Russophobia: So Putin killed Litvinenko, eh?

by Don Hank

Anti-Russia propaganda is thick enough to cut with a knife and has been raging for years. The people who write and promulgate it must be almost as brain-dead as the fools who buy into it because it is almost always easy enough for a third grader to see through and debunk. Recently a friend sent me an outdated report about the poisoning death of Aleksander Litvinenko and asked my opinion.

You will recall that a British inquiry was carried out last year by a high court judge to prove that Putin is a thug who needs to be ousted via a Soros-led coup. Er, I mean to determine who may have been behind the poisoning death of Aleksander Litvinenko in London’s Millennium Hotel in 2006.

Russia Insider debunked the “Putin done it” story supported factlessly by that inquiry, pointing out that Litvinvenko was in the employ of Russian mafioso Boris Berezovsky (wanted by Interpol at one time) and had no doubt been involved in the smuggling of radioactive isotopes. The author claims various venues that had been used or frequented by Litvinenko had traces of polonium. Thus, the author concludes he “probably” accidentally poisoned himself.

Surely no one will ever know for certain.

But did you know that Litvinenko was an Islamist and a Chechen who sympathized with Chechen terrorists, even blaming the Russian government for terror that these terrorists perpetrated? He had worked in Chechnya as a counter-intel agent with the KGB (see links  below). It is not clear where his sympathy for terrorists came from but he may have been recruited into Islam by the terrorists he was supposed to recruit for the Russian cause in Chechnya. Thus, he was supposed to be a counter-intel agent but was in fact a counter-counter intel agent. Thus he was hardly a loyal employee and later turned on his employer. Further, note that the terrorists he was working with in Chechnya were radical Wahhabists, of the Saudi type who make up ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, for example. Almost everything he said to the press and the British intelligence agency was therefore highly questionable, and yet his unproven statements to the British authorities were dutifully and solemnly treated in the media as holy writ. Only a deceitful media and a brainwashed readership would trust this man and not take the British “court’s” (it was not a bona fide court of law) verdict with a grain of salt.

For example, although he stated on his deathbed that Putin was behind his murder, there is no way he could have known that because his ties with the Kremlin had been cut off for about 6 years when he made the accusation. Further, a good Wahhabist would naturally lie, even while dying, to make the anti-Wahhabi Russians look bad. To be sure, he did not act out of selfish motives. He acted out of a misguided religious fervor.

The fact that Litvinenko was a Chechen Muslim is a matter of public knowledge. Here is what the Telegraph reported, for example:

Afterwards he said: “I want to thank all my son’s brothers in faith that they prayed for him [Litvinenko] and remember him.” The family come from the North Caucasus, near the war-torn region of Chechnya, where Muslim rebels are fighting Russian forces.

Did Litvinenko choose to migrate to the West because he knew the deep state here was sympathetic to Islamic radicals? I mean, look at how Muslim criminals are coddled in Europe, where the press is muzzled by an unwritten rule never to juxtapose the words “Muslim” and “criminal.” Look how GW Bush’s Iraq invasion caused the Assyrian Christians to flee for their lives. Look at how the “rebels” in Syria – supported by US arms and funds – mistreated Christians. (as reported by mainstream news sources like USA Today, Daily Mail, BBC and numerous others).

Further, Litvinenko had said that the Beslan school siege that killed hundreds of victims was a false flag and had FSB involvement. The public is supposed to believe – as aided and abetted by the msm – that since Litvinenko had been an agent of Russian intelligence, he would have had insider information on this and can therefore be trusted. There is only one catch: Litvinenko was arrested in 1999 for “exceeding the authority of his position” and fled to London in 2000. However, the Breslan school attack occurred in 2004, 5 years later, when Litvinvenko was no longer an insider and could not have provided insider information! It was pure speculation, but was taken at face value by a willingly gullible press and by a deplorably gullible public whose knowledge of Russia and the Russians comes mostly from Sylvester Stallone movies.

Ever since the Age of Enlightenment, the central idea of the elites has been to destroy Christianity. Therefore, they take the word of an Islamist with ties to the mob while impugning a Christian leader without a shred of evidence. Between Putin and Litvinenko, one is/was a thug. Suffice to say it is not Putin.

Don Hank

PS: May 5, 2017. I just now found this: https://www.opednews.com/articles/Operation-Beluga-A-US-UK-by-William-Dunkerley-Antiterrorism-Database_France_Litvinenko_Putin-160327-385.html

Related

https://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2012_12_29/Litvinenko-converted-to-Islam-and-was-buried-under-Muslim-law-ex-spy/

http://www.rferl.org/a/1073226.html

http://www.cfr.org/separatist-terrorism/chechen-terrorism-russia-chechnya-separatist/p9181#p5

 

Next US president must understand the Putin Principle

The disarmingly simple Putin Principle in foreign policy

by Don Hank

One of the cardinal points raised by Sun-tzu in his “Art of War” is the proposition of knowing the enemy. I will take that a step further and say that sometimes knowing the enemy leads to the discovery that he is not the enemy after all. And one further step: to the discovery that one is one’s own enemy.

The US government is the classic example.

There seem to be an alarming number of people who actually believe that hoax email making its rounds claiming that Hillary’s emails have been hacked by Russia.

First off, the story originated with a well-known hoaxster with the pseudonym Sorcha Faal, who specializes in these Russian fairy tales.

Secondly, if Americans do not have the ability and resources to hack into Hillary’s server, how in heaven’s name would they be able to hack into the Kremlin server?

The Kremlin is not run like the Washington government. No official would dare to let down his guard enough for a Westerner to hack into Kremlin emails. The offender would not get a smack on the wrist, the way Hillary did. Russians are serious about their government. Sadly, Americans have degenerated to the extent that very few care any more or believe that any government could possibly be serious about protecting its people. Why would any government be more honest than ours?, they reason.

The whole idea behind this fake story is that the Kremlin wants to interfere in our elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that when Putin was asked his opinion of Donald Trump, he ventured to say that Trump was clever (Trump later expanded this compliment claiming Putin had called him a “genius”), but in his very next breath, Putin made it clear that Russia has a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. He was thereby establishing an unmistakable contrast between Russia and the Washington government.

I will attempt in a few lines here to explain a somewhat complex cultural and political situation in Russia as well as the mind of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the most important things you need to know about Putin is that he is serious about government business. Unlike our demented officials, he does not play irresponsible games. I am just now reading his biography, and recently came across an anecdote about his early days in the KGB school in Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg (BTW, Putin was not a spy, but rather an intel analyst). A few of his class mates — senior classmen — were discussing a certain hypothetical order that they might receive in the field.

When it came his turn to add his opinion, Putin said “that order is illegal.” Their attitude was “so what? It is an order.”

He said, “it is still illegal.”

That brief anecdote speaks volumes about who Vladimir Putin is and why he is respected in his own country (his popularity is still in the 80% range) and. increasingly, abroad.

Now, taking this further, Putin saw many years ago that the Washington government lies and cheats. It makes its own laws as it goes and enforces laws that are not on the books. All illegal in the international sphere. (Example: James Baker promised Gorbachev that the US would never encroach on Russian borders. Once an agreement was reached with Russia regarding relations with the US, the US broke that promise, and it is still doing so, with NATO building up heavy forces along Russia’s western border). Americans have been brainwashed into believing that lawless behavior in Washington is a good thing because America is “exceptional.” But this slipshod attitude toward the serious matter of international law – which, after all, governs the circumstances that lead to either war or peace – has led to the near-total destruction of Kosovo (in case you missed these, see: http://laiglesforum.com/so-youre-fond-of-nato-eh-mr-cruz-check-out-these-videos-of-nato-in-kosovo/3690.htm and http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm), Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Putin discovered long ago that the US was on the wrong track and set about to develop a strategic policy for his country that would restore legality to geopolitics and so impress the rest of the world that they would eventually trust Russia more than any other country. I like to call this policy the Putin Principle. The Kremlin calls it soft power.

It is the iron-clad implementation of this simple principle that led to Russia’s policies in Ukraine (particularly in the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea) and Syria.

The Western press and political class has brainwashed an astounding number of Westerners into believing that Russia is promoting lawlessness in these regions when in fact, even in its military operations, it is respecting sovereignty of nations and ethnic groups and their territories.

The West claims in unison that the accession of Crimea to Russia was an “annexation,” whereby Russia simply snatched territory in a selfish expansionist move. And yet no serious party in this same Western world protested the referendum in Scotland or claimed it was illegal. The US and Europe were all prepared to accept whatever the outcome might be, including Scotland’s separation from the UK, based on the principle that Scotland had a right to sovereignty, even though it was technically part of the UK. And once that vote became official, the Crimean people were free to accede to Russia.

Yet what was perfectly legal in Scotland was “aggression” in Crimea, even though over 90% of Crimeans (the vast majority of whom are Russian speakers and consider themselves Russian) voted in this referendum to break away from Ukraine – and for the same reasons that many Scots (just short of a majority) wanted to break away from the UK, namely, cultural identity.

Thus, by our own Western logic as applied to Scotland, what the Crimeans did was legal and not in any way reprehensible.

Russia simply accepted the will of the Crimean people and honored their sovereignty. But of course, Russia is illegal by definition in the West.

Likewise, in Syria – in contradistinction to the US, which waded into an internal conflict without any invitation from the Syrian people – Russia entered the conflict only when the duly elected president of Syria invited it to do so. In fact, it made a similar offer to the Iraqi government but stayed out of that conflict when the Iraqis declined the offer, choosing instead to allow the US to pretend to fight ISIS there and create one of their  trademark messes.

The “exceptional” US government went into Syria illegally while Russia entered as an invited guest. The US was exceptionally lawless. Yet it accuses Russia of “expansionism,” just as England – the most expansionist country that ever existed, touting an empire on which the sun never set – had once accused Russia of expansionism during the conflict with Turkey in the 19th Century.

Thus the West has always written its own laws as it goes, based on nothing but bare-faced propaganda.

Note that Putin not only wants to apply this more-righteous and in fact, more common-sense international policy of strict adherence to international law to Russia but at the same time, to use this higher virtue as an arm of soft power by contrasting it with the West’s ad hoc law of the Wild West. He and his government, often via the mouthpiece of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, use every opportunity (eg, UN speeches, speeches before the Valdai Club, press conferences, interviews, RT) to drive this concept home.

The American public will perhaps be the last to grasp this simple concept, not because they are stupid but because they have been brow-beaten into feeling that facing the truth about foreign affairs is somehow unpatriotic. But elsewhere, including in Europe, there are high ranking actors who seem to understand it. And they respect Russia for what must be called a superior approach to geopolitics. After all, ISIS would not be a threat if the Russian principle had been applied in the West.

The flight of the right

The runaway Right

by Olavo de Carvalho

If there is anything to be dismayed about, it is the difference, the abysmal disparity, between the multiplicity of fronts on which the activist Left launches its attacks against democracy, and the slavish modesty with which the advocates of democracy, while implicitly surrendering to the general strategy of their opponents, bind themselves to specific criticisms, if not to irrelevant aspects, thus losing ground even after history has favored them by proving the economic superiority of capitalism over socialism. This difference, which has already consolidated itself as an ineluctable journalistic rule – to break it means to risk being fired – represents the “asymmetric war” transposed to the battleground of culture and the media.

The immediate causes of the Right’s inferiority are twofold: a) the obsession of true liberals (e.g., libertarians) and conservatives with the economy; b) sheer ignorance. The first cause attests in itself to the ideological subservience to the enemy, inasmuch as it embraces, without further consideration, the – absolutely incorrect – Marxist premise that the economy drives history. The second is a pure and simple crime – with the only mitigating circumstance being that they commit it against themselves. The 2 causes are not independent: the passive admission of the Marxist premise shows deep ignorance about Marxism among liberals and conservatives alike. Since the death of  José Guilherme Merquior, who grew weak in the presence of the Left not because of ignorance, but out of mental subservience to his youthful coterie -, I do not know, at least in Brazil, of a single one of them who has dedicated enough time to study the works of Lukacs and Adorno, Korsh, Poulantzas and the like, not to mention Marxism’s latest developments in Europe and Asia, whose very existence they are completely unaware of. Although the intellectual superiority of the Left is but a myth when it comes to the great names of philosophy, literature and human sciences (where conservatives reign), it constitutes a plain truth for the run-of-the-mill “rightwing” spokespersons in the media and the talking classes in general: they’re so immensely uninformed that they suffer blow after blow and don’t even know where they’re coming from. And if we try to warn them in advance, based upon a serious and profound study, they feel their pride’s been hurt and beat up the messenger in order to avoid the news.

This is true of Brazil, and applies to developed countries only in a slightly smaller proportion.

Thanks to this phenomenon, it is no overstatement to say that in the entire western hemisphere, for more than half a century, the only historically active political force has been the activist Left, nourished by billionaire foundations. With the exception of the brief intermission of the Reagan era – when the episodic change of direction was due exclusively to personal leaderships without any further support from politics and business circles -, it was leftist activism that has shaped at will the course of world history. The fact that less than two decades after the fall of the USSR, the Left came to dominate so many countries in Europe, Africa and Latin America, and now the United States itself, should give food for thought for apologists of the inevitable triumph of capitalism. However, the depth and breadth of this process goes much further than what can be traced back in the last few decades. One must go back to the 60s to get a partial understanding of the almost absolute control that leftist activism exerts on the flow of information in the world, molding at its own convenience, and mostly unchallenged, the very mindset of its opponents.

Invariably, the many beliefs that intellectual and journalistic activism manages to prescribe as undisputed global truths are entirely debunked within three or four decades, when it is already too late to counter their devastating effects. Worse yet, the fabrication imposes itself on international opinion, in the heat of the moment, while its refutation, no matter how meticulous and precise it might be, can only make its way to some scholars and to a minimum segment of the interested public, thereby losing any political momentum and significance. I will convey here a small sample of the disinformation scheme that managed to impose on the world the most blatant twisting of reality, shaping countless choices and political decisions, be it by dint of public opinion or public authorities, and bringing forth such effects that continue to spread to this day.

1. As early as the 50s, the joint efforts of soviet disinformation and the American elite media had succeeded in imposing on the world the myth of  “McCarthyist persecution,” celebrated in innumerable Hollywood movies, to the extent that it immunized the popular psyche against the disclosure of the truth. The book by M. Stanton Evans, Blacklisted by History (2008), restores things to their due place, with the added help of newly-disclosed soviet documents. But how can a single book neutralize decades of massive propaganda? Today we know that the “persecution” consisted of interrogating some dozens of suspects – none of them innocent – and sending them back home under the protection of the 5th Amendment, while the USSR, in the same period, slaughtered no less than three million people, with the assistance of those “poor victims” oppressed by Senator Joe McCarthy. The universal use of the expression “McCarthyism” as a synonym for persecutory hysteria certifies the degree to which the laboriously fabricated fantasy overcame reality.

2. To this day, even in conservative circles, people firmly believe that the assassination of John and Robert Kennedy did not originate in any communist conspiracy, but either in a CIA plot or as the spontaneous effect of “American social violence,” associated with the “gun culture” and the “religious fanaticism” of the Right. How it could be that all this reactionarism ended up toppling two anti-communist leaders at the hands of a communist militant and a Palestine activist, is an indecent question that must not be uttered. The evidence in favor of the communist authorship of both crimes begins to prevail in scholars’ circles, but does not reach beyond them.

3. Although it is common knowledge that the Vietnam war, lost by the communists at the battlefield, was won back by them with the thoughtful help of the American media, student activism and the golden elite of show business, it is forbidden to imply that there could have been any crime of treason worth investigating here. The assumed impersonal fatality of the Vietnamese victory, a farce in all respects, is still accepted as an unequivocal historical truth.

4. The countless proofs in favor of Ernst Topisch’s thesis that the rise of Nazism was entirely an accomplishment of Stalin, are still ignored, to the extent that Nazism and Communism, in the vocabulary of academia and the media still denote the most extreme and irreducible pair of opposites.

5. When the USSR fell, it was obvious to the few qualified observers that, if the crimes of the soviet dictatorship were not investigated and punished, the communist leadership would simply rearrange itself in new forms of organizations, soon surprising its opponent with a display of renewed and prodigious power, which is exactly what happened. The entire American and European media, without exception, suppressed as long as possible the disclosure of the evidence of those crimes, which would keep popping up from the soviet archives, but is thus far accessible only to interested scholars and gets no public exposure. The “death of communism” was a farce in all respects. It only served to disguise the real casualty: anti-communism.

6. The most cursory comparison between the communist propaganda of the 50s and the anti-American discourse of the mainstream media in Europe, the United States and Latin American suffices to prove that the slogans disseminated by the KGB more than a half-century ago wound up embedding themselves in the popular mindset, to the degree that they received the stamp of conventional wisdom.

7. Any attack that can be imputed to the Right, no matter how insignificant and without any proven authorship, is aggressively exhibited and explored in newspapers and movies, for decades on end, with the strength of a world publicity campaign. When it was indisputably proven that the attack against Pope John Paul II was the work of the KGB, the so-called “bourgeois,” “revolutionary,” “imperialist” media publicized it with the utmost circumspection and neither in Brazil nor in the rest of the world was a single speech by a conservative politician denouncing the crime of the century heard. Everyone conceded and still concedes to the Left the monopoly on the right to reopen old wounds.

These seven samples suffice to underscore the fact that communist indoctrination, amidst the full surge of capitalist triumphalism, constitutes the dominant ideology, hegemonic in all aspects. In the face of this insurmountable dominance, the timid apologies of the market economy, followed by inaction in the cultural and psychological field, are pathetically impotent. In Brazil, capitalism is transforming itself increasingly into a transient State concession, but businessmen strive more to avoid accidental faults of etiquette than to restrain the incoercible progress of capitalism’s enemies. They simply don’t understand that verbal violence is the last effective weapon of the persecuted minority. The validity of this weapon has been demonstrated many times by the communists themselves. But classic liberals and conservatives stick to a stilted politeness just to feign peace of mind and optimism, while the enemy, fully aware of the disparity in power, amuses himself with these affectations of self-assurance, because he knows he can send them to prison any time he pleases, and he’s got plenty of fiscal gimmicks for that purpose, all of them apolitical and innocuous looking.

 

Olavo de Carvalho, b. 1947, is a Brazilian writer and philosopher who has taught political philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana, Brazil, from 2001 to 2005. He currently resides in the U.S., working as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. The author of a dozen books on philosophical and political matters, he is a respected weekly columnist with a wide following in his native Brazil and an increasingly popular public speaker in this country. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.

So you want to be a communist

So you want to be a communist

 

By Donald Hank

Many conservative pundits today are trying desperately to warn their fellow Americans that Barack Obama has been linked to various far-left organizations, seems to have been reared by a convinced communist, and has ties to the far-left organization ACORN and with leftist terrorists like William Ayers.

Most of these pundits seem to be going on the assumption that, like us older Americans, people today have a basic knowledge of what communism (or socialism, the first step toward communism) actually is, at least enough to fear it.

But, in view of the enormous resurgence of the Left in America, I am not so sure the word “communism” raises so many eyebrows today.

Therefore, it is probably necessary to remind the reader what a communist state looks like from the inside.

I spent a summer in the USSR in the early 70s studying Russian under the auspices of the Council on International Educational Exchange, and a little later, about 4 months in Poland traveling on my own, and here are some things I observed: Continue reading