The Real Vladimir Putin

In the last couple of days, I have come across three very good articles which cast light on the overall picture we are facing in the world. The bankers are pushing the US into a confrontation with Russia and are reversing the truth through their owned media saying that Russia is the aggressor and that Putin is corrupt and power mad. So while we are waiting with baited breath on which way the situation in Ukraine will twist, I will post these articles together with a fourth one from Saker who published it a week or two ago. Many will have read it already but it will make a nice finale to the other three. I will endeavour to put one up each day.

Here is the first one from Sharon Tennison who has worked in Russia for over thirty years. She relates her own personal encounter with Vladimir Putin over twenty years ago and tells of others first hand experiences with him in the following years. Her article can be found here and I encourage you to go there and explore her site.

I will repost the article in full as I think it is worth recording it in its entirety. Plus, she asks a question in her article which I would like to answer. Further notes from me after Sharon Tennison's valuable article.


by Sharon Tennison

Friends and colleagues,

As the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Journalists and pundits must scour the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe both.

Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, "What about Putin?"

It's time to share my thoughts which follow:

Putin obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man. He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him since he became Russia's second president.

I've stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000s –– I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly than this article. Like others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I've tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a "Putin apologist". If one is even neutral about him, they are considered "soft on Putin" by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

I don't pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I've have had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington's officials. I've been in country long enough to ponder Russian history and culture deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which so complicate our political relations with their leaders. As with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and attempting to meet Russia halfway.

In addition to my personal experience with Putin, I've had discussions with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had years of experience working with him––I believe it is safe to say that none would describe him as "brutal" or "thuggish", or the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.

I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since all of the slander started, I've become nearly obsessed with understanding his character. I think I've read every major speech he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long telephone "talk-ins" with Russian citizens). I've been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight character cast into a role he never anticipated––and is using sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under extremely difficult circumstances. If the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks for his performance over the past 14 years. It's not by accident that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one personal experience with Putin.

The year was 1992: It was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was St.Petersburg. For years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made. My friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit. He inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question. I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans' requests. CCI stood on the principle that we would never, never give bribes. This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply and kindly showed us to the door. Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, "Volodya, this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn't ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!" I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight––it read Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

1994: U.S. Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in the next three days. He needed immediate help. I scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador. I was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear the"good news" about CCI's programs that were showing fine results. In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up "home" meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs' small apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State Department people were aghast, since it had never been done before––but Jack overruled). Only later in 2000, did I learn of Jack's former three-year experience with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.

December 31, 1999:

With no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin. On hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered––he could never lead Russia. The next day a NYT article included a photo. Yes, it was the same Putin I'd met years ago! I was shocked and dismayed, telling friends, "This is a disaster for Russia, I've spent time with this guy, he is too introverted and too intelligent––he will never be able to relate to Russia's masses." Further, I lamented: "For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia's 89 regions". It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts or guts to tackle Russia's overriding twin challenges.

February 2000: Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia's oligarchs on edge. In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer: "What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop." This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West's capitalists nervous. After all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen––good capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their profits in offshore banks.

Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal: They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics. This was the first of Putin's "elegant solutions" to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The latter became highly political, didn't pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia's largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).

March 2000: I arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, "Lena what do you think about your new president?" She laughed and retorted, "Volodya! I went to school with him!" She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education). He went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at this, because Lena said, "Sharon in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career. My next question was, "What do you think he will do with Yeltsin's criminals in the Kremlin?" Putting on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied, "If left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is watching. If they don't respond, he will address them personally, then if the behaviors don't change–– some will be in prison in a couple of years." I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.

Throughout the 2000's: St.Petersburg's many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most believed that the program had been enormously important, even life changing. Last, each was asked, "So what do you think of your new president?" None responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia's bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, "Putin registered my business a few years ago". Next question, "So, how much did it cost you?" To a person they replied, "Putin didn't charge anything". One said, "We went to Putin's desk because the others providing registrations at the Marienskii were getting 'rich on their seats.'"

Late 2000: Into Putin's first year as Russia's president, US officials seemed to me to be suspect that he would be antithetical to America's interests––his every move was called into question in American media. I couldn't understand why and was chronicling these happenings in my computer and newsletters.

Year 2001: Jack Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous and helpful. When Putin's wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous offer, but ended saying that he couldn't accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital. She did––although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.

A senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media. Matter of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn't be acceptable if others were listening.

Another former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery, pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.

I had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin:

At the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get answered: "When did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why? Without hesitating the answer came back: "'The knives were drawn' when it was announced that Putin would be the next president." I questioned WHY? The answer: "I could never find out why––maybe because he was KGB." I offered that Bush #I, was head of the CIA. The reply was, "That would have made no difference, he was our guy."

The second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting, I remarked, "You might be interested to know that I've collected experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes". He firmly replied, "No one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin."

From 2001 up to today, I've watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin …. even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler. No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During this time, I've traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin's watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food. Alcohol challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking industry was becoming dependable. Russia was beginning to look like a decent country –– certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for the first time in their memories.

My 2013/14 Trips to Russia: In addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We traveled between cities via autos and rail––the fields and forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction. Today's Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from China). Old concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place––and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow. We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets. Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations looks like those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have appeared. It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia's presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.

So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???

Like Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?

Psychologists tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don't want to face in themselves. Others carry our "shadow"when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.

Could this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?

Could it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?

Could it be that we condemn Russia's corruption, acting like the corruption within our corporate world doesn't exist?

Could it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact that we haven't solved our own?

Could it be that we accuse Russia of "reconstituting the USSR"––because of what we do to remain the world's "hegemon"?

Could it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that is what we have become and we don't want to face it?

Could it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done over the past several administrations?


Some of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your opinions, pro and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It's important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and get the record straight. I'm quite sure that 99% of those who excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication, or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters. This is how our nation gets its "news", such as it is.

There is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned?

It seems to me that if our nation's leaders would commit to using these four principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.

As always your comments will be appreciated. Please resend this report to as many friends and colleagues as possible.

Sharon Tennison

President and Founder

Center for Citizen Initiatives

Author: The Power of Impossible Ideas (under revision)

Rotary Club of Palo Alto, CA

Sharon Tennison asks after revealing Vladimir Putin as an exemplary character, “So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia??? “  Tennison proposes some possibilities in the form of further questions. As an overall observation, I would say the fact that Vladimir Putin is not corrupt constitutes the major reason he is a threat to the corporate and political class in America. But to answer in more detail and at the risk of repeating myself, I will give my understanding of why the western media and politicians are unanimous and fulsome in their condemnation of Russia and Vladimir Putin.

First of all it is worthwhile noting that the condemnation is unanimous. The only difference is how fulsome it is from media outlet to outlet depending on the demographic market each 'news organisation' is aimed at – and it is 'aimed'! It is beyond coincidence and has all the hallmarks of being a co-ordinated propaganda campaign. When you understand that almost all the media is controlled by the same group of people, it is no longer surprising.

The next question is, “Why is this group so opposed to Russia and Putin?” Well, it turns out that this group has extensive cultural and economic ties to a group of bankers who share the same culture and interests. These bankers, by and large, identify themselves as Jewish as do the media owners.

But why are the bankers so opposed to the Russia of Vladimir Putin? It seems Putin has cost them a lot of money and power. After the break-up of the USSR, Boris Yeltsin became President of Russia and came under the influence of a small group of Jews who became known as the Jewish Oligarchs. These oligarchs were financed by these same bankers. They decimated the country economically and hampered it militarily. They controlled what industry was left after they destroyed much of the productive capacity of Russia. (See "The Unknown Putin"here and here) Crucially, they controlled the oil industry.

Controlling the sales of oil worldwide was central to the bankers plan to foist a new currency on the world to replace the $US as the world's reserve currency. If oil was available worldwide only for purchase using the new proposed One World Currency (OWC), then every country on earth would be forced to adopt the OWC which would give the bankers the ability to control the national economies of every country in the world. Losing control of Russia's oil industry because Putin took it back from the oligarchs, dealt the bankers a severe, if not mortal, blow.

The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 was engineered by the bankers and set in train years before on the assumption that the bankers would control the oil sales of both Russia and Iran by the time the worlds economies collapsed in what was to be known as the GFC of 2008. The bankers planned to use this occasion to completely collapse the $US and replace it with their OWC. It was not to be.

Since then, things have only gotten worse for the bankers. Russia and China and control own their own central banks and are therefore beyond the direct control of the western international bankers. China and Russia are now trading using Rubles and Yuan internationally and will increasingly do so. This reduces the worldwide demand for $US leading to an oversupply of dollars which, in turn, leads to inflationary pressure on the $US (too much money now chasing too few goods).

Russia and China are in the process of setting up a world development bank as an alternative to the IMF thus further reducing the power of the international bankers, taking away more international demand for $US and adding even further to the inflationary pressure on the US dollar. With reduced international demand for the $US, and in the face of US inflation, countries around the globe will be less likely to accept $US for their goods. The downward spiral will begin in ernest.

The US will no longer be able to buy goods from around the globe and pay for them simply by printing money; money that was previously backed up by someone else's oil (the so-called Petrodollar). But no more.

The US government built the largest military on earth, dwarfing all others, by being able to buy whatever it needed by exchanging goods for paper money and not other goods, never mind gold. So the US has been able to build its huge military largely for free and the rest of the world has largely paid for it! But no more.

China and Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin is setting about crippling the huge apparatus that is the Pentagon without firing a shot. Putin is taking away its funding. Since World War 2, the Pentagon has been the standover merchant that has enforced the odious conditions of the loans of the international bankers allowing them to wreck and control country after country. Putin is putting an end to that.

This is why the international bankers hate Putin and why he is vilified at every opportunity by the banker owned media and by the equally banker owned politicians whom we erroneously refer to as our leaders.

But as bad as this is for the bankers, it is going to get worse. For bankers to have the power they do, they need to be fabulously wealthy and to get that wealth they need to plunder their host economies through recurring recessions and depressions. They also need to have a large section of the community anxious to survive economically (if not physically) and desperate to fulfil necessary or perceived needs so they can be controlled. This process of hobbling an economy and constantly skimming and periodically plundering the economy leads to a severe under performance of any country inflicted with these bankers and their privately owned central bank system.

This leaves these banker owned and controlled economies at a severe disadvantage to any economies that are outside these same bankers' control. Russia and China are two such economies. Putin has resuscitated the economy of Russia since he became president through using a state owned development bank to fund (at no expense) and drive the Russian economy. China has been using its own central bank for the last few decades to bring its country from amongst the poorest on earth to the richest.

The US/UK and countries like Germany and Japan will steadily slip from economic dominance into obscurity in the years to come. This will prompt many people and especially business people to ask, “Why is this so?”

Widespread knowledge of the answer to this question will sound the death knell for the bankers and their class. Their ability to create (and profit from at no cost) the money we all need to trade with will be taken from them and with it will go their power over us and the last vestige of their dream to rule the world and have the peoples of the world “as their footstool”. (Psalm 110)

These bankers still have enormous power, though, and they are fully cognisant of their impending demise and so constitute the biggest danger we all face. Wars are their weapon of choice against the rest of humanity. Exposing these bankers and their propaganda with the stark light of truth is our most effective way of combatting them


excellent work James

It is control of the oil resources hence global control/monetary etc.
"Controlling the sales of oil worldwide was central to the bankers plan to foist a new currency on the world to replace the $US as the world's reserve currency. If oil was available worldwide only for purchase using the new proposed One World Currency (OWC), then every country on earth would be forced to adopt the OWC which would give the bankers the ability to control the national economies of every country in the world. Losing control of Russia's oil industry because Putin took it back from the oligarchs, dealt the bankers a severe, if not mortal, blow. "

Right there, james, right there
I said to my husband james is bang on!

And here in the West we have been plundered. We are slaves that fail to see our chains thanks to the overwhelming and abundant use of propaganda.

James, stop by at my place. The video of John Kerry I have up
watch it. Transcript, read what the bastard says

""Two, if we want a Europe that is both whole and free, then we have to do more together, immediately, with a sense of urgency, to ensure that European nations are not dependent on Russia for the majority of their energy. In this age of new energy markets, in this age of concern about global climate change and carbon overload, we ought to be able to rush to the ability to make Europe less dependent. And if we do that, that will be one of the greatest single strategic differences that could be made here. We can deliver greater energy independence and help to diversify energy sources that are available to the European markets, and we can expand the energy infrastructure across Europe, and we could build up energy storage capacity throughout the continent. "

Kerry and NATO are cooking up a crazy energy plan to deny Russia energy revenues- It's years in the making, but there it is

Yes, indeed, Pen. Control of

Yes, indeed, Pen. Control of oil leads to control of currencies leads to control of governments leads to contol of the globe. Putin stands in the way of all that.

"Global Warming" is part of this too as you say. I'm sure eventually the plan is to impose restrictions on oil exporters which will mean control over oil exporters. Notice that all the talk of "Peak Oil" morphed into "Global Warming"?

Russia has disproved the "fossil fuel" hypothesis. They have recorded over decades how many of their wells are refilling. The oil comes from the earth's mantle and is created by bacteria, of all things. Russia is the centre of the problem for the bankers yet again!

I listened to "the Ketchup-Kid" and will comment over at your site

and further to that

His comment makes me realize even more then I already thought that the entire AGW scam has been cooked up to justify the plan to deny Russia access to vital European markets.

Russia/Europe are natural/normal trading partners- but- not in the eyes of the 'atlantacists' and their banking scum partners.
Scum banking partners- All scum in general

This is why the AGW cult has been pounding away on the Arctic- ice melting and all that bullshit
It hasn't. What has happened is technology has caught up to the challenges of the ice and climate and these nuts are going to run pipelines or other environmentally damaging means to cut off Russia and ship oil through to Europe

Look at the new ice breakers, huge, nuclear powered monstrosities
I am sort of rambling, but there it is
the AGW promotion is part and parcel of the military industrial banker terror complex

I see there is more to read

I have much catching up to do smiling

So glad I came here from

So glad I came here from Penny's to read this post. Been puzzling over Putin for some time, thinking he seemed like a different kettle of fish (in a good way), but not having information to prove or disprove it. It is a brilliant move for Putin to cut the IMF off at the pass before they gain control of his country's autonomy. I find your forecast of the demise of the banksters' dominion over the rest of us the most reassuring thing I have read in a long time.

You're very welcome,

You're very welcome, motherbarbarian. And thanks you for leaving a comment.
To find out more about Vladimir Putin, you could look at a previous post of mine featuring some videos of Putin
Vladimir Putin Vs The Oligarchs

Many countries are in the process of escaping the IMF's death grip but the last to escape will be US/UK/EU and then the likes of Australia and Canada. We will have the hardest time of it. But Truth is on the march and it is all we need in the end to defeat the bankers. Exposing their scam and their culpability in all our wars will do the trick.

It was quite obvious to the

It was quite obvious to the whole world for years that nobody in US even has a partially functional brain. Level of stupidity is enormous. US government terrorism (not only of the whole world but at home in US as well) is so obvious yet the retards (US population) are the most patriotic people on Earth. Propaganda clearly does work especially with low IQ people such as Americans, the rest of the "western world" especially other English speaking countries = countries of brainlessness and gigantic stupidity.

Makes me very happy to see that there are some people with brain in US and they are even capable of speaking the truth. I wish there was at least one American politician with this description.

Evil and Brainwashing

Thank you for your comment, Bojan. It points out a fundamental problem we all share.

The great thinker and writer, C.S. Lewis, wrote that evil people can readily see the evil in people who are more evil than they are but cannot perceive their own evil.

I think this is because we unconsciously use ourselves as the standard by which we compare and judge others by. This is not a good idea unless one considers oneself to be perfect; in which case, it is an especially bad idea!

The same applies to propaganda and mass brainwashing. We can sometimes see the brainwashing that others are responding to but not our own brainwashing (much of which we share with those we are pointing to).

So we need to be willing to scrutinise our own firmly held beliefs and ask ourselves, "How do I know this is true?" and then do our research. This takes courage.

A relatively minor, in the scheme of things, but excellent example of this (and template of what to do about it) is provided by James Corbett here-

View on YouTube

Show notes and links here-

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.