According to The Economist, polygamy is a key factor in civil wars and conflict. How convenient to blame it all on 'the natives' and their 'backward' customs, obscuring the role of the US and its allies in destabilizing regions.

In the 1930 Marx Brothers comedy 'Animal Crackers' Groucho Marx proposes to two women at the same time. One protests: "But that's bigamy!" Groucho replies: "Yes and that's big-a-me, too. It's big of all of us. Let's be big for a change. I'm sick of these conventional marriages!"

We know the Economist isn't a great fan of Karl Marx, and it's doubtful it would approve of Groucho much either - or at least the idea of him taking two wives. You see, it would probably lead to armed conflict.

Forget the illegal invasion of Iraq, which led to 1 million deaths and turned the Middle East into a cauldron. Forget too the mass casualties of two World Wars. It's polygamy that we should be focusing on to explain violence in the world. Run for your wives? More like run for your lives.

It's fair to say that The Economist, the weekly Bible of Western neoliberal capitalism, is very keen that we get the Polygamy = Wars thesis.

"Polygamy is still common in Africa, the Islamic world and parts of Asia. It makes civil war more likely," we were told on Twitter.

The head of the Russian Lower House Committee for Eurasian Integration says the recent proposal to split Russia into several parts, voiced by a Latvian MP, is proof of NATO's hostile plans.

MP Leonid Kalashnikov (Communist Party) told RIA Novosti on Monday that the statement by the Latvian MP Aleksandrs Kirsteins clearly demonstrated that Russian concern over NATO bases in Baltic countries was justified. The comments came shortly after Kirsteins wrote on his Twitter feed that the end of military conflicts and the guarantee of a peaceful life in Europe was possible only if Russia is divided into several small countries.


"We should not be shy, we should offer tough resistance. Resistance not even to such statements but rather the danger of our country being split up that arises after them," said Kalashnikov. The Russian lawmaker also noted that the call to split up Russia clearly contradicted earlier assurances from Western nations that they have no intention of capturing Russian territory and breaking it into parts. He went on to say that it's important for Russia to counter NATO's aggressive plans and not simply trust assurances from aggressive nations.

Now that a little over a week has passed since the much awaited Putin-Trump summit in Helsinki took place, I have had the time to read many of the reactions and comments it generated. I am coming to the paradoxical conclusion that this summit was both a non-event and a truly historical watershed moment. Let's look at the event itself and then at its consequences.

The Summit Itself: A Much-needed Non-event

First, one has to welcome the fact that Putin and Trump spoke to each other, not so much because that fact by itself is great, but because it is an immensely dangerous situation when the leaders of the two military (and nuclear) superpowers do not talk to each other. Over the past couple of years, almost all contacts between Russian and US officials have been unilaterally severed, all by the US side, of course. The sole exception to this quasi-total silence was the ongoing contacts between Russian and US military and security/intelligence officials, which is a very good thing. However, this is also not enough because neither military nor security/intelligence officials are supposed to actually make policies and, therefore, when they are the only ones talking two things can happen: either a) these military and security/intelligence officials are severely limited in their authority to make decisions or b) military and security/intelligence officials are forced to take matters into their own hands and begin making policies in spite of their lack of authority to do so. Such a state of affairs in inherently dangerous (not to mention un-democratic). Still, the fact that the two Presidents and their advisers talked to each other is a much-needed development which hopefully will mark the return to a normal multi-level dialog between Russia and the US.

But besides the fact that talking is by definition good what else did the summit achieve?

Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.

Pro-mass immigration GOP mega-donor billionaire Koch brothers are threatening to support Democrats who push for open borders and multinational free trade in the upcoming midterm elections.

During a conference with millionaire and billionaire donors, officials with the Kochs' network of organizations said that they would gladly put funding in the pockets of Democrats so long as they support aspects of their agenda, which include promoting mass immigration and job-killing free trade deals.

"I know this is uncomfortable," Americans for Prosperity CEO Emily Seidel told donors, according to CNBC. "If you are a Democrat and stand up to Elizabeth Warren to corral enough votes for financial reform that breaks barriers for community banks and families, you're darn right we will work with you."

With 2,000 tons of gold in reserves, Russia's bullion holdings are approaching the Soviet peak seen in 1941. Moscow is striving for financial independence and escape from US dollar hegemony, analysts told RT.

"Some countries in the world want to depend as little as possible on US policy, they dump the dollar in trade and American assets as reserves. Russia's gold purchases increased during the US presidential race and did not stop despite Donald Trump's victory even though he seemed as a more preferable candidate for the Kremlin," Anton Makhnovsky, CEO of ICBF told RT. The analyst says he thinks Russia will continue ramping up its reserves.

Gold holdings of 2,000 tons are approaching the Soviet maximum of 2,800 tons reached in 1941. Over the last decade, the share of gold in reserves has soared tenfold. Russia also reduced its holdings of US Treasuries from $96.1 billion in March to just $14.9 billion in May. Bullion reserves are now worth $460 billion with the central bank aiming to increase that figure to $500 billion.

Analyst Vladimir Rojankovski from the International Financial Center in Moscow warned the Russian central bank last week that it shouldn't get too dependent on gold.

"In the event of a global decline in the interest of large sovereign investors in US Treasury bonds, I expect an increase in speculative activity in precious metals in order to artificially lower their market valuation," he told RT.

Hours after saying he had a "very good meeting" with the publisher of the New York Times about his labelling the press the "enemy of the people", Donald Trump launched a blistering attack on "anti-Trump haters in the dying newspaper industry".

"The failing New York Times and the Amazon Washington Post do nothing but write bad stories even on very positive achievements," Trump tweeted. "And they will never change!"

Earlier, the White House confirmed Trump met Times publisher AG Sulzberger on 20 July. Sulzberger then issued a statement that opened an exchange over whose activities were more damaging to America.

Sulzberger said he had raised "concerns about the president's deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric" and "implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country".

Sulzberger did not say how the president responded. Hours later, Trump obliged.

In a multi-tweet rant, he claimed reports on "internal deliberations of our government ... truly put the lives of many, not just journalists, at risk". He added: "Freedom of the press also comes with a responsibility to report the news accurately."

Countries of the NATO military alliance have been ordered by President Trump to increase their spending on weapons, and the reasons for his insistence they do so are becoming clearer. It's got nothing to do with any defence rationale, because, after all, the Secretary General of the US-NATO military alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, has admitted that "we don't see any imminent threat against any NATO ally" and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute recorded in its 2018 World Report that "at $66.3 billion, Russia's military spending in 2017 was 20 per cent lower than in 2016."

Even Radio Free Europe, the US government's anti-Russia broadcaster, records that Russia has reduced its defence spending.

There is demonstrably no threat whatever to any NATO country by Russia, but this is considered irrelevant in the context of US arms' sales, which are flourishing and being encouraged to increase and multiply.

On July 12, the second and final day of the recent US-NATO meeting, Reuters reported Trump as saying that "the United States makes by far the best military equipment in the world: the best jets, the best missiles, the best guns, the best everything." He went on "to list the top US arms makers, Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co and Northrop Grumman Corp by name."

The establishment of a military force to go abroad and overthrow governments does not appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, nor does calling for destruction of countries that do not themselves threaten America appear anywhere in Article 2, which describes the responsibilities of the President. Indeed, both Presidents George Washington and John Quincy Adams warned against the danger represented by foreign entanglements, with Adams specifically addressing what we now call democracy promotion, warning that the United States "should not go abroad to slay dragons."

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has proven to be particularly prone to attacking other countries that have only limited capability to strike back. North Korea was the exception that proved the rule when the Chinese intervened to support its ally in 1950 to drive back and nearly destroy advancing U.S. forces. Otherwise, it has been a succession of Granada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, and Libya, none of which had the capability to hit back against the United States and the American people.

Cambodia's general election on Sunday showed an impressive turnout of more than 82 percent. The vote, which is set to return Prime Minister Hun Sen to power, was marred by allegations of US meddling and of a crackdown on critics.

The ruling Cambodian People's Party (CPP) claimed an estimated 100 out of 125 parliament seats, declaring victory. The National Election Commission (NEC) said the election saw a record turnout of 82.71%. The NEC chairman rejected media reports of bribery and intimidation of voters, saying: "You can tell from the face of the voters. They are happy. So how can you say that they were forced?"

The election in Cambodia was "so different from anywhere I've seen people vote," RT's Ilya Petrenko reported from country's capital, Phnom Penh. The polling stations in the Southeast Asian state, populated by over 16 million, opened at 7am the morning and closed just after lunchtime, at 3pm.

The evacuation of White Helmets members and their families from Syria was an admirable gesture by Israel, but hardly enough to compensate for the expulsion of Syrians from the Golan Heights after the 1967 war.


Let's start with the glass half full. In a clandestine July 22 operation, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) evacuated several hundred activists from the White Helmets, the Syrian humanitarian civil defense group, and their family members, and removed them from the fighting in southern Syria, through Israel, to Jordan. From there, they will continue on, to be settled in the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Canada. Even the European Union, which does not often pamper Israel with compliments, issued a statement recognizing the efforts by Israel and others to bring the activists to safety. At the end of June, the IDF had provided tents, food, medical equipment, shoes and clothing for Syrians who had escaped to a tent encampment on the Golan.