Does Russia have us outgunned? Part 5

Does Russia have us outgunned? Part 5

translation by Don Hank

Fighter-bomber “Sukhoy” Su-34

http://inosmi.ru/military/20170302/238812175.html

2017, 3-18 Does Russia pic 1

The Su-34 is a bomber that the Russian Air Force has used, for example, in Syria.

© RIA Novosti, Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation | Go to the photobank

Departure of the first group of aerospace aircraft from the airbase Khmeimim to the points of permanent deployment in the territory of Russia

The aircraft is used primarily to destroy targets on the ground.

It carries a crew of two, and has a flight range of 4,500 km. The maximum air speed at sea level is1,400 km per hour. At an altitude of 11 thousand kilometers, the aircraft can accelerate to 1,900 km per hour. The maximum flight altitude is 17,000 m, and the maximum takeoff weight is 44.4 tonnes. [tonnes means metric tons—Don]

The aircraft’s armament consists of air-to-air missiles, guided missiles to destroy ground targets, medium-range missiles, guided and unguided bombs.

According to Jorgen Elving, a number of Su-34 planes are located in the Baltic region.

“The military unit there, according to available information, has 24 Su-34 planes. It is reported that by 2020, from 150 to 220 Su-34s will be supplied to the Russian air force and will replace the Su-24. Su-34s have been used in Syria,” says Jorgen Elving.

According to Jane’s Defense Weekly, Russia has at least eight Su-34 planes in Syria.

Below we will discuss one of the most modern landing assault ships in Russia.

Landing ships

Russia has several large landing ships of the 775 Minsk Class, ie, the Kaliningrad, the Korolev and the Alexander Shabalin.

© RIA Novosti, Igor Zarembo | Go to the photobank

The large landing ship (LLS) Kaliningrad in the military harbor of Baltiysk

The ships are armed with 57 mm artillery guns, one 76.2 mm battery and several antiaircraft missile units, two of which are 30 mm caliber.

A battalion of marines with combat vehicles can be loaded on the ship.

“These ships are quite old, but at the moment we are working on one new landing ship, the Ivan Gren, is under development, is now being tested and will be put into service by the Russian Navy later this year.” Initially, six such ships were to be built, but now it has been decided to hold it at only two, “- said Jorgen Elving.

Next is a Soviet-era submarine, which will soon be replaced by more submarines.

Non-nuclear submarines of the “Kilo” class

The crew of the Soviet “Kilo” class subs consists of 57 sailors and officers. The sub has a surface speed of 10 knots and  subbmerged speed of 17 knots. On average, the submarine can dive to 240 meters. “Kilo” class subs can remain submerged for up to 45 days. Armament consists of six torpedo tubes, and up to 18 torpedoes or 24 mines can be taken on board.

Russia has two non-nuclear submarines of the Kilo class in the Baltic Sea – Vyborg and Dmitrov. The latter is currently docked, according to Jorgen Elving.

Now we come to the submarine used in the Barents Sea.

The “Borey” class – Russia’s new supersubs

2917, 3-18 pic 2

The “Borey” is a nuclear submarine intended to replace the famous submarine of the Akula design, the largest ever created. The “Borey” is much smaller than its predecessor, but it is more difficult to detect, and it is much more maneuverable. Submerged, this submarine can travel at a speed of 30 knots, while its surface speed is 15 knots. The Borey has an OK-650 nuclear reactor, the same type used in Soviet submarines since the early 1980s. It carries a crew of 107 sailors and officers, and can dive to about 450 meters.

© RIA Novosti, Ildus Gilyazutdinov | Go to the photobank

The submarine “Vladimir Monomakh” has arrived at its permanent base on Kamchatka

The sub, 170 meters in length, is equipped with ballistic missiles that can carry both tactical and strategic nuclear warheads. It is equipped with 12-meter missiles of the RSM-56 Bulava type. Reportedly, problems were encountered during the tests with the “Bulava.” For example, they exploded in the water when fired in the submerged position. The theoretical range of the missiles is 8,000 km, and the accuracy radius is 350 meters.

In addition, the “Borey” class is equipped with Vyuga (blizzard) missiles, which protect it from enemy submarines and surface ships. They can be loaded with a non-atomic explosive or carry small tactical nuclear warheads. In addition, the “Borey” has many smart torpedoes.

Since the submarine uses an atomic engine, its service time is unlimited, which theoretically means that the Borey can stay on the job for many years.

The Russian fleet ordered ten submarines of the Borey class. Three of these are currently in service.

Due to its size, the Borey is primarily adapted to work in the open sea and is not intended for the Baltic region, where it could run aground because of the relatively shallow depth.

Olle Ohlsén Pettersson

How to learn a foreign language

by Don Hank

There are lots of forums and sites for discussion of foreign languages. My favorite is the professional translator site proz.com. But there are not many sites that discuss language learning in general. Nonetheless, there are tricks that can save you time and teach you a new language rather quickly.

Best methods for learning a new language on your own

First, I recommend buying the Rosetta Stone program for the language of your choice.

RS has most of the world’s languages in its inventory although as a rule of thumb, if the language has a small number of speakers, you will not find it. Regrettably, therefore, Finnish and Hungarian are not included in their list of about 30 languages.

I recommend you acquire both Rosetta Stone (RS) plus a good grammar for the language of your choice. Rosetta Stone makes learning interesting by using photos of people in various language situations. It is therefore a very quick way to gain an inroad into the language.

But RS has its limitations, which its developers apparently do not, or refuse to, own up to. Which is why they do not include explanations, including grammar sections, in their course.

This is because the RS method is based on what we called the audio-lingual method back when I taught French and German in high school. This method attempts to teach you by the same method you learned your native language as a small child. But the developers of the method forgot at least three things:

1—You are no longer a small child.

2—But even if you were, a child learns by hearing hundreds of sentences and phrases every day for years. Virtually every sentence or phrase, including single words, is an example of a pattern, ie, a grammatical or idiomatic pattern. But a student in a language class will not get to hear even a fraction of that number of patterns during his language program. In order for the child to learn a grammatical pattern, for example, he or she must hear snatches or whole sentences of standard speech almost around the clock. Eventually, after hearing hundreds of instances of the pattern in question, he can start speaking more or less correctly, both grammatically and idiomatically correctly. But a 3-level Rosetta Stone course is simply too limited for the learner to deduce the main rules of grammar and other speech patterns needed to speak correctly. In order to learn the rules of grammar and other recurring patterns of the language, he would need many times more examples than any course can afford him.

3—A child learns language much more easily than the average adult because he/she does not generally suffer from a common malady of adult learners, ie, what we call “interference.” Interference is the tendency to confuse the speech patterns of his native language with those of the new language he is trying to learn. Just a simple example: In French, if you want to say “I like beer,” you need to use the definite article, roughly equivalent to our word “the.” Hence, “I like beer” is said in French: “J’aime la bière,” which if we rendered it literally, ie, word for word, would be: “I like the beer” in English, but it would not mean that. It would mean to a native French speaker, “I like beer.” The new learner would likely have a tendency to say “J’aime bière,” which would grate on the ears of any native speaker of French. His tendency to use this incorrect pattern comes from his native English interfering with the French. This is only one of myriads of examples of the kind of interference encountered by all learners of foreign languages.

Therefore, as you have gathered from the above, Rosetta Stone courses are simply too short to get a complete knowledge of the language, and the course comes free of any explanation of what the speakers that you hear as you take the course are saying. For example, a series of words will be heard but the photos do not always suggest the individual meanings of these words. This is frustrating to the new learner. And worse, when the sentences become more abstract, the photos can only provide a rough idea of the exact meaning.

But in the case of Rosetta Stone, thankfully, there is a solution in most cases, and that is, to go to this web site:

https://secure.rosettastone.com/us_assets/documentation/English_(American)_1_Course_Content.pdf

and print out the unit or level of whatever language you are studying.

Caveat: in a few cases, the RS English course does not match up 100% with the corresponding foreign language text. However, this is rare. I have used RS for Arabic and Korean and have encountered only a few differences in the text.

You can use RS for a month or two without much need for a grammar text. However, once you get into the higher levels you will want to know why the speakers are saying what they say. Grammar is the key to this. Get yourself a decent grammar and conversation book to supplement your course.

I urge readers who are learning or have learned foreign languages, to post in the forum at the bottom of this article.

There is a lot to talk about.

Part 2 will discuss learning more-complex sentences and learning to read serious articles, eg, from online newspapers.

I have posted this article in two versions, one at this part of the site and one at the “pages” section. If you look at the top of each article, you will see a box with a black background and white print. In the second line down you will see the words Foreign Language. You can click on that and bring this article and subsequent ones up at any time. You can also bookmark it. You may want to come back often to the forum section and post your remarks or questions about languages that you or your friends or children are learning.

Part 3. Does Russia have us outgunned?

“Does Russia have us outgunned?” Part 3

New missiles, airplanes and troops

http://inosmi.ru/military/20170302/238812175.html 

2017, 3-16 russian troops on parade

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the military sphere was subjected to considerable budget cuts. The ships and submarines rusted in the ports, and the planes did not take off. But with the arrival of Vladimir Putin, the army again began to receive funds for new weapons and large-scale exercises.

This year, Russia’s strategic missile forces will receive 41 new ballistic missiles. At the same time, the air force will have 170 new aircraft, the army will have 905 tanks and combat vehicles, and the fleet will receive 17 new ships. This was reported by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.

During 2017, three new units of the Russian strategic nuclear forces will also receive new ballistic missiles, Shoigu said. Each unit will operate with up to 10 missiles.

The growing number of new weapons has led to the need to hire new personnel. Shoigu said that the Air Force now needs 1,300 new pilots and they will be added in 2017.

The Russian military is operating in Syria on the side of the regime, and the Russian side has used the conflict to test new weapons under stress conditions.

Thanks to he Russian Armed Forces modernization project, the country’s million-man military potential now approximates the Western potential, primarily with regard to standard types of weapons, communication technologies and drone technologies.

Shoigu reports that the armed forces now have two thousand drones, while in 2011 there were only 180. He also mentioned that Russia has deployed radar systems to monitor its border along its entire length.

The minister said that the military will deploy three new infantry divisions in the west, south-west and east of the country (the Pacific Ocean). The Western Division will be active near Sweden. The situation will be more tense from a geopolitical standpoint with Russia’s deployment of troops in the Pacific region. The Kuril Islands have been a contentious issue since the Second World War: both Russia and Japan claim these territories.

The deployment there of the Russian infantry division will not exactly reduce the tension. Earlier, the Russians deployed anti-ship missiles there to protect the coast.

Next on our list is an invisible submarine in the Baltic Sea.

Translated by Don Hank

RUSSIAN ECONOMY ADVANCES – DESPITE SANCTIONS AND SABOTAGE

By Rodney Atkinson on Mar 16, 2017 11:58 am

Despite western sanctions, fake news about the Russian economy and attempts to sabotage Russian fund-raising, Russian capitalism goes from strength to strength. Russia is now no more corrupt than the USA! The Eurozone meanwhile suffers a collapse in its share of world trade, external and internal mass migrations, mass unemployment and high debt. The UK…
Read in browser »

Putin addresses new ambassadors

I just heard from my Scientologist friend about my article on banned psoelytizing in Russia. He sent me these links. I had said I could not find mention of God in the site on Scientology. I did not intend to mislead anyone. The first of these links does indeed discuss God.

Our thanks to this friend, who wishes not to be named.

Don
Specifically about God
http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-beliefs/what-is-the-concept-of-god-in-scientology.html

Scientology religion
http://www.scientologyreligion.org/

Scholarly recognitions
http://www.scientologyreligion.org/religious-recognitions/

 

The latest fake story from US intel

The new fake news story from US intel

 

Don Hank

The latest msm reports about the supposed Russian hacking are all focused on a side issue and their aim is to deceive you through a subtle ruse.

A prime example is the report of a new statement by the sneaky intel director, who sounds as if he is on Trump’s side but if you read the below-linked article, you see he is still pretending the Russians have been proven to be the hackers responsible for the DNC email leaks. This news of the slightly modified statement is being reported enthusiastically by naive conservatives who fail to notice that the main part of the fake narrative is still in place, namely, the fake story that the Russians were proven to have done the hacking. I showed yesterday, based on the flimsy justifications they gave for their ant-Russian narrative, that they absolutely have no evidence against Russia. Their stated “evidence” reflects the exact same tactic used by a UK “court” (which was not really a court of law) that did an investigation of Litvinienko’s death and after a lengthy probe, finally issued the verdict that Litvienienko was “probably” murdered by Putin. Guess what? There is no such thing as a verdict of “probably” in the jurisprudence of any country in the world! They might as well have simply said “we really really want to believe it was Putin because we hate his guts since he refuses to bow to the Washington hegemon.”

The reporters and the politicians they quote are all still speaking as if the Russians definitely did the hack but are conceding only a minor point — ie, that they may not have affected the election. Yet the allegation that the Russians did it is not proven, not even close. The most likely version is that the hack was an inside job while the entire msm is pushing the story that it was the Russians.

But now, they are focusing on whether the hacking affected the elections, and the new fake story will be that, well, yes, the Russians did it and this is proven (it’s not, of course, as I have shown) but we can’t prove that it affected the elections or that the Russians wanted to affect the elections. This is a more sneaky way of lying to the public and if the public falls for it, the elites win.

This new fake story makes the Establishment seem fair even though in reality they are still the same old deceivers, perpetrating a fraud for which they should be indicted in a court of law.

So why are they doing this? Because their main objective is no longer to un-elect Trump (they’d like to but can’t) but rather to discredit the Russians so that Trump cannot fully implement his plan to establish good relations with them. They will falsely claim that Putin has deceived a good-hearted but naive Trump.

This way the Neocons and Neo-liberals think they can continue to smear Putin and Assad and continue with their plans to destroy Syria and the rest of the Middle East, including the few Christians who are left. Because they expect the public to buy the story that Russia did do the hacking but that the hacking did not necessarily affect the election.

The only way this despicable plan can be thwarted is for the public not to buy this nonsense.

You can help by forwarding this article, including my article proving that the accusers do not have a case against Russia: http://laiglesforum.com/analysis-shows-us-intel-agencies-inventing/4034.htm

Meanwhile, while the intel agencies and their partners in the DNC have no evidence at all to back up their fairy-tale about Russian hackers, according to the WSJ, the state of Georgia has solid evidence – namely, a US government IP address left at the hack site — that does prove the US government hacked their voter data base. Now that’s evidence. And that is the MO of our current government.

Analysis shows US intel agencies invented “Russian” hack story

Analysis show US intel agencies invented “Russian” hacking story

Don Hank

Please forward a link to this article far and wide. The DNC is using the phony story debunked below to influence the electoral college. They could steal the election and plunge us into another 4 years of Obama on steroids.

Countless bytes have been expended trying to show why the story about Russians hacking the DNC is false. However, most omit the most relevant details and fail to analyze the statements by these agencies, which simply do not bear a moment’s scrutiny.

USA Today says Hillary was right about 17 agencies swearing on a stack of Korans that the Russians are responsible for the hacking of the DNC’s emails.

QUOTE:

On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

“The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there [where is his evidence? Don Hank]. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

So there you have it. Now why would 17 Obama-loyal agencies lie?

Perhaps because deceit is what they are being paid for. They’re spies, silly.

Here is what ZeroHedge said:

 

QUOTE:

The “17 agencies that actually confirmed” it was the Russians? Well it turns out that was one guy, namely DCI James Clapper: the head of US intelligence. The same man who committed perjury before congress after his NSA surveillance program was leaked [Hank’s emphasis].  He issued a statement that included the phrase:

We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

The very next sentence is also of interest:

Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.

 

So these “17 agencies have 2 unrelated sets of justifications for their conclusions, namely:

methods and motivations, as mentioned in the USA Today quote, and

scope and sensitivity as mentioned in the ZeroHedge quote.

For those who haven’t noticed that this has all the earmarks of statements made by professional liars who think we’re high school dropouts, let’s analyze these “justifications.”

1–methods: Since Wikileaks is responsible for divulging the leaks, only they could possibly be in a position to know the methods used to do the hacks. Further, the agency does not tell us what the methods were. So this is simply another way of saying “we are making this up as we go.”

2–motivations: This is irrelevant because the Russians are by no means the only group that might be highly motivated to hack DNC emails. Half of US voters and hundreds of groups in the US and elsewhere would be so motivated, so there is no selection factor here that would point specifically to the Russians.

3–scope of the [hacking] efforts: There was a vast cache of emails, it is true. However, these all could have come from a single server or a very small number of servers. Once a hack is successful, one can tap into a large trove of  information with very little effort. So “scope” is not relevant. Any hacker anywhere could have done this. Wikileaks is known for the vast scope of its efforts. In fact, since there is no real proof of Russian involvement in hacks, there is no way anyone could know the scope of  typical Russian hacking efforts in order to make a comparison.

4–sensitivity of the [hacking] efforts: What sensitivity? This is sufficiently vague that no one can really know what is meant. Is Clapper referring to the fact that the hacked information is sensitive? If so, then this too is totally irrelevant because almost all hackers are seeking sensitive information, not just the Russians.

But all of this smoke screen is intended to cover the only relevant detail, namely, the fact that the source of this information is irrelevant and does not change the two relevant facts:

The DNC is not denying that the hacks are real and accurate. This is absolutely amazing because it is the most relevant fact for voters and is being obfuscated by the imaginary Russian involvement.

The hacked information is damning to the Clintons and would, of course, influence anyone to reconsider voting for Hillary because, based on this information, she clearly is a shady character who belongs in the Big House and not in the White House.

Please disseminate this. The DNC is using the phony “evidence described above to influence the electorate college in an effort to steal the vote.

PS: Now there is a new story and all the major msm outlets, including Fox News (eg, Tucker Carlson), are carrying it: The new, completely fake, story is that the Russian hack story is proven (when the above analysis shows it is not) but the real issue is whether or not the hacked information affected the election. Why are they floating this new story? Because they know it is too late to un-elect Trump, but they think they can convince the public that the Russians are not worthy to be our allies. This is intended to derail Trump’s plans to make friends with the Russians and hence, peace in the Middle East.

It will only work it YOU the public buy the fake story.

Another rah rah moment in American history

Trump victory: another rah rah moment

by Don Hank

I wonder if you will recall that the GW Bush wars were started by rah rah talk, as when Dubbya stood at ground zero and, with his arms draped around two NY firemen, proclaimed “the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us.”

So ask yourself: Did “the people who knocked down these buildings” really hear from us? Now every American who experienced that moment lived through the wars that followed. But remember that the “people who knocked down these buildings” were mostly Saudis because it was they who founded and funded – together with the US Deep State – Al-Qaeda. But instead of declaring war on the Saudis, our real enemy, we attacked the enemies of our enemy, the Taliban (which had around that time plotted to oust the Saudi royals) and Saddam, who ran a secular type government with little or no emphasis on Shariah and even had a Christian in his cabinet. The Saudis hate secular leaders and the US helps them eliminate them. (Here is a clue as to why we are so obliging to them: http://laiglesforum.com/how-the-petrodollar-perpetuates-islamic-terror-2/3315.htm).

Thus, absurdly, Dubbya was aiding and abetting the “people who knocked down these buildings” and killed up to 3000 Americans.  And he and his Neocon pals had to know that the Christians and other large groups would leave Iraq in droves if we “won,” and that chaos would ensue, forcing the US to occupy.

And how about that Afghanistan? What a great victory! Rah rah. Not. US and allied troops are still there and the carnage is heart-wrenching – for all but the arms industry and its financiers.

Thus we can state with confidence that, facing the TV cameras at ground zero that day, George W. Bush was thumbing his nose at a bleeding America. (This fits in perfectly with Bush’s cover-up of the Saudi role in 9-11 as reported subsequently by the Washington Post ).

Now with that deception in mind, you will note the unbridled euphoria over the Trump election. Rah rah. Millions of Americans were relieved that we would now have peace.

And in fact, we might.

But we might not either.

Yes, Donald Trump had promised he would cooperate with Russia. The prospect of peace that this signaled is one important reason many Democrats crossed over to vote for him, for example.

But what many of us have forgotten is the eerily similar rah rah moments of the Bush years and what rah rah moments usually mean in our great country. The greatness often lies solely in the rah rah, not in the situation on the ground, in the aftermath, our bleeding hearts and pocket books.

Some exceptionally alert observers are already pointing out that Trump has picked two rank Neocons for his cabinet, who have both warned about “Russian aggression” in Ukraine, despite the fact that it was the US and Europe who started and supported the bloody coup in Kiev for the obvious purpose of goading Russia into a defensive action that could be spun by our media into “aggression.”

Trump’s presumptive defense secretary has warned that the Russian “aggression” in Ukraine is “worse than we think.” This is a lie, as you know if you follow the web site that provides regular sitreps on the conflict in E. Ukraine. Bookmark this site and go there at least once a week. If enough Americans did, our “leaders” would not dare arm the Kiev fascists. Even, if you followed the OSCE’s regular Ukraine reports, you would also know the aggressor is Kiev’s troops (many of which are fascists, eg, the Azov Battalion) that the US government supports.

But Mattis is not the only one beating the war drums against the country Trump promised to “cooperate with.” Mike Pompeo, Trump’s pick for CIA director, recently returned from a trip to Kiev, and after fruitful discussions with the Neo-Nazis there, says that “Putin’s aim is to take over Ukraine” (Mike would have fit in nicely in a Clinton cabinet) , implying that Russia wants to attack Ukraine militarily. If that were true, Putin would have done the job a long time ago before NATO had deployed troops all over Eastern Europe, including 30,000 at the Russian borders (reminding Russians of Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa that destroyed much of Russia and killed millions of Russians). No one is saying that a Ukraine thoroughly disgruntled with US and EU lies, like the false promise to let the country join the EU, might not voluntarily ally itself with Russia. It would be hard to paint that as Russian aggression, but recent anti-Russian (hence racist) drivel from the Western msm shows that no lie is too big for the warmongering elites to manage.

The latest E. Ukraine (Novorossia is the real name) sitrep shows that the Neo-Fascist sympathizers the US government supports in Kiev are now recruiting Lumpenproletariat, common thugs, with promises of free land, stolen from Russian speakers.

Now we are at another crossroads, another rah rah moment in American history. The euphoria over the Trump victory is great. Many are willing to go along with anything this leader wants. Like Bush, the Evangelicals have anointed him as God’s servant. The chessboard is arrayed exactly as before.

The question is: will you forget the lessons that Dubbya taught us and say to yourself: this time is different and the rah rah heralds a better world? Or will you recognize the rah rah moment for what it is: a time for you to say “not this time!”?

Postscript:

Writing for a news and opinion site is an endless job, as it should and must be. Since this was written, Trump is reportedly eyeing shifty arch-Neocon Mitt Romney for the position of Secretary of State.

So what’s wrong with that you ask? Here is a video featuring Mitt saying “Russia is our worst geopolitical foe” who always “lines up with the world’s worst actors”, among whom he counts Assad, the most pro-Christian leader in the Middle East, who is fighting for  his country’s life against Al-Qaeda and ISIS, groups that are armed and trained by our “ally” Saudi Arabia.

Trump has said he will cooperate with the same Putin that Romney has spent much of his career smearing.

 

Those charismatic warmongers

Those charismatic warmongers

 

by Don Hank

There are a number of very charismatic and famous people out there who are awfully good at convincing people of their way of thinking. GW Bush was one. Didn’t ya just love him and his little Texas twang?
Shucks yeah!

And you all know Glenn Beck. Great conservative, right? Charismatic, dynamic speaker, hates big government and taxes on the rich. He’s campaigning for Hillary. That is, he is adamantly against Trump — same thing.

Then there is Trevor Loudon, a baker from New Zealand. The timbre of Trevor’s voice and his down-under accent remind one of Crocodile Dundee. Charming man. He and Cliff Kincaid – less charming to be sure — have a little clique going. They claim to be conservative and have latched on to conservative issues to push for more military spending and stuff. But they have been highly critical of Trump because, see, for them, if you aren’t filled with seething hate for Putin, you are not a good American. One of them posted a piece in which he claims that since Trump once “thought about” building a Trump Tower in Moscow, why that means he is a filthy rotten anti-American commie scum. Stands to reason, right? Never turn your back on them Russkies. They have since come into line with the GOP in its acceptance of Trump but are no doubt ready to turn on him at a moment’s notice.

And then there’s Bill Whittle. Charismatic, dynamic speaker, has his facts straight… Well most of the time. Linked below is his fact filled expose of the KGB, the entire bloody history, tying Putin to all of this blood and gore, even claiming that Putin ordered the killing of a defector in England, despite the lack of any serious evidence, and in fact, despite some keen analysis here, here, here, etc.  By the time you get to the end of Bill’s video, you are convinced that Putin eats little human babies for breakfast and was the brains behind the murder of the Tsar.

Now to be sure, the KGB and its forerunners were horrible in the Soviet days. (Like the CIA in this country, which created the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS and knocked off national leaders like Iran’s president Mossadegh whenever it saw fit, causing permanent bad blood between us and them. But of course, ISIS fighters are good guys down underneath and they need US protection and tax payer TLC.)

But in spite of the KGB’s horrid blemishes, there emerged, early on, media and art creations in Russia that glorified the KGB and portrayed it as a patriotic organization that protected its people – which, in its cruel way, it did. For this reason, the KGB has long been known in Russia as the Shield and Sword.

Naturally, then, a 1968 film glorifying a spy was titled “Shchit i mech” (the shield and sword), based on a novel by that name by Vadim Kozhevnikov. Johann Weiss, the man who eventually joins the KGB in the film, was the best friend of another man whose father had been murdered by the Nazis. They were both Germans raised in Latvia, then part of the Soviet Union, and as the plot progresses, we catch, on a train headed for Germany, a glimpse of the Nazis, sinister and cruel, contrasted with the Soviet citizens, their victims, who mind their own business and are peaceful.

On this train is Johann, returning to Germany as part of a mass exodus from Latvia. At first he is caught up in the enthusiasm surrounding the Third Reich, but soon he sees the brutal way that outsiders are treated by the Germans. He eventually joins a spy agency in Germany supposedly to spy on the Soviets, but in fact is a double agent in the service of the Soviets. Bill Whittle would feel uncomfortable with this film.

It is impossible to view the film without feeling revulsion at the Germans and admiration for their persecuted victims, both Jews and Soviets.

In his biography, Putin says that this film was one of the main reasons why he joined the KGB. Now since Putin was born in 1952 and the film hit the big screens in 1968 when Putin was still contemplating his future career choice, it is more than likely that he was telling the truth and his motives were no doubt mostly patriotic ones. Further, Western slander to the contrary, Putin worked primarily as an intel analyst, posted abroad — in E. Germany — and not in Russia, where the traditional KGB harassment of Soviet citizens took place at one time. He also states in his bio that the young KGB recruits of that time were a completely different breed and were only vaguely aware of the atrocities attributed to that organization in the past. Certainly, the mild-mannered Putin had no taste for the brutality of the historic Cheka and its later metamorphoses under Stalin. Almost no Soviets did at that time, a transition period toward more freedom that ultimately evolved into Gorbachev’s Glasnost period.

Of course, we can’t expect Neocons to have seen this Soviet film or to have an intimate understanding of the Russians and their history, particularly those dark years when they were thrust into disastrous contact with the Nazis. So naturally, we can expect a lot of often dangerous ignorance about the Russians in the West. We are not disappointed.

The problem is, as hard as it is for Westerners to countenance, the Russians are not living their lives to please the West, especially not the Neocons. Therefore, the more absurd and hateful things ignorant Westerners say and write about them and their leadership, and the more saber rattling and threats we throw at them, the more worried they get and the more they build up militarily. You’d think the Neocons would be more careful. You’d be wrong.

Even if you don’t want to assign blame, it is certainly long past time to stop the Russia bashing and try to sit back and get as accurate a picture as you can of these people who are not the enemy of We the people but whom we are told by our “leaders” we are supposed to hate for a lot of reasons that don’t quite pass the smell test (see my article “The Russkies are coming” here). But if we fail to show the requisite degree of hate, we are bad Americans in these petite-sized minds.

Can we ever grow out of this irrational state of mind and start being objective about the Russians? Our future survival may very well depend on it.

Linked below is an example of the marshaling of carefully selected facts – couched in slick language — to make the Russians look like congenitally cruel barbarians, in a video presentation that could contribute mightily to WW III.

The irony of this video is that, while it describes many of the horrors perpetrated by the KGB in the Soviet past, it omits a comparison to another country that caused two horrendous world wars, slaughtered millions of innocent Jews in concentration camps, almost destroyed all of Europe and Russia and cost the US hundreds of thousands of young lives. It also ignores an objective comparison with the shenanigans of the CIA that gave birth to ISIS. Selecting the most incriminating facts about any country and pretending that none of these negatives could ever be imputed to one’s own or another country is a recipe for war and it is the exact pattern of selective reporting by which Neocons work their evil.

Such a comparison of Russia with Germany or with our CIA would bring things into proper perspective, but that is not part of the West’s propaganda effort and today is considered beside the point. Bring on the war already!

In fact, without this perspective, the sheeple will slip and slide into another conflagration worse than the other two. It will be nuclear.

Here is that very biased and unbalanced presentation:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill-whittle-murderer-kremlin

Don Hank

 

Why is the West in constant chaos and upheaval?

Why is the West in constant cultural chaos and upheaval?

by Don Hank

All of the cultural chaos we see around us, notably since Obama was first elected, is the expression of an irrational desire to destroy all traditions, particularly Christianity (though not religion per se) that started with the Enlightenment about 300 yr ago. The west has lost almost all consciousness of the historic and philosophical origins of this but the visible madness started with the French Revolution, a product of the philosophical movement the antedated it. This revolution literally saw blood running down the streets all over France, as anyone even suspected of disagreeing with the Revolution and its concepts of – ironically, brotherhood, equality and freedom, was seized and beheaded. The methods have changed in the 21st century, but the idea of introducing chaos and irrational ideas (“gay” marriage, recruitment of women in battles, “gay” adoption of children, etc.) is very much alive. In fact, the killing has not abated n the least, except that it has been shifted to the Middle East — and Kosovo — where Christians and all non-Muslims must fear for their lives in a world dominated by Sunni Wahhabi violence fanned by a US-Saudi coalition, as explained here, here, here, here, and here).

There was a moderate Enlightenment, typified by Kant, and a radical Enlightenment, typified by Voltaire et al., and this more radical form has survived until the present day, holding the West in its thrall. The reason some blame the perpetual revolution on the so-called Illuminati is due to a linguistic phenomenon that most of the anti-revolutionaries of today know nothing about, and it is attributable to the word for “Enlightenment” in a European language.

Indeed, the word for enlightenment differs greatly among European languages. In French: les Lumières, in German, die Aufklärung, in Spanish la Ilustración and In Italian, l’Illuminismo. In Italy, its followers were therefore called illuminati, which merely meant “enlightened ones.” The people who fought in or sympathized the Risorgimento (the war to unite Italy) were called illuminati NOT because they belonged to a secretive cult (although many did, namely, the Carbonari, who can be compared to the Freemasons, whom they may have imitated), but because they acted out the ideas of the Enlightenment (Illuminismo). Garibaldi’s soldiers were generally referred to as the illuminati. In that original sense most Western “leaders” are illuminati and the vast majority of them, like the vast majority of those who oppose them, haven’t the slightest inkling of this and probably don’t care.

Coincidentally, or perhaps by divine intervention, at the time I was writing this commentary, I was invited to participate in a pro-family conference in Kyrgyzstan. Why not a Western country? I am glad you asked.

There is no longer any Western country where traditional family values can be discussed openly and freely in public. A while back, 2 bakers in Oregon were asked by a gay couple to bake a cake bearing an inscription that ran counter to their faith and their belief in traditional  marriage (perhaps you recall back when marriage was an institution between a man and a woman. GONE). When these bakers, a man and wife, refused on the grounds that the inscription was offensive to their beliefs, they were fined $130,000. That’s the price of a home in many places. The intent was to destroy them financially, a “soft” kind of death sentence. People of faith may no longer live their faith. A preacher in Scotland (part of the “free” world) was arrested, cuffed and taken away last week for preaching from a forbidden portion of the scriptures regarding homosexuality, video here.

So yes, the conference is in Kyrgyzstan where open discussions of family are not forbidden. We welcome you to send them a brief video of you or anyone speaking in favor of a healthy family.

Our contact, Bolotbek Batilov (write zoilanddon@msn.com for instructions on how to attend the conference or send your video)

Details here: https://www.facebook.com/events/181466365592157/permalink/194518717620255/

I want to hear from you: zoilandon@msn.com

If you have any comments, kindly post them at the forum below.

“I don’t trust Putin”

“I don’t trust Putin”

 

Don Hank

When I visit forums that discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin, there are, of course, the usual suspects who tell us, based on nothing substantive, that Putin is just waiting his chance to nuke the US  — notwithstanding that this would entail an exchange of retaliatory strikes that would leave the entire planet crippled and kill billions. These same people would admit that Putin is smart, but yet they think he is stupid enough to initiate a nuclear war and a nuclear winter.

Then there are others who will admit that Putin is a good leader for Russia and has done a lot of good in the world but they are quick to add “but I don’t trust him.”

My response is this:

You don’t have any reason either to trust him or not to trust him. He is NOT YOUR president.
Thanks to the hegemonic behavior and propaganda of US “leaders,” millions of Westerners have been mesmerized into thinking that the world’s strongest leader must necessarily be the leader of the world and bully the world into submission, just as they have seen the US do over most of their lives. But it is almost exclusively the West that has expressed this idea, by promulgating the image of the US as the Exceptional Nation or the Indispensable Nation — to the extent that many commentators have for decades referred to the US as the leader of the Free World, or, if they are skeptical, a hegemon. But Putin and Russia have come up with a better idea:

respect the sovereignty of all other nations and let them develop along their own lines — ie, according to their own culture and history.

This idea has never once occurred to the “leaders” in Washington and they have brainwashed their sheeple into accepting the notion not only of their own superiority, but also, as a sinister corollary, the notion that any nation (meaning particularly Russia) that surpasses the US in important ways, particularly militarily, will automatically do as Washington has done. But by doing this, Washington has failed its mission, racked up an unpayable debt, created failed states and terror groups, and irreparably damaged its prestige, so it certainly does not rationally follow that other nations would follow Washington’s example and try to be cock of the rock. Just by way of example, Obama likes to bully other nations, and look how he was treated in Hangzhou. Call that prestige?

Besides, what kind of leader is superior? A leader who respects other leaders and other nations or a leader who does not? You can trust not Putin but the MAD principle (mutually assured destruction, among nuclear powers), namely, the desire not to die. That principle will stay the hand of any leader with a nuclear arsenal. And that is all you need.

See? You don’t need to trust Putin if you don’t want to. He’s the Russian president, NOT the American president. And thank God, unlike our presidents, he has no apparent desire or reason to bully others or interfere in their internal affairs. He’s got enough on his plate without trying to be president of the world.

I want to hear from you. Contact: zoilandon@msn.com

If you disagree with my commentary for some reason, tell us why at our forum below: Thanks.

How top level Neocons like Soros deceive Christian pawns

How top Neocon connivers like Soros deceive Christian Neocon pawns

by Don Hank

I have been participating in a discussion of Neoconservatism (Neocons) on the Neocon web site AIM, which expands to Accuracy in Media, a misnomer if there ever was one. On the AIM site (which pretends to oppose Hillary but more effectively opposes Trump, absurdly alleging that he has financial interest in good Russian relations, thereby supporting her candidacy), I had used the discussion forum to alert the readers to my article on Neocons here in response to comments in favor of “Christian” Neocons. I participate in such discussions in part because they point out gaps in my commentaries. One reader understandably thought that I was referring in that article to all levels of the Neocon movement when I said that Neoconservatism is atheistic. I was referring only to the top levels, as I show below. This reader wrote (his comment at AIM is found here):

However, I see your “proof” of what Kinkaid is, is an article you wrote. But I believe you lost your argument in your first sentence. Not one neoconservative I’ve met or talked to was an atheist as you claim they are.

My response to that reader is very important because it clarifies that only the top level Neocons, like Neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol, are non-Christians. I had not made this clear enough in my article.

My forum response:

Yes, that was my article. Unlike cowardly Neocons, I use my real name. I am referring to our resident Neocon here [meaning Cliff Kincaid, who has written dishonestly about me in the past, as you can see if you read my comments at this thread—all comments of mine that do not appear in the AIM forum are in brackets, like this one — Don]. You disagree that Neoconservatism is atheistic. You are justified in not understanding this issue. The Upper level Neocons are atheists or at least entertain an atheistic viewpoint, as the article shows. But their trick is deceiving the lower level ones into thinking they are doing God’s work when they support the Neocon policies. That is really the whole point. I was one of those deceived, back when Bush was pushing for his war in Iraq. I foolishly thought he was a godly man who would get God’s full support and lead us to a victory over evil. But a week after we “won,” the Assyrian Christians started leaving Iraq in droves. The outcome was clear evidence of what was intended. [Bush and his planners had to know how this would play out]. The top level Neocons had succeeded. THEY won the war. [Real Americans lost.]

Here are some brief examples of how the upper echelon Neocons control unwary Christians:

Many softheaded Christians believe the Neocon narrative that both gays and Muslims are downtrodden and represent the needy that Jesus said we are to help. Ironically the 2 groups hate each other but the upper level Neocons have, diabolically, controlled the dialogue so that many “Christians” now sympathize with the political activism of both groups.

Why does the upper level do this? Easy: because the political activists of both groups [not necessarily ordinary Muslims and gays] are made to order destroyers of traditional Christianity and the top level Neocons [like Soros] are philosophical descendants of the radical branch of the Enlightenment [such as Voltaire] so they hate Christianity. Soros is at the pinnacle of this top level and he supports both groups. In Europe and the US, he is behind the mass migration movement. His followers in politics have targeted German “Christians” with the message that they must take in millions of downtrodden Muslims [arch-Neocon and atheist Soros’ involvement in the mass migration movement is documented by Breitbart and others]. Merkel is the head of the CDU — Christian Democratic Union — and millions of her supporters are nominal “Christians.” So when she says, under the influence of the Neocon shadow government, that Germany must take in these millions of Muslims, her lukewarm-Christian supporters blindly follow her Diktat. What they [and the vast majority of the Western public] do not realize is that at the top level of the Neocon hierarchy, Soros and his demons are plotting to destroy Christianity by pandering to the Muslims, many of whom are already persecuting Christian refugees. Just received this morning  a file documenting how Muslim “refugees” rampantly persecute the Christian refugees. This file is linked at the bottom of this post.

As for the gay agenda, even though many “Christian” activists [like Kincaid] are against gay marriage and the like, many are Neocons, so they have been brainwashed into hating Russia. Here, briefly, are examples of how the top-level Neocons are working to trap these middle level Neocon activists and their followers into working against their own agenda:

By opposing Russia in Syria, these zombie-like lower and middle level Neocon grunts tend to sabotage the fight against ISIS in Syria by influencing Western politicians to oppose Russia [the only world power sincerely and effectively fighting ISIS], eg, by creating a no-fly zone and driving out the Russians [a Neocon policy called for by almost all GOP presidential candidates – Trump being the notable exception – and by Hillary]. After all, they all blindly accept the absurdity that the Russians – who, as you may have noticed, never slash Christian throats – are the no. 1 enemy, and that ISIS is not nearly as significant, even though these terrorists have vowed to wipe Christians off the face of the earth. This foolish anti-Russian rhetoric indirectly, but every effectively, translates into very strong political support for ISIS, which is working, in tandem with the top level Neocons, to destroy Christianity and civilization itself. [This explains why arch-Neocon John McCain has called for arms and support for Al-Qaeda in Syria – in the belief that Americans will not remember that it was this group that killed 2 to 3 thousand Americans on 9-11, 2001. Some contributors at the discussion of the AIM site support McCain, as one might expect].

Likewise, lower level Neocon pawns indirectly oppose the very effective Russian laws against gay propaganda targeting children, supporting the false narrative that such laws are opposed to free speech per se and are homophobic, [when in fact, they effectively protect children and are an important part of Russia’s policy of counteracting the importation of dangerous propaganda from the corrupt and immoral West [for example, via Soros’ Open Society Foundations]. Note that Kincaid and his fellow Neocons oppose the gay agenda, correctly recognizing that this Western activism is evil, but absurdly insisting that the Russian opposition to it is bad – trying to have it both ways. BTW, Russia has recently banned Soros’ foundations].

In the two ways briefly described above, the lower level Neocons, who imagine themselves to be good Christians, are very effective pawns in the game intended to destroy Christianity. And they don’t even know it.

Thanks to their tragic lack of spiritual discernment [and perhaps gray matter], atheist Soros wins!

But the New Testament predicts this falling away of the church.

Open Doors survey shows persecution of Christian refugees by Muslim refugees:

2016, 8-31 Open_Doors_Survey_Religiously_motivated_attacks_on_Christian_refugees_in_Germany_2016 (2)