political power.” – baby steps, but the person has to be wealthy to be an oligarch.
Do you consider the root cause of “the empire’s” war against Russia to be “Western Oligarchy” ?
What, therefore, is the solution?
Design society so that oligarchy CANNOT arise – that starts with ensuring relatively small discrepancies of wealth/income between the smartest/motivated for personal gain to the lazy doesn’t give a damn / mentally impaired in A NEW SOCIETY.
Please stop crying about the problem (the empires war against Russia) until you understand the source of the problem (which, currently, includes yourself) and the solution (which really isn’t rocket science).
“The problem is not how much more money they have than the poorest.” – wrong. Power and money are, at least, linearly proportional. If everyone had, apporoximately, the same amount of money their “potential” power would also be roughly equivalent.
See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy for a definition of oligarchy.
A fundamental problem is that hardly anyone understands money, wealth, the difference between them, and how they can relate to the general economy.
OK 00 I suddenly discover I have magickal, god-like powers, and I create a lush new island in the Indian ocean filled with precious metals and minerals — easily worth a $trillion. At that point nothing n the world has changed for good or ill. What would change depending on what I did with that island is very problematic to predict, and runs smack into the problems of overdetermination. I could do great good or great harm with it, but either might result from exactly the opposite intentions I might have.
Or say the US writes another $trillion into existence. It could start more wars, or create a massive jobs program (which might deplete natural resources). Or it could ‘pay down’ the debt and throw the world economy into chaos, or give the oligarchical 1% enough liquidity to buy up more land in poorer countries and deprive people of livelihoods. The system is so complex it’s not at all obvious what would happen, or how all the factors would interact. When the US was $trillion less in debt, were thing any better?
The solutions to poverty in the world is not so much changing the abstracts of money and ‘wealth’ but fixing the system to that liquidity and economic transactions, and justice, are based on people, the ecology, and their welfare instead of power and greed.
To expand on that…
.. note that this is not talking about some $trillion somewhere, but fiscal and social policy. It’s possible to have systems where this (below) nad more could be done without having money or a monetary system at all. Consider for a common example, all the work education, and development that occurs in an ordinary family (or some clan or tribal cultures) without any money at all exchanging hands among members (or those activities that exist without money involved within communities even in strongly capitalist cultures — do you charge a neighbors to invite them to you pool party?).
I’m just reading
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/03/opportunities-of-a-millennium-part-1.html#more-9288
Opportunities of a Millennium (Part 1)
Posted on March 30, 2015 by Devin Smith | 4 Comments
By J.D. Alt
Viewed through the ideology of money-scarcity, the major challenges facing society appear to represent “costs” that people must be penalized to pay by taking dollars out of their personal pockets. At one level, politics is the endless and bitter argument of one party proposing to do X, Y, or Z in order to accomplish some collective benefit, and the other party saying: Yes, but how are you going to pay for it?—which is the “gotcha” question because everyone certainly “knows” that in order to actually do X, Y, or Z, the federal government will have to increase taxes or borrow dollars from the Private Sector pot. Understanding modern fiat money (and how to manage it as a collective tool) creates, as we now understand, a remarkably different and more useful perspective. With this new perspective, as we’re about to see, many of the biggest challenges we face as a collective society can be viewed not as a “cost”—a penalty to be paid—but instead as an enormous opportunity to make our lives, both collectively and individually, more effective and prosperous. Confronting these challenges, in other words, will not take dollars out of our personal pockets, it will—in addition to hopefully overcoming the challenge addressed—put dollars into our pockets. This, in essence, is the uniquely empowering perspective that modern fiat money makes possible.
To see the power of this perspective in concrete terms, let’s explore four of the major dilemmas the Millennials will surely be facing as they come into power:
Establishing a free lifetime education system
Re-engineering our built environment for a warmer climate and higher sea-levels
Creating “work” in an economy of super-automation
Building a sustainable urban infrastructure that everyone can afford to live in
[…]
@ Larchmonster445,
Q; With article readership/views in the multiple thousands, one would assume the survey participation would be several thousand more people.
R; Oh, c’mon! You don’t expect all the foreign agencies to chip in now, do you?
On the podcasts, I think it’s mostly just a “To each their own” kind of thing, maybe more about the form than any shortcoming of the content. Personally, I’m fine with the podcasts being done, I know lots of people are into that sort of thing. But on the internet I usually just simply prefer reading text over listening to radio-equivalent or watching video.
So for instance, if there’s an interview which is available both as video and as transcript, I’ll normally read the transcript. It’s faster, I don’t have to put headphones on, I can skim stuff I know about and take a second look at key or difficult bits, stuff like that. But people have different styles and preferences on this kind of thing. It’s not like I insist every single post on the blog has to be done just for me. Carry on with the podcasts, absolutely. Of course, if someone made a transcript I’d be happy to read that.
transcripts turn up a few days later — a volunteer with dictaphone transcription experience does them
My husband and I enjoy listening to the Saker’s podcasts – in bed. We enjoy the variety of topics and The Saker’s voice. The podcasts are unscripted so it’s like he’s talking directly to us. Sometimes though I wish he would sort out the questions so he wouldn’t waste time looking for ones he can answer. Those he can’t answer he should sort out and leave until he can answer them prior to the podcast taking place, or not bother with them at all.
Dear Saker,
MH suggestions whom you definitely should try to interview: F. William Engdahl and Pepe Escobar.
(BTW… A couple of years ago I sent a brief e-mail to Engdahl, asking him for a clarification of a particular foreign policy position of the Russian FM that puzzled me at the time, and was most pleasantly surprised that he did find the time to reply, providing me with his clear view. A learned scholar of broad insight, a rare person indeed.)
… and Dmitry Orlov.
F. William Engdahl – Pepe Escobar – Orlov: all VERY good ideas.
Thanks
Regarding the podcasts… to me, every bit of communication that exposes the Empire and expands our view of the wider world is extremely valuable. What I appreciate about the podcasts is that the Saker is willing to express himself in a raw and (mostly) unedited way. I thoroughly appreciate and enjoy reading this blog from an analytical perspective, but I love it when the Saker is willing to reveal his wisdom, emotions and imperfections by way of his voice. In short, it’s good to know he’s a real person. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I’m grateful that he puts himself out there and says it anyway, courageously and in his own voice.
The Empire is trying to turn us all into dumbed-down borgs and automatons; I believe it’s only through creative human expression like that of the Saker’s podcasts that we can overcome it. Carry on, sir!
Reading text and istening to a podcast are different:
Text is good because I can scan over it, easily reread parts, and do a search for something.
Audio does not require me to sit at the machine, so I can do other things I have to while listening, without putting all my attention on the material, and it’s easy to re-listen while getting other things done.
Sometimes my eyes, or part of brain that reads, is too tired to read, but other times I am able to focus intently and want to read quickly.
These differences are not because of the content itself, but the medium — and other comments indicate it’s similar for others.
Saker — do what you want with the podcasts and people will choose what suits them, as time and circumstances allow.
Really great response to your survey. Thanks for posting the results and commenting. Personally, it is YOUR analysis of different situations that are most important. Interesting and thought provoking.
I for one love and cherish the podcasts and listen to them multiple times. They’re useful to those of us who work on computers and like to have radio in the background. Also, as radio, particularly “talk radio”, they are, in my opinion, unique. I’ve done lots of radio myself and have never heard such a multitude of topics and opinions expressed in a sane, kind manner, while never insulting the listener’s intelligence.
love the scope of the radio shows/podcasts, where you allow yourself to ramble here and there, and we learn so much about for example Russian culture than you might write an essay about. I think the podcast parts about gays in Russia are far more effective in communicating the cultural differences than an essay might be.
The shows are also very cool artifacts of a very interesting voice for the future. Finally, many people like my wife who don’t read as much political stuff but love to listen to it. They substitute the Saker for the BBC. A good trend, no? I think it will grow. Perhaps in the iPhone age there’s people that just don’t listen to radio any more… it could be 50%. Interesting survey, keep up the great work, and I did in fact vote on it.
@veritas:Firstly, you shouldn’t be disheartened. I assure you that I am not. In fact, I am quite happy with them. Even the podcasts still had a majority liking them ;-)
@jj: I agree with KK, to tell each anonymous poster to please support my work is overkill, especially for a first time visitor who might not even like this blog. But thanks for the suggestion anyway!
@SunLion: thanks for your very kind words of support. I really appreciate them and it means the world to me to know that my efforts are valued by somebody out there.
@Larchmonter445: I am somewhat shocked at the low number of survey participants. With article readership/views in the multiple thousands, one would assume the survey participation would be several thousand more people. It explains the low financial support at times.
I am not. Even at the peak of readership (just over 74’000 a day) only a small minority actually supported my work. Right now, with all the changes and problems, I think that the daily readership must be dramatically lower (I am not sure, since we have had problems with the software measuring that). My guesstimate is in the range of 20’000 a day maybe? So over 1’000 respondents in not bad at all.
@Purple Library Guy: I post the transcripts as soon as I get them.
@anonymous:saker’s own moderators are evil. Right. If that is so – please consider me evil too because I find your accusation stupid. All KK did was to explain the difference between a “trillionaire” and an oligarch. You took her sentence of of context and thereby violated the rules #3 and #5. I would have tossed your comment to trash. KK is clearly kinder then I am :-P
@Johan: thanks for the good ideas!
@The Virginian:Carry on, sir! Yessir! will do :-)
@blue: I will do just that.
Thanks!!
Site analytics should give you unique visitors as a category.
@ The Saker & mods (KK)
Thank you for the confirmation.
Since Pacifica radio is morally bankrupt, it is pleasing to see the frequency and lengths of their fund-drives increasing, along ith them missing targets, as validation of the above. This gives them a very pleasing “loser” feel whereby each circle of the drain gets exponentially smaller and faster.
The only thing keeping the viscerally Russia-loathing Pacifica going is grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a part of the current Obama admininistration, in return for which they have to pretend to be a community network by converting everything to Spanish for 3 hrs/day. In other words, they provide empire propaganda for the Democratic party on the backs of the latino communities.
Don’t be like Pacifica unless you want to sell wealth-creation CDs and beauty products to aging feminists (nothing against aging feminists): In this regard, Pacifia use copious advertizing throughout their ‘fund drives”, and take large sums from “anonymous donors” requiring “matching funds” from you and I.
Finally, the only reason Pacifia needs money is because they insist on broadcasting instead of going internet-only. Once you need that much money you are already compromised, and if you insist on broadcasting, you won’t be allowed to survive if your content is informative.
– Shyaku.
Pacifica radio should have renamed themselves Israelica radio back in the 80’s when their programing got coopted by zionazi interests, albeit stealth zionazi interests (essentially pindo versions of Atzmon’s AZZ in the UK). Pacifica was probably the last decent broadcast org to have a national presence in the USA, their slide into ziofascist duplicity and divisiveness during the 1980’s left just a few very isolated local radio broadcasters left in the USA that were not literally zionazi/fascist toss. Pacifica is a classic example of how zionazi Jews (& their allies) will infiltrate an effective leftwing organisation, gradually take it over, then corrupt it to all hell to the point it no longer is leftwing, but essentially all that the left opposes, and is just simply another outlet for zionazi propaganda.
You are doing a good work here, Saker! You have a vision that is needed, to oppose the MSM and the jaundiced view of the ‘West’.
I would just hope that more emphasis could be placed on what is happening in South and Central America. By you or someone else. Not many of us in the US or Canada (from what I can see on the MSM or alternate news) really has much understanding of the people and the cultures there in the bottom half of the hemisphere, and I think in the next 20-30 years we will see many changes there and will be surprised (just as we were in VietNam! a generation ago.)
Regarding the podcasts: For myself, I have to think twice before committing an hour to anything. 20 – 30 min is a kind of general upper limit.
At least with videos you get two information streams at the same time (video and audio). This is why I have fallen behind with the podcasts.
– Shyaku.
Regarding the podcasts: For myself, I have to think twice before committing an hour to anything. 20 – 30 min is a kind of general upper limit.
How sad. I hope that you will be able to extend that to at least 4-6 hours if and when needed. With your current time limit, you can”t even read a Nasrallah transcript or what a Putin Q&A with the public.
I once read this sentence in a sci-fi book (forgot the title, alas):”Slow thinking has its place in the universe”. I agree :-)
I love the podcasts, in whatever format. I drive a lot for work and I have learned a lot and it gives me something good to listen to. I’m sure the format can be improved, not sure how, but that’s my two cents. Thank you for your work as you provide truthful information to help counter the evil Anglo-Zionist Empire and their immoral minions.
you have escaped from catch 22????
smiles
Regarding the podcasts – the survey question left no option for those who do not listen to podcasts. While almost all visitors can be expected to read an article, not all may listen to podcasts.
Survey design is tricky, but you might find that many of the “No” and “Somewhat” answers really mean “I don’t enjoy podcasts because I do not listen to them”, so you might be doing better than the stats show :-)
Richard, I agree. If there had been a box to check for “I don’t like podcasts,” those responses could have been filtered out, and the approval rating would have been higher. Then again, I am an exception and so assume there are others. I do NOT listen to podcasts, usually get bored within the first five minutes. Even with news programs like Democracy Now, I prefer read the transcript. But I love The Saker’s podcasts. They have heart, and it comes through in his voice, as Win above noted.
@Larchmonter445 (and The Saker): I used to work for an Internet company with millions of visitors a week (visitors, not page views). We did weekly promotions for paid content, typically around $20. If 10,000 people responded, we considered it a resounding success. Usually it was more like 7-8,000. The marketing folks said the rule of thumb was one sale per 200 visitors — one half of 1 percent. The response to The Saker’s survey, as well as the response to donations, is actually quite remarkable. The MBAs would kill for a “conversion rate” like this.
I used to work for an Internet company with millions of visitors a week (visitors, not page views). We did weekly promotions for paid content, typically around $20. If 10,000 people responded, we considered it a resounding success. Usually it was more like 7-8,000. The marketing folks said the rule of thumb was one sale per 200 visitors — one half of 1 percent. The response to The Saker’s survey, as well as the response to donations, is actually quite remarkable. The MBAs would kill for a “conversion rate” like this.
Hugely interesting comment, thanks a lot!! This will give me courage and keep me more optimistic. Thanks!
Dear Saker,
Marketing people used to talk about the 80 / 20 rule: 80% of your business comes from 20% of your customers.
That “rule of thumb” can be extended (in a very general way) to questionnaires and surveys: most replies will come from a small group of people who follow your site regularly as opposed to casually. On top of that, you will always get visitors who look around maybe once or twice and then go away, as opposed to those who might visit a few times a day, every day.
I must admit though, as someone who drops by once a day or every 2-3 days, I completely missed your survey.
Dear The Saker
Very surprised at the 1000+ response – didn’t think of this blog as having that kind of reach, probably because I ‘estimate’ in terms of the comments.
I am a reader, so I don’t tend to bother with podcasts on the net. However, the enthusiasm of some of the posters here prompts me to give them a shot. If *you* enjoy them, then keep doing them: you only need one listener for ‘validation’ anyway. If a ‘stream-of – consciousness’ outlet is therapeutic, all the more reason to keep doing them. The analyses are hard work, and given the subject matter, you could get disheartened at times.
Re donating: I don’t do finance over the net, but would like to send my pathetic offering to a secure address. Please post one in a box beside the banner: yes, you need to keep that message upfront. Just not a pop-up or flasher – those types are supernaturally irritating.
So glad your survey got you an optimal response. And hope the new fledgling you and Mrss Saker have recently ‘hatched’ isn’t losing you both too much shut-eye! :)
Dear Saker: Please keep making the podcast for those of us who enjoy them. Those who don’t can ignore them, as you suggested.
Hello Saker. Your blog is a little patch of reality that in the internet world that I can retreat to. Do your own thing. It is a breath of fresh air.
Zap the posts that that annoy you even if its mine. Garbage I can read anywhere. Cheers. Peter.
Saker, small suggestion: have an admin tweak something in WP’s comment.php so that your name appears e.g. in red in the comments (like for example Goblin from oper.ru does) – that would make it much easier and faster to find your comments especially in threads with hundreds of them.
I must admit I did not do the survey. Upon seeing it I was sure I am going to find a quite moment sometime in the next few days and address the questions, but it just slipped, sorry. I would have been in the majority anyhow. My wish is to emphasize that I especially appreciate your podcasts, for the reasons others already mentioned- the opportunity to hear you conveying your thoughts with immediate speech and the fact one can listen while doing something else, but also for the reason that the issues were not set and just about any question could pop up. If for the next ones you choose to define a topic, maybe you could have a category of a “joker question” or two. By that I mean a question that does not have to comply with the topic, can be treated at the end and is there to echo the unconstrained sensation which the format has given us so far. Thank you and the whole team working to make this exist and kind regards to all!
@Saker
For donation why not have a full size banner “ad” that you show on each page when you need to stimulate donations? You could have the community contribute the banners, just as you did with the logo and rotate those. This would increase their noticeability and if you don’ run them all the time people won’t get “used” to them.
You could also put a text reminder at the bottom of the articles. “If you like what the saker blog is doing please consider a donation $? $?? $???”
Also some people may wait until they can afford send a larger amount to you (which may not happen). Perhaps if you had some kind of intermediary to which people could send even the tiniest amounts without, frankly speaking, embarassment, it may help.
keep up the good work!
Thanks, I was asking for the “latest articles” link, but why don’t you just insert a button in the navbar at the top with that function, or put a link into the sidebar? It would just be very comfortable.
but it is there! you can just click on latest articles :-)
Yeah, just got it. All this time I thought it’s just plain title text… dummy.
podcasts take a lot of time and effort to make and to listen too.people like to read when concerning serious things
so not worthwhile really.
not for you anyway.
thnaks
My survey suggestion was that there should be somewhere on the site where people can submit articles or info that should be good for further follow up by Saker/the researchers, instead of cluttering up the current article thread.
Today I posted some interesting information on Ukraine in the thread on Islam, and got a “what’s that got to do with Islam?” I know how they feel, but …
It wouldn’t take much – just a sticky thread called “Post your Ukraine leads here”.