An Interview with Valentin Vatsev

[Celerity]

I found this to be quite an interesting article. If you aren't interested in international politics though, this one isn't for you.

Don't mind the headline so much -- it isn't really about that -- although he does spend the beginning criticizing both Donald and Hillary. The article turned in a completely different way than I expected and pretty much ended as a geopolitical analysis. The translation is a bit rough at times, but I'm sure it was a very difficult one to do. I'll admit I started to get pretty lost near the end when he started talking about Bulgarian politics. And yes, for our resident Bulgarians, the original is here. I'm really counting on you guys to produce a better translation for us ;). I think that @Pali especially will like this article with his strong historical background.

I had to check on the reference for a “meeting in Samara”, and I found that to be a good one.

Just thought I'd share it here.

[Pali]

Jeez, for a second I thought you were linking us to Stormfront.  I'm working now, will give some feedback later.

[Vaerick]

An interesting read. I see both candidates as total shitheels. The orange menance wannabe dictator and the election-rigging oligarch. Either is a poison pill.

[kamikazi]

You wouldn't want to get me started on Bulgarian "politics". About the American presidential candidates, I do agree. They are both shit heads, but are nothing compared to the lying and thieving scum we have in Bulgaria. Can you imagine...I don't believe there is any other country in the world, which allows for 240 people in the parliament. Or more than 40 parties included in the elections. All of the funds coming as help from the EU are distributed between them all, depending on how many votes they get on the elections. We even have parties formed of nazi singers, that are getting votes and EU funds! Can you imagine, that presidential elections are just a month away in Bulgaria and our politicians went on a paid "holiday" which they voted for themselves?  Funny thing is that they are actually streaming some of their votes on one of our national televisions and you can clearly see only twenty people present in the hall, although the vote passes with the vote of 150. We are being tottally fucked by idiots and the funny thing is that what we do is not go to arms and beat the crap out of that scum, to elect a new goverment, but we simply give up and try to leave the country. We used to be a nation feared on the Balkans. Now we are the laughing stock of everyone. I do hope one of these days the nation actually stands up for itself and gets rid of all those corrupt mother fuckers. I am thinking about going back home, cause it is the country I was born in and I love it, but I cannot stand all the shit they are doing to us and getting away with. At the end I might buy an AK47 and go to the parliament and start shooting people.

[mya]

@Celerity

Europe will be bent. On any resistance in the EU, like the refusal to sign the transatlantic trade economic agreement, its spine will be broken. Someone in Europe, mainly in France and Germany, might try to resist. But several million swarthy internationalists with an Arabic accent, well-armed and organised and settled at key locations in Old Europe will quickly explain to the old lady what global progress means now, aligned with congenital human rights.

 

Who are this several million swarthy internationalists with an Arabic accent, Cel?

 

[Celerity]

I'm guessing he is talking about Syrian refugees.

[f0xx]

Lol, I never expected someone from this forum to put a link with an interview from a Bulgarian professor. 

The University of Plovdiv, in which he teaches, is right next to the Technical University of Plovdiv in which I used to study. I've been in a couple of lectures of his. And to be honest, I am not impressed really. All the things he says are already well known to anyone who is following the scene. Guy seems a bit crazy too, as are all professors at his age, and it's very hard to follow his stream of consciousness, since he is very smart and has a very rich general knowledge in many areas (and you can see that from the interview itself). I do find it very entertaining to read his words in English though

[edit] The translation is pretty good, by the way.

[Pali]

So, my longer response to the article...

 

It starts out badly.  " Trump is an ordinary man, despite being a millionaire, an eccentric, and he has even been married to Slavic women, which is the tip of the eccentricities in the Anglo-Saxon world, but he is an absolute outsider to the high elite of America " This may be a translation issue, but Trump is not an ordinary man - as Vatsev himself seems to realize because he immediately has to throw a number of caveats - and Trump is not at all an outsider to the high elite of America.  Trump has been involved in politics from the outside, as a major donor, for decades.  As I mentioned in the other Presidential election thread, this isn't actually even Trump's first run for President, as he sought the Reform Party nod in 2000.  He has known the political elite for a very long time - as Trump himself has bragged, the Clintons were at his last wedding, and he has long given politicians donations and asked them for favors in return.  This kind of ignorance of Trump's history, an ignorance that just reading Trump's Wikipedia page can fix, didn't inspire much confidence in me as I continued the article.

 

The second half of the first paragraph feels like I'm reading a conspiracy theorist talk.  While there is some truth to the notion that several hundred families have effectively controlled US politics for some time, I've long kept in mind a bit of George Carlin's wisdom: "You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge.  They know what is good for them."  Vatsev's words read as taking the formal conspiracy route: " In other words, the tribal union... controlled the leadership of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.  For smaller things, the Kennedy clan (a really old, rich and influential family) was almost completely destroyed "  This reads to me as Vatsev effectively claiming that some shadow group controlling the two parties intentionally destroyed the Kennedy family (and if anyone wants to get into the JFK conspiracy theories, let's not and say we did, eh?), which I find fairly absurd.  

 

" From her [Hillary], I expect a forceful conversion of the European Union into the 51st US state "  The EU will not be merged with the US in the next 8 years no matter who is elected.  This is pure hyperbole.

 

The second paragraph doesn't get much better.  Vatsev seems to think he's joking here, but " maybe that half a century ago, he raped (in the plebeian school, of course, heh-heh) his black(!) classmate (who “cannot  keep silent”). And Hillary on her side is an epileptic who “has complications” in boarding and getting off a plane (we already heard it). " reads to me as equivocating accusations of rape with accusations of less-than-ideal personal health.  I get that he's using these as examples of the kinds of stories that will be heard about candidates in the month prior to the election, but I find it pretty tasteless nonetheless.

 

" When Mrs. Clinton wins, and it becomes more likely that she will, she will escalate the conflict relations with Russia to the limit. Although the Kremlin quite obviously is unwilling to participate in any real escalation, it will be forced to. Mr. Putin’s ability to turn a blind eye is large but not infinite. "  This strikes me as a very one-sided examination of the US-Russian relationship over the last couple decades.  Now, I'm far from an expert on the topic myself, but while the argument can be made that the US has provoked Russia with sanctions and its adventures in the Middle East, Russia's been doing its own provocations in Ukraine, in Crimea, in Georgia, in Syria.  Neither country's dealing with the other in an open or friendly manner.

 

" But several million swarthy internationalists with an Arabic accent "  This is blatantly racist.  Shame.

 

"  authoritarianism will come from the Democratic Party of the US "  As I've mentioned in other threads, authoritarianism in the US is more strongly correlated with the Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and progressives.  "There have been a number of other attempts to identify "left-wing authoritarians" in the United States and Canada. These would be people who submit to leftist authorities, are highly conventional to liberal viewpoints, and are aggressive to people who oppose left-wing ideology. These attempts have failed because measures of authoritarianism always correlate at least slightly with the right. However, left-wing authoritarians were found in Eastern Europe. There are certainly extremists across the political spectrum, but most psychologists now believe that authoritarianism is a predominantly right-wing phenomenon."  That Vatsev is in Eastern Europe may explain his perspective, but he is still projecting his own country's situation onto another inaccurately.

 

" The Kremlin understandably hopes that Trump will win. Although nobody has proved it, I would not be surprised if they really tried in some very indirect way to help "  Such as hacking the DNC?  The US has now formally accused the Russian government of interfering in the election.

 

" Trump is self-taught and an improviser, he has no formal political education, but he extremely accurately feels a principle  of Lincoln – America should support freedom and democracy around the world and not seek enemies around the world. With Trump it is easier to talk about some active isolationism and much less aggression. "  I think this is badly, BADLY misunderstanding Trump's character.  Trump is a vindictive bully, who has serious trouble letting slights slide without seeking vengeance of some sort.  He talks brazenly and ignorantly of the virtues of using nuclear weapons.  This is part of why many Republican national security officials will not be voting for him.

 

The section on financial capital vs industrial capital I largely have no issue with, but it's again not an area I know extremely well.  Vatsev begins to ramble a fair bit when he suddenly turns to talking about Marx, though, and I'm not sure I followed his line of thinking well through it.  He loses points with the casual racism of " the usual Anglo-Saxon, hot, tough and stubborn separatism.  ", even if I think he's largely correct in his belief that separatism within the US seems to be on the rise.

 

" Unfortunately, one cannot explain this to Bulgarian Russophobes and Americanophiles, and they do not care to know … " Ah, there's where that one-sided take on US-Russian relations came from.

 

I completely agree with Vatsev's analysis that the US-Russian conflicts of today are geopolitical, not ideological.

 

" These two great nations clashed due to the great merit and victory of the Anglo-Saxon civilization. " *sigh* This is after he completely ignores the conflicts between fascism and Soviet-style communism in his insistence that Germany and Russia only ever clashed because of politics, because it wouldn't support his largely racially-framed admiration of the two countries to admit that their largest, most grueling fight had a potent ideological basis to it.

 

The end of the article deals largely with the political relations of Bulgaria, Russia and Turkey, a situation I don't feel qualified to comment on.  That said, my issues with the rest of the interview would lead me to be somewhat skeptical of taking Vatsev's positions as authoritative.

[f0xx]

Pali.... oh boy. Do you honestly think "Russia" hacked the DNC?

[Pali]

2 hours ago, f0xx said:

Pali.... oh boy. Do you honestly think "Russia" hacked the DNC?

I don't have sufficient knowledge to make a claim either way - I don't work in counter-espionage.  The directors of the US Depts of Homeland Security and National Intelligence are making the claim.  How credible you consider the claim is up to you.

EDIT: Do I consider it outside the capabilities of the Russian government to hack the DNC?  No.  Do I think that Putin would prefer Trump in the White House to Clinton?  Yes.  Has Putin's government shown a willingness to interfere in the internal politics of other countries?  Yes.  Therefore I consider the claim at least plausible, perhaps likely to be true.  I don't particularly care either way.

[f0xx]

big facepalm

God help us.

[Pali]

Do you have reason to think the claim false?  If so, please provide it.. I spent a good while reading the article and responding to it; if you think I'm wrong, I'd prefer you drop the melodrama and tell me why.

[Kyzarius]

1 hour ago, Pali said:

Do you have reason to think the claim false?  If so, please provide it.. I spent a good while reading the article and responding to it; if you think I'm wrong, I'd prefer you drop the melodrama and tell me why.

No kidding.  Give a reason, a source. Something aside from just blatant factless dismissal with a dash of degrading sarcasm. 

 US intelligence is supporting the conclusion that yes it was the russians.  Even recently info came out that they are briefing candidates, while supporting their conclusions.  Yet Trump is throwing the intelligence out, because it doesn't fit his rhetoric.   This is a very dangerous precedent to set.  That our intelligence gathering efforts can just be dismissed if they don't agree with pre fabricated conclusions based on nothing but dramatic flair. 

[Vaerick]

I don't buy "The Russian's did it" argument. That's shenanigans. Moreover, all this bs anti Russian propaganda is setting us up for a potential conflict that hasn't even been considered in decades. This use of Russia as a specter to cover up the bullshit that the DNC has been up to is a disgrace. EVEN if they did leak things, at what point does the source outweigh the truth? Democrats and Republicans BOTH are shitheels and should be despised. They collectively have brought us to the brink, and if given the opportunity, they will send us careening off the cliff.

[mya]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-propaganda-ban-repealed-freeing-state-dept-to-direct-its-broadcasting-arm-american-citizens.shtml

Blaming the Russians is the logical choice for the US government. They can't say that DNC and other American groups have lowly security and that resourceful individuals can hack them. This way they blame Russia, gaining something.

There is little doubt that US and European msm are all biased against Trump. I to get CNN and France news and SkyNews and BBC and german TV at home. Even the US president abandoned a neutral stance. This is a fact.

Who really hacked DNC we will most likely never know. But we know that US is engaged in a propaganda war against Russia. And that the US government is against Trump.

 

 

[Ambroas]

As far as the hack goes I don't believe there was ever a hack, Seth Rich leaked the information to Wikileaks.

My reasons for thinking so:

Seth Rich worked for the DNC, staffer who's job was described as a computer voting specialist.
Seth was killed on July 10, it was announced as a robbery.  He was shot multiple times in the back, his wallet, cell, watch were all on him nothing was missing.
Seth left the bar he was at at 2:30 am and walked home one mile away.  Police responded to his shooting a few blocks from his house at 4:10.  Almost two hours to walk a mile...
The wikileaks dump of the DNC files occured 12 days after his death.
Julian Assange hinted he was a whistleblower and gave a $20,000 reward for any info on his murder.  His quotes in an interview are as follows, you can google the video:

"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

When asked if Seth was a source Assange only said they don't reveal their sources.

[f0xx]

4 hours ago, Kyzarius said:

US intelligence...

 

Are we talking about the mighty US intelligence that failed to do anything to prevent the attacks on 9/11?

The same intelligence that said that World Trade Centre 7 (the third building that fell on 9/11) collapsed because of office fires?

The same intelligence that later blamed 9/11 on, Afghanistan?

The same intelligence that found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

The same intelligence that told you evil Gadaffi is killing his own people in Libya and they need some democracy?

The same intelligence that sends weapons to "moderate" rebels to fight the evil Assad?

 

I don't know, but this "intelligence" looks more like propaganda to me.

 

[hotspring monkey]

[f0xx]

[Pali]

Ah, conspiracy theory time.

 

Regarding Seth Rich: DC police believe it to be a robbery gone wrong.  His parents say he had just been promoted to work on HRC's campaign, and was devoted to getting her elected.  Are there some unanswered questions about his death?  Sure.  But assuming that the DNC ordered him killed because he leaked info to Assange is a massive jump that you've got zero positive evidence for - you're basing it all on insinuations and circumstance, and you're selectively interpreting what little information there actually is to fit your conclusion rather than remaining open-minded about the possibilities.

 

The US intelligence community did not determine how any of the WTC buildings fell - engineers did.  If you want to dispute that WTC 7 fell due to structural damage from debris plus fires, then this is the paper you need to counter with your engineering expertise.  Honestly, I was hoping that by 15 years later we'd be done with this 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, but... wishful thinking I suppose.

 

I'm not going to bother going into all the others.  Suffice to say I do not consider the US intelligence community to be some unbiased, infallible source - it isn't.  Neither is Assange, for that matter.  I don't buy what they're saying with anything close to 100% confidence, but I also am not going to summarily reject their claims out of hand either.  Whether or not Russia hacked the DNC is very much a low-priority issue for me, and has zero bearing on my take on the election or anything else.

[f0xx]

59 minutes ago, Pali said:

The US intelligence community did not determine how any of the WTC buildings fell

They sure did. Especially if we keep in mind that US intelligence = Central Intelligence Agency. They just used the name of some guys, collected into a "committee".

Do you realise that WTC7 is the first and only building to ever so utterly and completely collapse from.... office fire?

I honestly do not see how anyone with a critical mind can into the official version.

[Pali]

The paper I linked to is from the National Institute of Science and Technology, not the 9/11 commission.  Had you even opened the link, this would have been obvious.  If you want to claim that the hundreds of people involved in that report are lying, you need to actually demonstrate what in the report fails to add up.  Until you do that, you are simply blowing hot air.

 

And yes, it was the first time that a fire led to total collapse.  It was far from the first time that a fire led to at least partial collapse.  If a fire can bring down part of something, it can bring down the whole thing with more time - it is a difference of degree only.  You may have heard the saying "there's a first time for everything" - and it's even more true when that first time for something is really just taking something already done a bit further.

 

P.S. "US intelligence" is an umbrella term for a number of agencies, the CIA being only one among many.

[Vaerick]

I'd focus more on Seth Rich. In no way could it have been a robbery gone wrong. That would indicate that things were taken which they weren't. I mean... even if shit goes down and you're some kind of mugger, wouldn't you at least grab the wallet? I mean now not only did you commit murder but you didn't even get what you came for? Sounds fishy. What happened, to me, sounds very much like a message. Just saying.

[Vaerick]

Also, as to the nature of conspiracy, I am inclined to agree- there is enough bad shit in plain sight. That said, is it really so far fetched for a political organization to commit murder? It reminds me of the Godfather.

Michael: My father is just like any other powerful man.
Kay: Come on Michael, senators and governors don't have men killed.
Michael: Now who's being naive dear?

[f0xx]

NIST is exactly the committee I was referring to mate. Their "report" has so many flaws and have been pointed out over and over. One of the links I gave earlier points some of them out.

By the way there is one specific diagram there I want you to look at - figure 2-1. From this diagram you can see that there was like 10-15% of the building that actually took damage from the fire.

Also....

The "official" cause for the collapse of WTC7 is the buckling of column 79 (you can see that on page 21), caused by thermal expansion.

Firstly, thermal expansion in structural steel can not be caused by office fire and burning furniture You need much higher temperatures (keep in mind I've spent 10 years now in the machine-building industry. I work with metal every single day. Hardening and softening, machining it on lathes and mills. I've even helped some people from this forum machine their own stuff from metal).

Secondly, a failure in a single beam can not cause such obvious case of "free fall". Buildings have suffered much more damaging fires, for much longer and still haven't collapsed, and those that did, collapsed only partially. The collapse of WTC7 was basically a "free fall". An obvious case of controlled demolition. 

Thirdly, there are videos that show molten metal leaking from one of the twin towers. This simply can not be caused by burning jet fuel. Yes, jet fuel can soften the steel. Even though it was proved that the fuel burned out in less than 15 minutes, time way too little to cause any considerable harm to the structure of either of the towers, not to mention melting the steel to its liquid condition.

 

Lastly, you disappoint me greatly Pali. I've always considered you to be a critical person, able to view a problem from every single angle possible. Your obvious bias on this subject is disheartening. You managed to come up with many "proofs" to support your cause, yet ignored even more that challenge it.