Rising fascism in the US

There is conclusive evidence (anyone can find it with a little research) that poster has been mercilessly targeted by Jew-ish space lasers.

In Virginia today, an elementary school teacher was almost killed this morning by a 6 year old wielding a bad book. If that teacher or the other 6 year olds present had had a glock, this tragedy could have been so easily prevented.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/the-fbi-knew-russiagate-was-a-lie-but-hid-that-truth/

The FBI knew RussiaGate was a lie — but hid that truth

The FBI knew the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was utter bunk even as it suggested otherwise to Congress, the courts and the public early in 2017. Evidence revealed by special counsel John Durham proves it beyond dispute.

At RealClearInvestigations, Paul Sperry lays out the case.

Declassified for Durham’s probe, a March 2017 memo prepared by Lisa Page for FBI head James Comey’s meeting with Congress’ “Gang of Eight” — the bipartisan House and Senate leaders who oversee the most classified stuff — was a total cook-up job.

It advised Comey to present accusations that Trump’s campaign chair Paul Manafort and foreign policy adviser Carter Page were working with the Russian government as coming from a confidential Russia-based source with real intel-community chops. In fact, the FBI had already established that the root source was US-based former Brookings flunky Igor Danchenko’s utterly speculative gossip with an ex-girlfriend and a Democratic Party hack.

That, plus publicly reported info, was all Christopher Steele (a retired British spy who doesn’t even speak Russian) ever had to back up his “dossier.” And the FBI knew it since at least January 2017, when it interviewed Danchenko.

Comey hid all this during his meetings, and after. Yet the public only learned it years later, once the Durham probe began.

The Comey meeting where he served up these nonsense stories prompted both House and Senate Intelligence committees to open probes. But that was hardly the only poisoned fruit.

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, counterintelligence officer Peter Strzok, analyst Brian Auten and Justice attorney Kevin Clinesmith pretended the Danchenko “intel” was credible to get the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court’s OK for wiretaps on Carter Page and dupe the Justice Department to keep granting approval for Trump campaign surveillance (which did not corroborate the wild claims). Again, all while they knew Danchenko had admitted it was baseless.

For years, the media lionized these people as saviors of the Republic, even after special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe turned up zero evidence in support of their claims.


ADVERTISEMENT
It was a purely political hit job from the start, by top members of the highest law- enforcement agency in the land, against a candidate-and-then-president they opposed. For all the justified anger at Trump over the Jan. 6 riot, this methodical and effective deception plot looks far more like an attempted coup.

Yet, other than losing their jobs, none of the plotters has paid any real price. Comey and Strzok both wrote best-sellers; McCabe even had his retirement benefits restored (after being fired for lying under oath) under the Biden administration.
___________

More at link

There are laws in place for most contingencies regarding shootings. It almost seems like they aren’t enforced on purpose.

https://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Documents/SummaryOfStateChildAccessPreventionLaws.pdf

I'd have to agree. Here's the evidence:

By the time of this post:
A. you had refused to apply any test to ascertain if the articles you read are biased; and
B. you ignored that accessing the laptop was politically motivated, and a crime]

This post, you refused to acknowledge that anyone can run tests/questions to ascertain if news is biased or not. Anyone of course can do such a thing, but you avoid acknowledging this / refuse to articulate your disagreement

This post quotes your belief the CIA was involved…but you avoided / refused to acknowledge or discuss the more logical reason for their involvement

This post, I talk about how testing questions are necessary to identifying bias …you disagreed, but avoided providing any reason for your disagreement (because there is only one way to identify bias – tests/questions that test)

here again, I clarify that testing bias is a process…but you avoid any discussion of same (because it would result in you having to admit your bias)

Here, I posted evidence of you bias to back up my claim you only criticise democrats (against you claim you don't hold sacred politicians). You avoid posting any comment & any evidence to the contrary (because it appears you can't do the latter)

You say “Completely unsubstantiated, baseless, biased error in logic”…but avoid any explanation of your own claim…and you’ve shown a history of avoiding explaining such claims of yours when challenged

Here, after I state you blame only the west for Russias invasion of Ukraine and ask if you reserve any criticism for Russia – you avoid stating whether you reserve any criticism for Russia

Here, you avoid any discussion of whether or not Russia’s current invasion is consistent with its recent history against Ukraine (obviously acknowledging Russias history against Ukraine would undermine your position on this matter)

It is hypocritical of you to complain about others bias when you refuse to discuss any tests for bias against the articles you post. It is hypocritical of you to complain about bad faith when you engage in the bad faith demonstrated above.

And again - I actually agree that government is trying to silence dissent. I find foreign policy an ugly, greed & power driven mess...but that doesn't stop me from identifying the bias and hypocrisy in your posts. Tests for bias go in all directions.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c21-sporting-guns-1.6673730

Canada takes antique guns and…hunting rifles? Ask yourself why.

Excerpt:

Confusion was on the agenda at a parliamentary committee last week after the Liberal government brought in last-minute amendments to its contentious gun control legislation.

The proposed changes to Bill C-21 were tacked on by Liberal MP Paul Chiang after it had passed second reading — drawing complaints from opposition MPs who accused the government of sneaking in changes that would expand the scope of prohibited weapons to include hunting rifles.

The amendment adds long guns to the banned list in four different ways. First, it has a clause that would effectively ban any rifle or shotgun that could potentially accept a magazine with more than five rounds, whether or not it actually has such a magazine. Critics say that includes many rifles designed for hunters, not soldiers.

The list also names guns that fall afoul of two rules nominally intended to ban powerful military weapons such as .50-calibre sniper rifles and mortars. One rule bans long guns that can generate more than 10,000 joules of energy, and the other bans guns with a muzzle wider than 20 millimetres. Critics say those rules would ban everything from antique blunderbusses to the Nine O'clock Gun in Vancouver's Stanley Park.

Gun bill amendment is 'nonsense,' say Ottawa-area hunters
Lastly, the amendment prohibits, by name, a large number of semi-automatic firearms that do not have detachable magazines and don't meet the definition of an "assault-style firearm," or infringe the other two rules, but which the government wants to ban anyway. They include a number of long guns in wide use by Canadian hunters.

CBC News asked to speak with Paul Chiang about the amendments but was told he was travelling and unavailable.

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino insisted that hunters are not being targeted.

"We have a plan to eradicate gun violence once and for all," Mendicino told the House of Commons on Friday. "We are not going to target those guns which are used conventionally for hunting."

Here's what we know and don't know about the changes.

Will the 'Plinkster' be banned?

That's not entirely clear.

"The Mossberg 702 .22 Plinkster long rifle. Will that hunting and target-shooting rifle be prohibited as a result of C-21 legislation?" Conservative MP Bob Zimmer asked at the parliamentary committee.

"No," replied Murray Smith, technical specialist with the government's Canadian Firearms Program. "The model 702 Plinkster is a conventional 22-calibre hunting rifle. It's unaffected by what's in C-21."

But in fact, one version of the Plinkster ("plinking" refers to shooting tin cans) is individually listed for prohibition in the amendments.

The exchange captured some of the confusion caused by the 478-page amendment.

What do the opposition parties have to say?

Conservative MP Raquel Dancho called it "an attack on hunters."


"The arbitrary criteria that the Liberal government has snuck into their legislation at the eleventh hour without democratic debate does not make these firearms any less of a hunting tool," she said.

While Conservatives have long opposed some Liberal gun control measures, this time the NDP also balked.

"The amendment came out of nowhere," said NDP MP Charlie Angus, whose riding covers a vast swath of northern Ontario that includes many remote First Nations. "This was a handgun bill. We suddenly saw this other legislation that has a lot of people who are legitimate gun owners worried. I think they overreached."
____________

More at link

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58198857.amp

Plymouth shooting: Who can own a firearm or shotgun in the UK?

So, some people can own firearms in Britain…

Excerpt:

There's been renewed focus on firearm laws in the UK after five people were killed by a registered gun owner.
Police say that Jake Davison, who shot himself after the attack in Plymouth, was a licensed firearms holder.
What sort of guns are people allowed to own?
There are two main categories - firearms and shotguns.
A firearm is defined in the Firearms Act 1968 as any weapon "from which a shot, bullet or other missile... can be discharged".


A shotgun is a type of gun intended to fire a large number of small pellets rather than a single lead bullet or slug.
It is more difficult to get a licence for firearms than for shotguns, because weapons that fire bullets must only be used for specific purposes in specific places. These would include deer stalking or sports shooting on an approved range.
In contrast, shotguns tend to be used in more general rural circumstances, such as by farmers who are protecting livestock from foxes - and police recognise that landowners need guns for pest control.
How many people have firearms?
According to the most recent figures for England and Wales, there are 156,033 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 617,171 weapons. There are shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns.
Statistics for Scotland show that 70,839 firearms were held by 25,983 certificate holders in 2020. 46,703 people in Scotland are certificated to hold shotguns - and 133,037 weapons are covered by that scheme.
Who is in charge of licences?
Gun laws in the UK are among the toughest in the world.
The police are in charge of issuing shotgun and firearm certificates in England, Scotland and Wales.
Local forces administer the system rather than a central body, because they will have local information that will inform their judgement.
A decision on whether someone gets a licence is the responsibility of the chief officer in that area.

Good luck with that.

It is more that I'm of the opinion that any person, myself included, who makes a claim, should be able to both explain their opinion & back it up.

I'm not particularly expecting that Lash will change her behaviour, nor surprised by her lack of response, such being consistent with her previous behaviour.

I'm also of the opinion that the Western world is moving in a direction that has not only signficantly eroded the foundations of what makes a democratic society, but is becoming increasingly hazardous to democracy. So I have a lot of time for the intentions of this thread - even while I think that the same skewed narrative driving 'rising fascism', is doing such on both sides of the divide.

Ie. the 'other side' (who engage in chronically skewed perspectives) is no better than the side in power, and if they got in power, would be just as bad (probably worse)

Democracy only works when there is a sufficient number of fair minded people (particularly when they are also intrested in the truth of a matter / are interested in open, informed & objective debate / etc)

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/3648029-poles-stand-for-longterm-support-of-ukraine-germans-divided.html

The majority of Polish citizens (82%) are in favor of long-term political and military support for Ukraine by NATO and EU member states in light of Russian armed aggression, while such support among Germans stands at only 42%.

https://twitter.com/timnissen1/status/1612038984955199491?s=46&t=VYAI1zFxwA5aQUJsN9wQ5g

Mike Lee asked why only Lefties display the Ukrainian flag.
______________

Leftists don't display the Ukrainian flag. The Ukrainian flag is displayed by neoliberal, neoconservative Democrats--in other words Republicans.

From the data it's apparent firearm owners in the UK own about four firearms each. One is never enough to cure paranoia.
There are a lot more shotguns needed in the UK to deter foxes. In the USA, the NRA will say we must have semi-automatic long guns because our foxes are so much tougher the puny British foxes.

Joe(Bang)Nation

The police have to approve all firearms licences.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter

In order, the Twitter Files threads:

Twitter Files Part 1: December 2, 2022, by @mtaibbi
TWITTER AND THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY
Recounting the internal drama at Twitter surrounding the decision to block access to a New York Post exposé on Hunter Biden in October, 2020.
Key revelations: Twitter blocked the story on the basis of its “hacked materials” policy, but executives internally knew the decision was problematic. “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” is how comms official Brandon Borrman put it. Also: when a Twitter contractor polls members of Congress about the decision, they hear Democratic members want more moderation, not less, and “the First Amendment isn’t absolute.”

1a. Twitter Files Supplemental, December 6, 2022, by @mtaibbi
THE “EXITING” OF TWITTER DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL JIM BAKER
A second round of Twitter Files releases was delayed, as new addition Bari Weiss discovers former FBI General Counsel and Twitter Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker was reviewing the first batches of Twitter Files documents, whose delivery to reporters had slowed.

Twitter Files Part 2, by @BariWeiss, December 8, 2022
TWITTER’S SECRET BLACKLISTS
Bari Weiss gives a long-awaited answer to the question, “Was Twitter shadow-banning people?” It did, only the company calls it “visibility filtering.” Twitter also had a separate, higher council called SIP-PES that decided cases for high-visibility, controversial accounts.
Key revelations: Twitter had a huge toolbox for controlling the visibility of any user, including a “Search Blacklist” (for Dan Bongino), a “Trends Blacklist” for Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and a “Do Not Amplify” setting for conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Weiss quotes a Twitter employee: “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool.” With help from @abigailshrier, @shellenbergermd, @nelliebowles, and @isaacgrafstein.

Twitter Files, Part 3, by @mtaibbi, December 9, 2022
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, October 2020 - January 6th, 2021
First in a three-part series looking at how Twitter came to the decision to suspend Donald Trump. The idea behind the series is to show how all of Twitter’s “visibility filtering” tools were on display and deployed after January 6th, 2021. Key Revelations: Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth not only met regularly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, but with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Also, Twitter was aggressively applying “visibility filtering” tools to Trump well before the election.

Twitter Files Part 4, by @ShellenbergerMD, December 10, 2022
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, January 7th, 2021
This thread by Michael Shellenberger looks at the key day after the J6 riots and before Trump would ultimately be banned from Twitter on January 8th, showing how Twitter internally reconfigured its rules to make a Trump ban fit their policies.
Key revelations: at least one Twitter employee worried about a “slippery slope” in which “an online platform CEO with a global presence… can gatekeep speech for the entire world,” only to be shot down. Also, chief censor Roth argues for a ban on congressman Matt Gaetz even though it “doesn’t quite fit anywhere (duh),” and Twitter changed its “public interest policy” to clear a path for Trump’s removal.

Twitter Files Part 5, by @BariWeiss, December 11, 2022
THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, January 8th, 2021
As angry as many inside Twitter were with Donald Trump after the January 6th Capitol riots, staffers struggled to suspend his account, saying things like, “I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement.” As documented by Weiss, they found a way to pull the trigger anyway.
Key revelations: there were dissenters in the company (“Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation”), but are overruled by senior executives like Vijaya Gadde and Roth, who noted many on Twitter’s staff were citing the “Banality of Evil,” and comparing those who favored sticking to a strict legalistic interpretation of Twitter’s rules — i.e. keep Trump, who had “no violation” — to “Nazis following orders.”

Twitter Files Part 6, by @mtaibbi, December 16, 2022
TWITTER, THE FBI SUBSIDIARY
Twitter’s contact with the FBI was “constant and pervasive,” as FBI personnel, mainly in the San Francisco field office, regularly sent lists of “reports” to Twitter, often about Americans with low follower counts making joke tweets. Tweeters on both the left and the right were affected.
Key revelations: A senior Twitter executive reports, “FBI was adamant no impediments to sharing” classified information exist. Twitter also agreed to “bounce” content on the recommendations of a wide array of governmental and quasi-governmental actors, from the FBI to the Homeland Security agency CISA to Stanford’s Election Integrity Project to state governments. The company one day received so many moderation requests from the FBI, an executive congratulated staffers at the end for completing the “monumental undertaking.”

Twitter Files Part 7, by @ShellenbergerMD, December 19, 2022
THE FBI AND HUNTER BIDEN’S LAPTOP
The Twitter Files story increases its focus on the company’s relationship to federal law enforcement and intelligence, and shows intense communication between the FBI and Twitter just before the release of the Post’s Hunter Biden story.
Key Revelations: San Francisco agent Elvis Chan “sends 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth, through Teleporter, a one-way communications channel from the FBI to Twitter,” the evening before the release of the Post story. Also, Baker in an email explains Twitter was compensated for “processing requests” by the FBI, saying “I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!”
The ten teleporter documents referred to in Mike Shellenberger’s FBI thread.

Twitter Files Part 8, by @lhfang, December 20, 2022
HOW TWITTER QUIETLY AIDED THE PENTAGON’S COVERT ONLINE PSYOP CAMPAIGN
Lee Fang takes a fascinating detour, looking at how Twitter for years approved and supported Pentagon-backed covert operations. Noting the company explicitly testified to Congress that it didn’t allow such behavior, the platform nonetheless was a clear partner in state-backed programs involving fake accounts.
Key revelations: after the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) sent over a list of 52 Arab-language accounts “we use to amplify certain messages,” Twitter agreed to “whitelist” them. Ultimately the program would be outed in the Washington Post in 2022 — two years after Twitter and other platforms stopped assisting — but contrary to what came out in those reports, Twitter knew about and/or assisted in these programs for at least three years, from 2017-2020.
Lee wrote a companion piece for the Intercept here:

Twitter Files Part 9, by @mtaibbi, December 24th, 2022
TWITTER AND “OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES”
The Christmas Eve thread (I should have waited a few days to publish!) further details how the channels of communication between the federal government and Twitter operated, and reveals that Twitter directly or indirectly received lists of flagged content from “Other Government Agencies,” i.e. the CIA.
Key revelations: CIA officials attended at least one conference with Twitter in the summer of 2020, and companies like Twitter and Facebook received “OGA briefings,” at their regular “industry” meetings held in conjunction with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI and the “Foreign Influence Task Force” met regularly “not just with Twitter, but with Yahoo!, Twitch, Cloudfare, LinkedIn, even Wikimedia.”

Twitter Files Part 10, by @DavidZweig, December 28, 2022
HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE
David Zweig drills down into how Twitter throttled down information about COVID that was true but perhaps inconvenient for public officials, “discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed.”
Key Revelations: Zweig found memos from Twitter personnel who’d liaised with Biden administration officials who were “very angry” that Twitter had not deplatformed more accounts. White House officials for instance wanted attention on reporter Alex Berenson. Zweig also found “countless” instances of Twitter banning or labeling “misleading” accounts that were true or merely controversial. A Rhode Island physician named Andrew Bostom, for instance, was suspended for, among other things, referring to the results of a peer-reviewed study on mRNA vaccines.
and

Twitter Files Parts 11 and 12, by @mtaibbi, January 3, 2023
HOW TWITTER LET THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN
and
TWITTER AND THE FBI “BELLY BUTTON”
These two threads focus respectively on the second half of 2017, and a period stretching roughly from summer of 2020 through the present. The first describes how Twitter fell under pressure from Congress and the media to produce “material” showing a conspiracy of Russian accounts on their platform, and the second shows how Twitter tried to resist fulfilling moderation requests for the State Department, but ultimately agreed to let State and other agencies send requests through the FBI, which agent Chan calls “the belly button of the USG.” Revelations: at the close of 2017, Twitter makes a key internal decision. Outwardly, the company would claim independence and promise that content would only be removed at “our sole discretion.” The internal guidance says, in writing, that Twitter will remove accounts “identified by the U.S. intelligence community” as “identified by the U.S.. intelligence community as a state-sponsored entity conducting cyber-operations.”
The second thread shows how Twitter took in requests from everyone — Treasury, HHS, NSA, FBI, DHS, etc. — and also received personal requests from politicians like Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, who asked to have journalist Paul Sperry suspended.
_____________

Waiting for explosive investigations and long-overdue accountability. Also, investigations into the same government censorship and control of Google, Facebook, Instagram, lesser social media platforms, and THE NEWS MEDIA.

The US still torturing Zimbabwe, with a history lesson

https://twitter.com/yisiping/status/1605369707921563650?s=46&t=x2IE8BfVj84sw854FBLhmw

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/wsj-reporter-detained-outside-phoenix-bank/

New trend: Law enforcement used by corporations to hide their corruption

Wall Street Journal reporter Dion Rabouin was detained on alleged trespassing charges while reporting outside of a bank in Phoenix, Arizona, on Nov. 23, 2022.

ABC15 Arizona reported that Rabouin, who’s based in New York, had traveled to Arizona to visit family during the Thanksgiving holiday. He told the outlet he went to a Chase branch in north Phoenix to interview customers for an ongoing story about savings accounts.

Rabouin, who declined to comment further, said he was standing on a sidewalk outside the building when a pair of employees asked him what he was doing. According to a police report about the incident, bank employees called the Phoenix Police Department to report a suspicious person at approximately 2:45 p.m. and an officer arrived 20 minutes later. The report claims Rabouin told the employees he was a reporter conducting interviews and refused to leave, and that when the officer asked Rabouin to produce his identification, he refused.

Rabouin refuted that account in an interview with ABC15. The reporter said that he had told the branch employees that he was there working on a story and at no time did the bank ask him to leave. When the officer arrived at the scene, he identified himself as a reporter for the Journal.

When the officer told him he was trespassing, Rabouin said that he was unaware it was private property and attempted to leave, but was physically blocked from doing so.

Rabouin told ABC15 the officer started grabbing his arms and when he drew back, the officer said, “This could get bad for you if you don’t comply and don’t do what I say.”

The reporter was then placed in handcuffs. According to ABC15, a bystander saw the situation unfolding and began recording the detainment on her cell phone. The station aired the footage she captured.

“I heard him say he was going to leave,” the woman says in the recording. “This is ridiculous. He’s a reporter.”

In the footage, the officer led Rabouin to his police car and attempted to place him in the back, but the reporter refused to place his feet inside to allow the officer to close the door. The two talked for several minutes until additional officers arrived, and approximately 15 minutes after he was initially detained, Rabouin was released.

According to the police report, the officer informed Rabouin that he was “officially trespassed from the property” and that if he returned he would be arrested and charged.

Rabouin told ABC15 that he filed an internal complaint with the Phoenix Police Department in the days that followed. About a week later, he received a call notifying him that it had reviewed the incident and found no wrongdoing.

In a letter shared with the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker by the Journal, Editor-in-Chief Matt Murray called on Chief of Police Michael Sullivan in early December to conduct an internal review.

“I am appalled and concerned that officers at your department would attempt to interfere with Mr. Rabouin’s constitutional right to engage in journalism and purport to limit anyone’s presence in a public location,” Murray wrote. “The Journal and Mr. Rabouin are still determining what further action to take in response to his detention by your officers.”

When reached for comment by the Tracker via email in January 2023, PhxPD spokesperson Sgt. Melissa Soliz acknowledged the letter and said the department had opened an investigation.

“This letter was shared with our Professional Standard Bureau for review and they are conducting an administrative investigation. Once the administrative investigation is complete, it will be made available as part of a public records request,” Soliz said.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a founding partner of the Tracker, condemned Rabouin’s detainment and echoed calls for an internal investigation to ensure that no other journalists are hampered or harassed by police in the course of their work.

“Detaining and handcuffing a journalist — who was gathering news in a public place — is a flagrant violation of his First Amendment rights,” said CPJ U.S. and Canada Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen.

The police department is facing ongoing scrutiny from the Department of Justice, which announced in August 2021 that it would be assessing, among other things, whether PhxPD officers retaliate against people engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment or carry out discriminatory policing.

Rabouin told ABC15 that while he as a journalist does not want to be the story, it’s important to share his experience.

“This is a department that’s under DOJ investigation for excessive force, under investigation for the way they operate and handle business, and despite that, they continue to operate this way,” Rabouin said.

The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker catalogues press freedom violations in the United States. Email tips to [email protected].

Chris Hedges evaluates the current situation and makes recommendations.
https://twitter.com/capesocialist/status/1606390613133430799?s=46&t=x2IE8BfVj84sw854FBLhmw

The video on that link is by Kei Pritsker. His party's (Party for Socialism and Liberation [PSL]) goal is to lead a revolution paving the way towards socialism, under which a "new government of working people" would be formed. Interestingly, the PSL blames the reforms initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev for the dissolution of the Soviet Union.