What are the best ways to stop the Ukraine-Russian invasion today?

The neoconservatives have long sought to have Russia destroyed, balkanized, and wide open for exploitation by U.S. financiers and multinationals. Russia is rich in natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas. Have you ever wondered why the U.S. never discusses what will happen if there is regime change? Don’t you think it might want to consider who takes control of a nation with 6K+ nuclear weapons? No mention of it. Why? Because the U.S. wants it divided. If all hell breaks loose, that is the goal. It’s easier to sneak into a home when you have the owner distracted. Or you can play competitors against each other.

  1. Protest the Biden Sanctions in Europe, which are designed to cause regime change, but also cause the wrecking of Europe, financially. Energy dependence on the U.S. is a goal, and for the European nations to become dependent on trade with the U.S. This means the value of the Euro will go down and the U.S. dollar will go up. These sanctions will cause energy prices to be so high that factories in Germany will go out of business. Scholz met with officials in Vietnam to move major factories there. This is also profitable for those who own stock in production, as labor costs will go down. But life for Europeans will become Detroit-like. Neoliberalism will eat social democracy. And they won’t like it. I can promise them that. So lose the Russophobia and save your own way of life!
  2. Pressure right wing politicians to oppose any new funding to Ukraine, like Rand Paul was doing. Cut off the guns and the problem will take care of itself.
  3. Protest in the streets!
  4. Spread information about what is going on online. Raise awareness on social media.
  5. Don’t focus on teams. Focus on results. The left is a disaster. It cannot stop this war or the sanctions. Focus on pressuring Trump to mobilize the right to oppose the war. This is realpolitik here. I hate Trump and don’t agree with him. But on the issue of stopping the war, only the right can do this. Noam Chomsky said only one person can bring both sides to the table and make a meaningful peace—”Donald J. Trump,” he said. This is pragmatism.
  6. The neocons are pushing the Biden Administration to escalate this war. It might recognize Taiwan and use other provocations to start a war in Taiwan. They are seriously discussing using nuclear weapons. This includes the Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, an imperialist hawk.
  7. Biden is mentally gone to lunch—for good. He does what his handlers tell him to do. And now they are telling him to escalate the violence and increase aggression. Back Putin into a corner and he will strike out. In fact, psychologists who have analyzed his personality have said the same.

How do you get over the sudden death of your father? Do you get over it ? Or just learn to live with it?

My father died in 2020. When I received the phone call and heard the words of his passing, my heart raced. I felt like I was going to vomit. There was a physical reaction but emotionally, I couldn’t process it. I kept trying to think my way out of it. But, when someone is dead, there is nothing you can do. “Where there is life, there is hope” has that meaning. You can always hope a person gets better. But when your father or mother has already passed on, that’s it. Past the point of no return.

It means you went your whole life being able to interact with your parent, and now, that is part of the past. You will never hear them say your name again. When both of your parents are gone, you feel like an orphan, no matter your age.

I went my whole life being a son, then a husband, and then a father. Now I am no longer a son. That part of my life is gone now. The first two months of my father’s passing was very rough. It was a very grief filled time. I would be doing okay and then I would just start crying. Something would trigger my memories and I would cry so hard I felt worn out, after. You are doing grief work. And it is most definitely work. Sadly, there are no shortcuts to this work. It is hard-earned. Very hard-earned.

Getting through the church services and calling hours is the worst. I hate small talk, and funerals are that sort of thing. But I got through it. You will get through it, too.

The Truth

Even if you try hard not to do so, you will continue to live because your heart will continue to beat, even if you feel like it shouldn’t. Sadly, the most raw memories will not go away, but fade enough into the background of your life that you will regain normal functioning. It is like a fresh wound. At first, it hurts. The nerves are raw, and you will do anything to stop the pain. The first 3 weeks are the worst. But, in time, you will find a way to function again. The raw wound heals, and fills itself in. But a scar remains. You aren’t the same after a loss like that. It changes you, forever.

You will hear a song on the radio that reminds you of your dad. You will cry. It’s okay. Or you will look in the mirror and see your father, in our own reflection. And you will have compassion for him, more than you did as a kid. And then you will say a prayer for him, smile, remember that time he watched you play Mike Tyson’s Punchout on Nintendo, and how happy he was for you when you actually punched him out. You will be grateful for those times.

You’ll make it. You just need to survive for today. And tomorrow, do the same. When the freshness of the loss is with you, you want to pull your teeth out in grief. But you will survive if you let yourself survive. That’s what Dad would have wanted. You can do it. And you will do it.

You’ll be okay. Dad is proud of you.

What is the most subtle dictatorship in the world?

You are chatting in the break room at work, and one of your friends, Doug, starts talking shit about a co-worker, Bradley. Bradley is a really nice person, but he is socially awkward. He seems to be very self-conscious. He struggles to make eye contact. Another person joins in, telling an embarrassing story about Bradley. Others at table laugh. You feel uncomfortable, but you don’t want to stand out. So you pretend to laugh.

Just as everyone is laughing, they look up to see that Bradley, who had been in the supply closet, heard everything. He was so mortified he didn’t look up. He ran down the hallway, into the men’s bathroom. He was crying and punching the side of the metal barriers in between the toilets. He punched the mirror and cut his hand. It is bleeding. You try to talk to him but he pushes you away.

“Get the fuck out of here,” he says.

Instead of having compassion, his co-workers continue to bully him. Each time, you are too afraid to speak up, because you are afraid they will target you. You don’t want to take that risk.

You are religious and it is Sunday

There’s an elderly man who returned home from the hospital. He tires easily and is struggling. You could help with his groceries on Sunday, which is your day off. But it would interfere with your church obligations, and your mother would give you a hard time if she didn’t see you at church. The elderly man ends up having to go into a nursing home, because nobody will help him, while he recovers. During that time, he become depressed, missing his home. You could have helped him.

Discussion

At your cubicle at work, one of the nearby co-workers asks another, over coffee, what he thinks about the political situation in Ukraine. Bill tells Angela why he supports Ukraine. Angela seems to know a lot, and shares her perspective, which is pro-Russia.

“You must be a Kremlin Bot,” you say. “Somebody must have been brushing up on their “Putin propaganda.”

You feel pleased with yourself, fashioning yourself clever. You didn’t listen to anything she said. Truth is, you are afraid to question things more. You weren’t raised to do that. You don’t want to be uncomfortable, so you self-censor. The government never has to do it for you.

The most subtle dictatorship in the world?

Our sense of fear—fear of judgment, fear of not fitting in, and fear of “the other,” combined with subtle indifference, cause tremors—and sometimes earthquakes—of hardship and pain to real people, in real ways.

Why do black people face the most racism?

In the U.S., racism was literally required by people to fully participate in the economic system—at least in the South it was during the period of slavery and then through Segregation. The laws were written that reduced human beings to property that could be bought and sold. What could be more dehumanizing than that?

The plantation system was predicated on the “false hope” that even the most common white person could, one day, “if he worked hard like the plantation owners,” become a big shot plantation owner. Just like today, people think that if they work hard enough they can become the next Elon Musk. Will that happen? Not really. But that false hope is what gives rise to a brutal system of oppression—capitalism—that turns the people, the planet, and all things into commodities. The sacred is reduced to monetary units.

Part of the “logic” of the Southern plantation system of slavery was that there were strict hierarchies. And it sadistically played into the egos of poor white farmers, putting into their minds the notion that “I may be poor, but at least I’m better than a n—ger.”

The brutality of that system, one that required hate, hierarchy based on race, and dehumanizing others into commodities as labor packages, doesn’t die easy. It’s like denazification. It takes years and years to shed those twisted hates. For those hates which are really part of the culture, it can take several generations with concerted effort.

“Natural Racism?”

Until 12,000 years ago, human beings lived as hunter-gatherers under the condition of primitive communism. They lived in small bands, and people were often the same race and shared the same culture. If someone who didn’t look like the group showed up, that was something out of the ordinary. It might even mean danger, as in a foreign group coming to invade. Suspicion of those who were different served a survival advantage. Further, stereotyping people based on things like race is a mental shortcut. We know that during times of war or threat, groups of people become more conservative, more tribal, and less tolerant of dissent—trust me, I know. Supporting the Russians doesn’t make the herd too happy.

The Problem

The problem we have now is that racism is a threat. Racial tensions can cause a society to have violence and division that tears at the social fabric and can destroy a nation. Racial tensions between nations can lead to war. And in an age of nuclear weapons, this poses an existential threat.

On a more personal level, human beings are individuals. We are more than the color of our skin. By judging people based on skin color instead of who we are as individuals, the “shortcut” of stereotypes can foolishly exclude people who qualify for good jobs, be good friends, and be good mates. Talent of all sorts in this world is in short supply. We need to cultivate it wherever we find it.

The U.S. Today

Despite having a black President, the U.S. still has racial problems and racial tensions. The negative effects of systemic racism do make a difference. For example, the effects of redlining are still with us. Having lived through the Obama Presidency and seeing the blatant racism he faced, it was ugly.

Racism is also why many oppose a stronger social safety net and universal healthcare—because they don’t want minorities to benefit from them. Is that fucking evil and shitty? You bet. Nations which are more homogenous and less diverse tend to favor a more robust social safety net and favor social democracy.

It’s hard to believe that people are still so hung up about race. But old habits die hard. Every generation hopes that it will be the last that knows racism. But we need to find a way to turn that hope into a reality.

Why Black People Face the Most Racism

I suspect it is cultural. Many cities remain divided by race and are not integrated. It is as if the two lived in different worlds. This leads to misunderstandings. And fear.

The U.S. is also a very paranoid and violent culture. My wife is white. Her family lives in the inner city. And I am not joking when I say the inner city. It’s the fucking ‘hood. My mother-in-law was having coffee on her front porch one day and a black guy stumbled on the front sidewalk, holding his stomach, which had a gunshot wound to it. He keeled over and died, right there. There was a pizza shop around the corner, and he tried to rob it. The owner pulled a gun and blasted him in the stomach. The guy headed out the front door and rounded the corner, to the front of my mother-in-law’s home.

My wife isn’t racist at all. Nor are her sisters. She grew up playing with black kids all the time. Sadly, over the years, the neighborhood also went downhill. Neoliberalism. One of the benefits of diversity programs at schools and workplaces is that it helps people to learn and mingle with those who are different from them. And that does serve an important function for society.

Even Hitler and Stepan Bandera had some “good Jews” they liked and spared. Racism in humans is a generalization, an abstraction, that people can hold in their minds, a shortcut, but one that is too general to be useful in many instances. The challenge is helping people to recognize that all members of any race or religion can be “good Jews,” “good blacks,” “good whites,” etc. But fighting the urge to take shortcuts of any type poses a bigger challenge for some than others. During times of threat or stress, people tend to resort back to more primitive tendencies. And this can be during the worst time possible, as usually threats can involve wars.

The Weight He Carries

“It’s easy to hate The Big Bad Putin. He’s The Other. He’s the foreign wolf that preys upon the innocent little lamb, the Ukraine, that cuddly little democracy, headed by the lovable former comic, Mr. Penis Piano Player, Zelensky.

Mr. Putin is the King of Dirty Deeds, who threatens the world with nuclear holocaust and violence. So much destruction and death, all to fill the bottomless cup of greed and blood, as dictators and conquerors do.

But sometimes, there is more than meets the eye. Sometimes, if we look too quickly, we miss a thing or two. For the longest time, I had listened to Mr. Putin speak, but I never heard him. I don’t speak Russian. I never watched his face. I always found him to be a black box, almost robot-like. Wooden.

But this speech was an hour long. It was the most important one he has ever delivered. So I read the transcript from the Kremlin website. Then I decided to watch it by looking at his face and reading his body language. For the first time, I saw him speak with great intensity. This was with a passion that was uncharacteristic of him. He was brutally sincere. I listened to him speak of the history of the border with Ukraine. I was already familiar with this, as I am a student of Soviet history. I know very well the stories. And they are difficult ones.

I saw him speak of a history I already knew, but through his eyes, and through the intonation of his voice. He wasn’t wrong that Russia was under direct imperialist threat from the West. I am acquainted with that history. But I hadn’t heard it from Mr. Putin. This is a man who really does want to preserve his country from destruction at the hands of the West. And the West is playing for keeps. The fall of the Soviet Union was almost a genocide. Through the years, I have become friends with Russian people here on Quora. I have read about the pain they suffered after the collapse. And I know the struggles they experience, and the fear, as the U.S. will indeed stop at nothing to push Russia into the sea. I also have experienced Russophobia here on Quora, even though I am not Russian. I felt it. And, in the Western press, it is palpable.

The struggle against Ukraine is not new. It is a long and painful history for the Russian people, and for the Ukrainians. The war with the kulaks was one of survival. It was the conquest of grain.

Mr. Putin feels the pressure of preserving Russia from being pushed into the sea by NATO expansion. This is no fiction. Since 2014, the right wing coup in Ukraine changed the equation. The U.S. has been gorging the right wing, corrupt, oligarch-owned government there, with money. As such, Mr. Zelensky feels no compulsion to resolve the diplomatic issues related to the treatment of ethnic Russians in East Ukraine. More important, Mr. Zelensky since 2019 was approached by the Kremlin to make peace. He sent drones to kill. This is from the highly respected Foreign Affairs Journal, not some bullshit Russian propaganda.

Mr. Zelensky and the government there have used their positions to squeeze both the U.S. and Russia for more and more, in a bad faith relationship. In 2021, Mr. Putin asked the government again to enter diplomatic talks. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian government was told NATO would not be expanded. This promise was never kept. And then, in 1997, NATO was expanded out further.

Weapons and manpower has been sent to Russia’s borders. Mr. Putin informed the West in 2015 that the Ukraine, Finland, and Sweden must not become members of NATO, and that these are redline points for Russia, as this is a fundamental security issue, for the safety of her people. Again, this was ignored. In a bad faith move, renewed efforts are being made to bring the Ukraine into NATO, in addition, with talks for Sweden and Finland.

Mr. Putin is cornered. He saw what happened in Yugoslavia. It is inevitable for Russia if she is to survive. To make matters worse, in the Ukraine there is a huge neo-Nazi problem. This has been documented by numerous sources. There has been shelling and violence against ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine.

Mr. Putin is faced with the reality that if he doesn’t strike now, the Ukraine will get into NATO and be fully armed and there will be no turning back. He is also tasked with liberating the breakaway areas in Eastern Ukraine. He has tried for years to resolve this, but his efforts are in vain. And so, he is faced with acting for the preservation of his nation or giving up, like Gorbachev did. The latter is unacceptable. He will not let his people suffer that indignity again.

And so, he has chosen to act. He has chosen to act in such a way that civilian life is respected, at least as far as can be achieved in war. But make no mistake, he has made clear that he will succeed. whatever is required to do, he will. But failing is not an option. .

Further, Mr. Zelensky has acted in bad faith. A few days before the war, he disgustingly delivered a self-serving speech in Munich in which he attempted to guilt the U.S. into doing the paying and fighting for him. Mr. Zelensky has let his country be infested with Nazis. He is not himself a Nazi. And his government is right wing, but not Nazi. But the Azov militas are Nazis, and that is a fact. Attempts to lie about this by the liberals in the U.S. no less make it true.

Instead of giving up and going into exile in the face of overwhelming force, Mr. Zelensky has asked the elderly and the young to fight his battles for him. That is wrong. And it is nothing more than theatrics.

Mr. Putin has chosen to strike, while he still can, for the preservation of his country. Should he be ashamed of that? No.

In this life, there are those who choose to act, and those who choose to be defeated. Mr. Putin, with the support of Mr. Medvedev, have decided that they take a stand for the survival of Russia. And for that, there are no apologies.

War is a horrible and sad tragedy. The loss of innocent life is terrible. But the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr remarked that sometimes it is more sinful to not act than to act. Sometimes, there are no easy or good options. But we must stand for what must be done. In this case, Mr. Putin tried all available options, but the West would not budge. Mr. Putin watched as the U.S. hoard made its way around the globe, devouring Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other nations in its bloody maw. Mostly for oil. Mostly for riches.

Mr. Putin has made his choice.”

“Let us accept this as a sign from the Gods, and follow where they beckon, in vengeance on our double-dealing enemies. The die is cast.”

—Julius Caesar

Why doesn’t the US do anything about the Uyghur Genocide of China at Xinjiang internment camps? Neither a warning nor a condemnation has issued.

I have researched the Uyghur “Genocide” claims and they are supported by Gish gallup “data” that is nonsense. The point is to hurt China and keep it from growing, which the U.S. wants because it is a threat to American hegemony. There is some repression, but there is no genocide.

Nathan Ruser (@Nrg8000) | TwitterSkip all Welcome home! This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you. Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account. Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love. Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly. Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in. Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now. Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about. Find what’s happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly. Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.https://twitter.com/Nrg8000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Blumenthal said this guy spends time slogging through buildings to pretend which is going to be the “concentration camp.” The propagandists go from there.

One of the tricks of the propagandists is to overwhelm you with bogus facts, figures, and data. Since you don’t know better, you think “I will trust them.” Don’t. They are full of shit. The claims related to IUD insertion are the best. Check those out! Totally unrealistic.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/v7Rhh_eXH1g?enablejsapi=1&iv_load_policy=3&autoplay=1Adrian Zenz Archives – The GrayzoneThe Grayzone articles about Adrian Zenz, the far-right fundamentalist German researcher cited on China, Xinjiang, and the Uyghurshttps://thegrayzone.com/tag/adrian-zenz/‘Independent’ report claiming Uyghur genocide brought to you by sham university, neocon ideologues lobbying to ‘punish’ China | The GrayzoneThe Newlines Institute report accusing China of Uyghur genocide is propaganda by neocon interventionist operatives at a sham universityhttps://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/17/report-uyghur-genocide-sham-university-neocon-punish-china/

Max Blumenthal exposes the lies about China

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rej6uBVnVF4?enablejsapi=1&iv_load_policy=3&autoplay=1US State Department accusation of China ‘genocide’ relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far-right ideologue | The GrayzoneThe Trump and Biden administrations used right-wing religious extremist Adrian Zenz for their “genocide” accusation against China, based on flagrant data abuse and falsehoodshttps://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/18/us-media-reports-chinese-genocide-relied-on-fraudulent-far-right-researcher/

When researching a “genocide,” be mindful of using Wikipedia. Who is doing the editing?CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia editsPeople using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816

I learned this from researching the “Holodomor” and “communist mass killings.”

Here is an example of the anti-communist, biased sources used in Wikipedia. Robert Conquest was a British intelligence services propagandist who fashioned himself a “historian.” He worked under the Atlee government. He eventually got a medal from George W. Bush for his propaganda efforts.

Icon for Anti-Communist Propaganda

Anti-Communist Propaganda

Posted by 

Alexander FinneganUpdated Sun

Wikipedia is the biggest anti-communist, anti-Marxist Leninist pile o’ filth you will ever read.

Check out the parade of propagandists we have for the article on “Dekulakization.” Robert “I work for the British Intelligence Services Propaganda Dept” Conquest and his debunked book “Harvest of Sorrows,” “The Black Book of Communism” which has been debunked, Nicholas Werth is a whore of the Hoover Institution, which gets funding from—wait for it—a foundation which gets money from a rich Ukrainian nationalist.

The articles about Mao Zedong and Stalin are even worse. The Stalin one references Trotskyist scholars only and the Mao Zedong one references the propagandist Frank Dikotter (Mao killed a gazillion sparrows and caused a famine guy & guy who purposely mistranslates Chinese sayings by Mao to turn them into anticommunist propaganda phrases), and Mao’s former doctor who claimed Mao was filthy and promiscuous (both proven to be false).

Then if you debate anticommunists on Quora they read Wikipedia and mansplain to you why “communism killed a gazillion people.”

CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia editsPeople using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816

The FBI and CIA edit Wikipedia to make it more anti-communist.

901 views

34 upvotes

5 shares

5 comments

Likewise, right wing groups, particularly cynical and manipulative Ukrainian nationalists and Polish nationalists push bullshit “genocides” to further an agenda using guilt tripping, shaming, and identity politics.

Dishonesty with their figures:

All coronavirus victims are “victims of communism?” Nope.

Remember when they told you Saddam Hussein was “literally Hitler” and “ripping babies from incubators?” Same propaganda method used here. “It’s different this time” is their rallying cry.‘Orgy of murder’: The Poles who ‘hunted’ Jews and turned them over to the Nazis***https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-orgy-of-murder-the-poles-who-hunted-jews-and-turned-them-in-1.5430977

One of them, the “Victims of Communism,” is a total sham. It is U.S. government sponsored shill organization. It relies upon the debunked “Black Book of Communism” for credibility, which even its own co-authors have stepped away from. Also, the sources are from the Hoover Institution, a propaganda outlet pretending to be a “think-tank.” Ironically, its “fellows’ include actual atrocity collaborators like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Kissinger.

The Polish government is also at the heart of sponsoring this type of propaganda nonsense. It does it to detract from the complicity of some Poles who turned their Jewish neighbors over to the Nazis.The merits of taking an anti-anti-communism stance | Aeon EssaysMillions of Russians and eastern Europeans now believe that they were better off under communism. What does this signify?https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-communism-stance

The Black Book of Communism has been debunked a million times.

Whenever someone starts pearl clutching and school-marming about “genocides” other those which are clearly documented like the Holocaust, watch out. A political agenda isn’t far behind.

The more triggered they pretend to be, the closer you have gotten to the truth. Another trick is when Falun Gong tells lies about the Chinese government.Shen Yun: The Falun Gong cult’s anti-communist propaganda roadshowFrom February 15-20, 2022, Washington’s John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts will host a sensational retelling of China’s history spanning thousands of years.https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/shen-yun-the-falun-gong-cults-anti-communist-propaganda-roadshow/

Attack the bogus claims and the political operatives start smearing you. You touched a nerve.

Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan

Alexander Finnegan

J.D. Law, Marxist-LeninistUpdated Apr 24

Are the Uyghurs genocide claims bogus?

“Genocide?”

We don’t have proof of it. It is like Bigfoot. It might exist, but where is it? I have tried to get to the bottom of this, but I can’t find any definitive answer.

There are some who are convinced about this. I respect their passion. But after all these years, what do they have? Still waiting…

Genocide is a large scale, systematic attempt to wipe out a particular group of people, race, religion, etc. Those are serious claims. Biden just claimed the Russians are engaging in “genocide” in Ukraine. Even White House officials have said Biden is full of it. They keep backtracking on this guy, because his ability to filter is gone. He is suffering from dementia.

Let’s take a look…

More than one million Uighur Muslims are estimated to be in detention in “counter-extremism centres” in China’s far west, the vice chairperson of a United Nations anti-discrimination committee has said, citing credible reports.

Gay McDougall made the comments on Friday as the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination started reviewing China‘s record over recent years in the Swiss city of Geneva.

Members were “deeply concerned” about reported detentions of ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities, which have “turned the [Xinjiang] Uighur Autonomous Region into something that resembles a massive internment camp that is shrouded in secrecy – a sort of ‘no rights zone’,” McDougall said at the start of the two-day hearing.

“Another two million have been forced into so-called re-education camps for political and cultural indoctrination,” she added.

A Chinese delegation of some 50 officials made no comment.

China says Xinjiang faces a serious threat from rebels and separatists who plot attacks and stir up tensions between the mostly Muslim Uighur minority who call the region home and the ethnic Han Chinese majority.

Earlier on Friday, Yu Jianhua, China’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, said it was working towards equality and solidarity among all ethnic groups.

The Chinese delegation leader also highlighted economic progress and rising living standards among other things.

The session continues on Monday, with conclusions expected later.

Different figures

In her remarks, McDougall said that most of these people have never been properly charged with a crime or tried in court.

While McDougall did not cite her sources, the numbers of people forced into detention and into re-education matched a report that the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders submitted to the committee.

Other groups have given far lower figures, however.

A submission by the Human Rights Watch advocacy group said there were “at least tens of thousands” in political education centres.

Amnesty International wrote that “at a minimum, tens of thousands, with some sources estimating hundreds of thousands” of Uighurs have been detained.

But UN’s McDougall said that members of the Uighur community and others Muslims were being treated as “enemies of the state” solely on the basis of their ethno-religious identity.

More than 100 Uighur students who returned to China from countries including Egypt and Turkey had been detained, with some dying in custody, she said.

McDougall also cited reports suggesting that Chinese authorities are persecuting people for using Muslim greetings, possessing halal food, or for having long beards or headscarves.

In addition, she pointed to reports of mass surveillance and the broad collection of DNA samples and iris scans in the Xinjiang.[1]

Step Back

Looks like we are looking more at tens of thousands who are detained. Of millions of people, is that unreasonable? Why would people be detained? Maybe because they really are plotting terrorism.

Let’s not gaslight. The history of terrorism by these people is real. And it was horrible.

There are claims about “illegal surveillance.” You mean like PRISM? Or like the whole goddamn surveillance state the U.S. does? It isn’t whataboutism to say that literally EVERY nation does surveillance. That seems like a human issue. Should it be curtailed? Yes. I think it should. I condemn that. People have a right to privacy. But let’s not engage in pearl clutching.

Chinese government is a “strict parent” model. People exchange some rights in exchange for a government that is professional, competent, and effective. While in the U.S. we elect corrupt goons like Trump to lead coups against us, the Chinese prefer a more indirect model. And it is working for them, considering the CCP has lifted over a billion people out of poverty, has eliminated homelessness, provides healthcare and education to all, and is now working to reduce inequality. I wish my government could do that. Or even keep me safe during COVID against right wingers who are trying to get the hospital system overwhelmed with sick people because they are anti-vaccers.

UN

I used to respect the UN. But now it blocked the request by the Russian government to investigate the Bullshit Bucha Killings. Why? Because it has become Western dominated. It is not objective. So why would I trust it against China?

I have seen videos of the Uighur facilities where they work to provide people vocational training. They are working to reduce poverty and eliminate the sources of terrorism. Wow. How utterly…not dumb. Americans would never do that. Our solution is invading some country that has nothing to do with the original source of terrorism. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia and Egypt after 911. Instead we just went straight for the fucking oil. Fucking ghouls. 200K+ people died from that.

Human Rights Watch

This group claims to investigate human rights abuses and reports them to the UN. They raise a fit about the Uighurs all the time. Is this group biased against China?

HRW has been accused of evidence-gathering bias because it is said to be “credulous of civilian witnesses in places like Gaza and Afghanistan” but “skeptical of anyone in a uniform.”[1] Its founder, Robert Bernstein, accused the organization of poor research methods and relying on “witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers.”[2] [3]

That doesn’t sound good.

Anything else?

HRW has been criticized for perceived bias by the national governments it has investigated for human rights abuses,[54][55][56] by NGO Monitor,[57] and by HRW’s founder, and former Chairman, Robert L. Bernstein.[7] Bias allegations have included undue influence by United States government policy, and claims that HRW is biased against Israel (and focuses undue attention on the Arab–Israeli conflict).[58] HRW has also been criticized for poor research methodology and lax fact-checking, and ignoring the human-rights abuses of less-open regimes. HRW has routinely publicly addressed, and often denies, criticism of its reporting and findings.[59]

According to Democracy Now, HRW has also been criticized for having a ‘revolving door’ with the U.S. government, a charge which HRW disputes.[60]

In 2020, the HRW Board of Directors discovered that Human Rights Watch accepted a $470,000 donation from Saudi real estate magnate Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber, owner of a company HRW “had previously identified as complicit in labor rights abuse”, under the condition that the donation not be used to support LGBT advocacy in the Middle East and North Africa. The gift was returned and Human Rights Watch issued a statement saying that accepting the funding was a “deeply regrettable decision” in response to investigative reporting from The Intercept regarding the donation.[61]

In August 2020, HRW executive director Kenneth Roth was sanctioned—together with the heads of four other U.S.-based democracy and human rights organizations and six U.S. Republican lawmakers—by the Chinese government for supporting the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement in the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. The leaders of the five organizations saw the sanctioning, whose details were unspecified, as a tit-for-tat measure in response to the earlier sanctioning by the U.S. of 11 Hong Kong officials. The latter step had in turn been a reaction to the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law at the end of June.[62] The New York Times reported in October 2021 that HRW left Hong Kong as a result of the Chinese sanctions, with the situation in Hong Kong henceforth to be monitored by the China team of HRW. The decision to leave came amid a wider crackdown on civil society groups in Hong Kong.[63] [4]

The reason I become skeptical is that the U.S. is dishonest. It uses NGO’s for political purposes all over the world to foment color revolutions using Gene Sharp methods. The Arab Spring was done this way. The result of the Arab Spring was a failed state in Libya. There are public slave markets downtown. I’m not kidding.https://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf

The above is the “road map” to destroying a country from within. Check it out.Ukraine Uncensored · April 5https://qr.ae/pvsYii

This post exposes how the U.S. implements “regime change” around the world, covertly. It is part of the new, Ghouls-Based Order.

All of this is interconnected. Destroying Russia first via Ukraine, then China.

Uighur Terrorism. 200+ fucking attacks.

Source:September 11 and Uighur Separatism on JSTORChien-peng Chung, China’s “War on Terror”: September 11 and Uighur Separatism, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 4 (Jul. – Aug., 2002), pp. 8-12https://www.jstor.org/stable/20033235

Let’s look closer:

In the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States, China has launched its own “war on terror.” Beijing now labels as terrorists those who are fighting for an independent state in the northwestern province of Xinjiang, which the separatists call “Eastern Turkestan.” The government considers these activists part of a network of international Islamic terror, with funding from the Middle East, training in Pakistan, and combat experience in Chechnya and Afghanistan.

In fact, separatist violence in Xinjiang is neither new nor driven primarily by outsiders. The region’s Uighurs, most of whom practice Sufi Islam and speak a Turkic language, have long had their national ambitions frustrated by Beijing. The latest wave of Uighur separatism has been inspired not by Osama bin Laden but by the unraveling of the Soviet Union, as militants seek to emulate the independence gained by some Muslim communities in Central Asia. For a decade now, Xinjiang has been rocked by demonstrations, bombings, and political assassinations. According to a recent government report, Uighur separatists were responsible for 200 attacks between 1990 and 2001, causing 162 deaths and injuring more than 440 people. In the largest single incident, in 1997, as many as 100 people may have been killed during a pro-independence uprising in the town of Ili, with the government and the separatists blaming each other for the fatalities. These incidents have occurred despite the best efforts of the Chinese authorities to suppress them. As part of their continuing “strike hard” campaign against crime, for example, Chinese police recently reported the arrest of 166 separatist “terrorists” and other “major criminals” in a series of raids carried out in Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital.

The separatists have accused the regime of resorting to arbitrary arrest, torture, detention without public trial, and summary execution. The Chinese government, meanwhile, has alleged that members of a shadowy “Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement” have obtained funds and training from al Qaeda. As the security environment in Xinjiang grows increasingly tense, the conflict shows just how complicated such struggles can be, and how inadequate purely repressive approaches are in dealing with them.

BEG TO DIFFER

China’s Qing dynasty completed its annexation of what is now Xinjiang in 1759, and the region’s first demand for independence can be traced to an uprising by a local chieftain named Yakub Beg in 1865. He fought fierce battles against the armies of the Chinese court and even managed to secure, in return for trade concessions, diplomatic recognition from tsarist Russia and the United Kingdom. Although finally defeated in 1877, Beg’s campaign set a precedent by calling for Uighur independence based on appeals to religion and ethnicity.

With the end of China’s imperial era, the Uighurs (in combination with other local Muslim groups) twice briefly achieved statehood. From 1931 to 1934, and again from 1944 to 1949, separate regimes calling themselves the Eastern Turkestan Republic were set up in Xinjiang. The first, which started in the city of Hami, was crushed by a local warlord representing the government of the erstwhile Republic of China. The second, which centered on the districts of Ili, Altai, and Chugachak, was pressured into integrating with the People’s Republic of China shortly after the latter’s formation. For the next four decades, Xinjiang’s Communist rulers kept the lid on ethnic separatism in the region through iron-fisted control. But for many Uighurs the aspiration for a country of their own never went away.

Today the million-strong Uighur emigre community provides support for several separatist political organizations. Located across the globe, these organizations are not all radical; indeed, many do not advocate violence at all. The Washington, D.C.-based Eastern Turkestan National Freedom Center, for instance, lobbies members of Congress on behalf of the Uighur cause and publishes books and tapes on pan-Turkic nationalism for circulation inside Xinjiang. Meanwhile, the leader of the Europe-based Eastern Turkestan Union, Erkin Alptekin, prefers to organize conferences and work with Tibetan emigre groups seeking autonomy for their own homeland. In truth, whether or not they support the use of violent methods, the Xinjiang separatist groups both at home and abroad are too small, dispersed, and faceless to constitute a threat to Chinese control over the region. Beijing fears them nevertheless, because the mere possibility that they may cause disruption creates an impression of social instability in Xinjiang and dampens foreign investment.

The Chinese government has alleged that “more than a thousand” Xinjiang separatists have received terrorist training in Afghanistan and claims to have arrested a hundred foreign-trained terrorists who have made their way back to Xinjiang. But only one Uighur separatist organization, the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Party of Allah, appears conclusively to have operated in Afghanistan. Its identity was exposed when its putative leader, Alerkan Abula, was executed by the Chinese authorities in January 2001. Other groups, such as the East Turkestan Opposition Party, the Revolutionary Front of Eastern Turkestan, the Organization for Turkestan Freedom, and the Organization for the Liberation of Uighurstan, have links to small guerrilla cells based in the oasis towns of Xinjiang’s Taklimakan Desert. The guerrillas have raided government laboratories and warehouses for explosive materials and manufactured various types of bombs. The Turkey-based Organization for Turkestan Freedom, for example, claimed responsibility for the bombing of a bus in Beijing on March 7, 1997, injuring 30 people. The Chinese government also suspects this organization of attacks on the Chinese embassy in Ankara and the Chinese consulate in Istanbul that same year.

Despite the separatists’ efforts, China is unlikely to relinquish control of the province. With 18 million people, Xinjiang produces one-third of China’s cotton, and explorations in the Tarim Basin have revealed the country’s largest oil and gas reserves. The region borders Mongolia, Russia, several Central Asian republics, Pakistan, and India, making it a useful springboard for projecting Chinese influence abroad. And Beijing realizes that acquiescing to Uighur demands will only embolden separatists in Tibet and Taiwan.

The government has also invested a great deal in the region. As part of a grand scheme to develop China’s western areas, Beijing plans to spend more than 100 billion yuan ($12 billion) on 70 major projects in Xinjiang over the next five years, mostly to improve infrastructure. The government has recently completed a railway linking the remote western city of Kashgar to the rest of Xinjiang. And the regime is considering proposals for using foreign investment to build oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia across the Taklimakan Desert.

DEFINING MOMENT

The U.S. action in Afghanistan presented a dilemma for the Uighurs. On the streets of Urumqi, Kashgar, and other cities in Xinjiang, opinions both for and against the U.S. antiterrorist effort could be heard. Many Uighurs expressed sympathy for their Taliban friends and fellow Muslims across the border in Afghanistan, who had provided sanctuary, arms, and training to Xinjiang separatist fighters over the years. Yet the Uighurs also had positive feelings toward the United States, which had occasionally spoken out against Beijing’s violations of their rights.

The September 11 attacks and the subsequent crisis also created a dilemma for China. They offered an opportunity for the government to reframe its battle with the Uighur separatists as part of a larger international struggle against terrorism. But the Afghan campaign raised other, less comfortable issues as well. As a result the Chinese response to the U.S. war on terror has been muted. China supported two UN Security Council resolutions that condemned global terrorism in general terms, but since then Beijing has remained notably silent, a reflection of its ambivalence.

On the one hand, China sees the U.S. fight against al Qaeda as helping to safeguard the authority and effectiveness of national governments. On the other, it worries about the legal and diplomatic repercussions of sanctioning such a clear violation of state sovereignty as the invasion of Afghanistan. It was fortunate for China that no UN resolution seeking to ratify the legality of the U.S.-led military campaign was introduced. A vote against such a resolution would have been seen by Washington as an unfriendly gesture, but a vote for could have set a precedent legitimizing the sort of intrusive foreign military interventions that China has generally opposed. And abstaining would have made the Chinese government look weak and indecisive in the fight against global terrorism.

The Chinese government has tried to equate America’s fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda with its own battle against the separatists of Xinjiang. Beijing is signaling to Washington that it wants a free hand in dealing with what it perceives to be foreign-sponsored terrorists on its soil, just as the United States is doing at home and abroad. The Bush administration, however, has been reluctant to equate the fight against “terrorists with global reach” with domestic crackdowns against separatists in China and elsewhere. Rather, Washington has made it clear to the Chinese that nonviolent separatist activities cannot be classified as terrorism.

The problem is that some of the Xinjiang activists do in fact use violence to achieve their goals. Distinguishing between genuine counterterrorism and the repression of minority rights can thus be difficult, as can be determining which acts of terrorism are “international” and which are purely domestic. Foreign-backed militant separatism, a not uncommon phenomenon of which Uighur activism is an example, poses intellectual and legal problems as well as practical ones. Clear guidelines are needed to determine when political refugees can be extradited or punished for supporting separatism from beyond a country’s borders, for example, or when international law justifies the use of force against citizens who receive weapons, funding, and training from abroad. Otherwise, precedents might accumulate suggesting it is acceptable for some governments to go after foreign sources of terrorism, but not for others.

WHITHER THE UIGHURS?

What Beijing needs to recognize is that its own policies are the root causes of Uighur resentment. Rather than trying to stamp out the problem through force and repression alone, the Chinese government should instead do what it can to improve the conditions that fuel separatist feelings.

The government’s call to develop the west has accelerated migration by Han Chinese into Xinjiang, thereby exacerbating tensions. In 1949, the region was almost 90 percent Uighur; today, that figure has dropped to 45-50 percent. Many Uighurs do not speak Mandarin Chinese, which is usually the prerequisite for any good-paying job or government position, and few are as well educated as the immigrants. As a result, the Han dominate commerce in Xinjiang’s urban areas and are frequently seen by the locals as having the region’s best jobs in the government, the Communist Party, and the military. The Han also usually live in newer neighborhoods and go to informally segregated schools.

Rather than allowing the flow of immigration into Xinjiang to remain unchecked, the Chinese regime should regulate it so that immigrants do not compete unnecessarily with the locals for jobs, schools, or state services. Beijing should encourage public-sector corporations, oil companies, and government agencies to increase their hiring of ethnic minorities. Quotas for Uighur admission into colleges and government positions should also be expanded and enforced. The government must also allocate funds fairly among Han and Uighur neighborhoods. Cleaning up the area around China’s nuclear test site at Lop Nor in the Taklimakan Desert, where soil and groundwater pollution are causing birth defects and health problems among the local inhabitants, would be another important step.

Furthermore, as guaranteed in the Chinese constitution, the government must uphold religious freedom. Muslim Uighurs who openly practice their faith complain of harassment by the authorities. The regime must respect Muslim customs and allow the free functioning of mosques and religious schools, interfering only if they are found to be educating or harboring militants. Political changes are required as well: less gerrymandering in favor of Han Chinese among Xinjiang’s administrative units, more proportionate ethnic representation in party and government structures, and more [5] devolution of power from Beijing to the region.

Hunting down terrorists is only a partial solution to the violence in Xinjiang. Unless China listens to the Uighurs and treats them better, its troubled western region is unlikely to be calmed any time soon.[6]

Conclusion

  1. We don’t know about the repression. Obviously there is some. And it is likely to be tens of thousands detained without proper legal recourse. That should be remedied.
  2. Are the Uighurs a violent and dangerous threat? Obviously. 200+ attacks is no joke. Don’t the Chinese people deserve to be safe? Do they not deserve to defend themselves?
  3. It seems like the U.S. is actually just using these “genocide” claims in a cynical way to put pressure on China. “Human Rights Watch” is a revolving door NGO with little credibility.
  4. Is there a “genocide”? There is no proof of that. None. So let’s not play games.
  5. It seems like the Chinese are using their rehabilitation centers to work at fixing the underlying causes of terrorism, which include poverty and inequality.

Footnotes

[1] One million Muslim Uighurs held in secret China camps: UN panel

[2] The Times & The Sunday Times

[3] https://www.hrw.org/node/75138

[4] Human Rights Watch – Wikipedia

[5] China’s “War on Terror”

[6] China’s “War on Terror”

3.8K views

129 upvotes

4 shares

6 comments

Icon for Alexander Finnegan

Alexander Finnegan

Posted by 

Alexander FinneganApr 26

Propaganda Term of the Day

“Genocide-Denier”

What it really means

“You must accept our fake genocide. If you question it, you are evil. It is already proven, even if it is not. Also applies to ‘atrocities’ like the fake Snake Island killings, the fake maternity hospital bombing, etc. You MUST accept this narrative or you are a bad person who deserves to be guilt manipulated by others into being publicly shamed and cancelled.”

Kind of like: “Do you support the troops?”

Real meaning: “Shut up and don’t question the war or you are a heartless bastard who doesn’t care about the well being of our soldiers.”

It is designed to guilt shame you into silence. It controls the narrative.

Sorry, I don’t play that game. The Holocaust was real. It is well documented. The Holodomor is bullshit. It was invented by Goebbels to invoke Ukrainian nationalism ahead of the German invasion. There was a famine. It was bad. But it was not intentional.Alexander Finnegan · Feb 20Why does my friend of Ukrainian descent try to make me feel bad about the “Holodomor”? He even claims his grandparents almost starved to death under the order of Comrade Joseph Stalin.1. First, be sympathetic. There was a Ukrainian Famine. It was bad. People did go hungry because food was scarce. These people did suffer. It makes no sense to say they didn’t. 2. From their perspective, they saw Soviet workers collecting all the grain, every drop. They were hungry and grain was being taken from them. Naturally they are going to wonder why. And there are kulaks telling them it is because Stalin is trying to starve them. Some of the officials who collected the grain were acting under extreme stress given the conditions and could be brutal, sort of like American cops. 3. Ukrainian nationalists hate communism. There are even thousands who form militias to fight beside the Nazis. 4. The Ukraine and Russia have a long history of famines going back millennia. Under the Tsar, famines were a regular occurrence. 5. So why was the grain taken? Why every last drop? Because the famine extended far beyond the Ukraine. The grain was collected and centrally sorted to be rationed for all people, including those in cities and for the Red Army. Stalin faced a dilemma—the U.S. would not accept gold or currency for payment. It insisted on receiving grain as payment. Originally Stalin was for keeping the NEP, kulak based farming system of private production. But it became clear that this wouldn’t produce enough grain. So Stalin switched and endorsed the collectivization of agriculture. This was to be a more efficient system utilizing economies of scale and modern farming tractors and techniques. Stalin needed all the farmers he could get to produce grain, but at the same time needed people to move to the cities to work in the factories. Starving millions of people while he was desperately trying to collectivize and industrialize would be suicidal. Of course he wouldn’t do that, even from a selfish perspective. The kulaks who owned the land were hoarding grain and selling it on the black market while people were hungry. They intentionally left the grain to rot in the fields and sabotaged the harvest out of spite against the collectivization plans. They slaughtered half the livestock needed to farm. 6. So why industrialize so quickly? Because it became obvious to Stalin and others that another war was inevitable with Germany given the political conditions of the day. Stalin predicted another war in 1929, and he was absolutely correct. Had the Soviet Union not industrialized so quickly, the Germans would have won. And their plans were total extermination of the Soviet populace to make room for Aryans. The Hunger Plan was no joke. This was a war of survival, and Stalin had no time to play games. Measures were taken to alleviate the famine by the government, and the relief measures were very serious: Your personal share link | GMX Cloud This is a letter written by Stalin translated into English: DOCUMENT 177 Letter from Stalin to Mikhail Sholokhov, May 3, I933, on sabotage by the grain growers of the Veshenskii raion [HandwrittenI Dear Comrade Sholokhov: As you already know, all of your letters have been received. The help for which you are asking has been approved. To investigate the matter, I am sending Mr. Shkiriatov to the Veshenskii mion to see you. I earnestly request you to render him assistance. So that’s that. But not all, Comrade Sholokhov. The problem is that your letters create a somewhat one-sided impression. I would like to write you a few words about that. I am thankful to you for your letters, as they reveal the open sores in party and Soviet work; they reveal how our officials, in their ardent desire to restrain the enemy, sometimes inadvertently beat up their friends and sink to the point of sadism. Collectivization 397 But this does not mean, that I completely agree with you on everything. You see one side of the situation, and you do not see it too badly. But this is only one side of the matter. In order not to make political mistakes (your letters are not fiction, but outright politics), you must observe widely; you must be able to see things from both sides. The other side is that the esteemed grain growers of your region (and not only from your region) have conducted a “sit-down strike” (sabotage!) and were not against leaving workers and the Red Army without bread. The fact that this sabotage was peaceful and outwardly harmless (bloodless) does not change the fact that the esteemed grain growers actually carried on a “quiet” war against Soviet authority. A war of starvation, dear Comrade Sholokhov. Of course, this circumstance cannot to any degree justify those terrible acts that were allowed to happen, as you are convinced, by our officials. Those guilty of these terrible acts should be punished accordingly. But it is clear as day that these esteemed grain growers are not as innocent as they appear to be from a distance. Well, so long, shaking your hand Yours J. Stalin May 5,1933[1] Another is a resolution passed by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party, November 27, 1932 concerning the harvest and measures to combat sabotage. These collectivization farmers are praising the collectives and asking for the elimination of the kulaks as a class. The Holomodor was a famine caused by drought, a higher birth rate prior to the famine, sabotage from kulaks and the intentional hiding of grain, resulting crop failure. The famine occurred not just in Ukraine, but other areas as well. Goebbels and Hearst fabricated a story that Stalin caused the famine and intentionally starved millions of people. This is against the facts. Hearst was a pro-Nazi newspaper publisher close to Goebbels. A fake news story about the famine being intentional was created and published. Old photos from the famine in 1917 were used. The idea was to stir up Ukrainian nationalism ahead of a German invasion. Goebbels was big on these types of psy-ops. Further, there is documented proof that Stalin ordered relief measures to Ukraine. Independent journalists also visited and confirmed that the famine was unintentional. The details can be found here: Alexander Finnegan’s answer to What is the history of famines and starvation in Russia 1850-present day? In this photo Soviet workers find grain hidden by kulaks. Before collectivization farming plots were small. Sadly, the conflicts with the kulaks has been politicized to vilify Stalin and the Soviets. The reality was much more nuanced than “Stalin killed and starved 20 million Ukrainians and kulaks.” In the modern day Ukrainian nationalists have been trying to get the Holomodor listed as a genocide because then the Ukraine could get reparations via the U.N. from Russia. It also serves as a useful victim card to play for political purposes. Interestingly, the Ukrainians received the same relief measures as others, including neighboring areas that were affected. Other proof: Goebbels at work “It is a matter of some significance that Cardinal Innitzer’s allegations of famine-genocide were widely promoted throughout the 1930s, not only by Hitler’s chief propagandist Goebbels, but also by American Fascists as well. It will be recalled that Hearst kicked off his famine campaign with a radio broadcast based mainly on material from Cardinal Innitzer’s “aid committee.” In Organized Anti-Semitism in America, the 1941 book exposing Nazi groups and activities in the pre-war United States, Donald Strong notes that American fascist leader Father Coughlin used Nazi propaganda material extensively. This included Nazi charges of “atrocities by Jew Communists” and verbatim portions of a Goebbels speech referring to Innitzer’s “appeal of July 1934, that millions of people were dying of hunger throughout the Soviet Union.” Tottle, Douglas. Fraud, Famine, and Fascism. Toronto: Progress Books,1987, p. 49–51″ Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor “This is Stalin urging the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine to take appropriate measures to prevent a crop failure. The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine. Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee — J. STALIN From the Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58. Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.” Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor “This is the response of Anna Louise Strong, an American journalist famous for reporting on the Soviet Union, to a question about the supposed genocide. QUESTION: Is it true that during 1932–33 several million people were allowed to starve to death in the Ukraine and North Caucasus because they were politically hostile to the Soviets? ANSWER: Not true. I visited several places in those regions during that period. There was a serious grain shortage in the 1932 harvest due chiefly to inefficiencies of the organizational period of the new large-scale mechanized farming among peasants unaccustomed to machines. To this was added sabotage by dispossessed kulaks, the leaving of the farms by 11 million workers who went to new industries, the cumulative effect of the world crisis in depressing the value of Soviet farm exports, and a drought in five basic grain regions in 1931. The harvest of 1932 was better than that of 1931 but was not all gathered; on account of overoptimistic promises from rural districts, Moscow discovered the actual situation only in December when a considerable amount of grain was under snow. Strong, Anna Louise. Searching Out the Soviets. New Republic: August 7, 1935, p. 356 Here is Strong again on the harvest of 1933. The conquest of bread was achieved that summer, a victory snatched from a great disaster. The 1933 harvest surpassed that of 1930, which till then had held the record. This time, the new record was made not by a burst of half-organized enthusiasm, but by growing efficiency and permanent organization … This nationwide cooperation beat the 1934 drought, securing a total crop for the USSR equal to the all-time high of 1933. Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 44–45 This is what a study of the Russian Archives led to. Recent evidence has indicated that part of the cause of the famine was an exceptionally low harvest in 1932, much lower than incorrect Soviet methods of calculation had suggested. The documents included here or published elsewhere do not yet support the claim that the famine was deliberately produced by confiscating the harvest, or that it was directed especially against the peasants of the Ukraine. Koenker and Bachman, Eds. Revelations from the Russian Archives. Washington: Library of Congress, 1997, p. 401 Another confirmation after a search of the Russian archives. In view of the importance of grain stocks to understanding the famine, we have searched Russian archives for evidence of Soviet planned and actual grain stocks in the early 1930s. Our main sources were the Politburo protocols, including the (“special files,” the highest secrecy level), and the papers of the agricultural collections committee Komzag, of the committee on commodity funds, and of Sovnarkom. The Sovnarkom records include telegrams and correspondence of Kuibyshev, who was head of Gosplan, head of Komzag and the committee on reserves, and one of the deputy chairs of Komzag at that time. We have not obtained access to the Politburo working papers in the Presidential Archive, to the files of the committee on reserves or to the relevant files in military archives. But we have found enough information to be confident that this very a high figure for grain stocks is wrong and that Stalin did not have under his control huge amounts of grain, which could easily have been used to eliminate the famine. Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932–1933 by R. W. Davies, M. B. Tauger, S.G. Wheatcroft.Slavic Review, Volume 54, Issue 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 642–657.” Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor The Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin’s Crime That Never Took Place This newspaper was published by Hearst as part of his deal with Goebbels to promote the Nazis. Hearst was also a Nazi supporter. The photos were found to be from other famines, one of them 10 years earlier. The “reporting” was fabrication. Other reporters that actually looked into it report that while there was a famine it was not intentional. “The CIA believed that Ukrainian nationalism could be used as an efficient cold war weapon.While the Ukrainian nationalists provided Washington with valuable information about its Cold War rivals, the CIA in return was placing the nationalist veterans into positions of influence and authority, helping them to create semi-academic institutions or academic positions in existing universities. By using these formal and informal academic networks, the Ukrainian nationalists had been disseminating anti-Russian propaganda, creating myths and re-writing history at the same time whitewashing the wartime crimes of OUN-UPA. “In 1987 the film “Harvest of Despair” was made. It was the beginning of the ‘Holodomor’ movement. The film was entirely funded by Ukrainian nationalists, mainly in Canada. A Canadian scholar, Douglas Tottle (1) , exposed the fact that the film took photographs from the 1921–22 ‘Volga famine’ and used them to illustrate the 1932–33 famine. Tottle later wrote a book, ‘Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard,‘ about the phony ‘Holodomor’ issue,” Professor Furr elaborated. “ The Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin’s Crime That Never Took Place “In the last 15 years or so an enormous amount of new material on Stalin … has become available from Russian archives. I should make clear that as a historian I have a strong orientation to telling the truth about the past, no matter how uncomfortable or unpalatable the conclusions may be. … I don’t think there is a dilemma: you just tell the truth as you see it. (“Stalin’s Wars”, FPM February 12, 2007. At http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/35… ) The common or “mainstream” view of Stalin as a bloodthirsty tyrant is a product of two sources: Trotsky’s writings of the 1930s and Nikita Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” to the XX Party Congress in February, 1956. This canonical history of the Stalin period — the version we have all learned — is completely false. We can see this now thanks mainly to two sets of archival discoveries: the gradual publication of thousands of archival documents from formerly secret Soviet archives since the end of the USSR in 1991; and the opening of the Leon Trotsky Archive at Harvard in 1980 and, secondarily, of the Trotsky Archive at the Hoover Institution (from where I have just returned).” Id. But what about the Wikipedia page? Later I discover that most of the early history about the Holodomor came from Robert Conquest. So I decide to look into him. Who is he? Turns out he is a British intelligence services agent and paid propagandist: In 1948 Conquest joined the Foreign Office’s Information Research Department (IRD), a “propaganda counter-offensive” unit created by the Labour Attlee government[10] in order to “collect and summarize reliable information about Soviet and communist misdoings, to disseminate it to friendly journalists, politicians, and trade unionists, and to support, financially and otherwise, anticommunist publications.”[11] The IRD was also engaged in manipulating public opinion.[12] WTF! So this is the guy the “reputable academics” in the West use as their primary source for why the Holodomor was a genocide? And it doesn’t end there. Modern authors like Simon Sebag Montefiore and Stephen Kotkin do the same thing. Look at the citations of their books and they either don’t have them or they cite each other in a kind of self-referential loop untethered from reality. Any time you question it then you are a “Stalin apologist,” so nobody considers it worth the effort.

Sorry, but I believe in real facts and real analysis, not the use of propaganda terms, guilt manipulation, or shaming techniques. Why?

Because I value the truth, even when it applies to things I don’t like.

You are free to live your own reality, but it is not right for you to have my reputation destroyed because I don’t agree with your bullshit.

Also, using the term “apologism” is dumb. It is poisoning the well, which is a logical fallacy used for propaganda purposes. It is for the braindead set.https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/uy/accounts/wwwlogicallyfallaciouscom/library-public/Poisoning_the_Well.jpg

Alexander Finnegan · Apr 18How does propaganda parallel the truth?Why can’t propaganda be true? Is it because someone is trying to persuade us to do something? What if it is an anti-smoking poster? Is that not true? If Vladimir Putin told you smoking was bad would that be wrong? That’s the way people think about it now, right? Some define propaganda as “any information spoken by my enemy that I disagree with or don’t like.” Sounds reasonable. Not really. Like any other information, you have to do some work to analyze it. There aren’t shortcuts that are all that helpful. The worst is when someone claims that anything they don’t like or disagree with is “apologism.” It can be apologism for anything. When I hear someone tell me that, I tell them they are spouting moron apologism. The government invented those terms to lobotomize us. Why? Because if you can self-censor, then you become totally inoculated against new information they don’t want you to know. Parallel to the truth In the middle is a neutral term. This is our ground. Above it, we have perceived propaganda terms used to describe soldiers. These run parallel to the term of “soldier.” For example, we consider a “terrorist” to be a bad kind of soldier. We don’t like terrorists. But “freedom-fighter,” those are noble and good soldiers. The terms we use help stir up cognitive frames in our minds that help guide the boundaries of our thoughts. At the very least, they influence us. For example, if I say, “don’t think of an elephant in the corner of the room,” your mind already goes there. You cannot help it By using the term “terrorist” while reporting about a conflict somewhere in the world, I have already established the boundaries of thought for that reporting. There will be some people, however, who question things, and will ask whether the fighters are doing good vs bad, and whether they soldiers are, in fact, freedom fighters or insurgents. Consider the cause in Ukraine. A communist like myself despises Nazis. So when you have a Western liberal media reporter try to tell me that a member of the Azov Battalion, a Nazi group, is hiding in underground basements which are heavily fortified, and she says it is a “Ukrainian defender”—literally I heard Reuters do this today—you might understand how very agitated I get. Because I don’t like being lied to. It makes me suspicious of everything they say. Next thing you know, I have decided they have been selling me a load of bullshit for years. And I don’t like that. That’s the kind of thing that turns you from a regular American to a Democrat, to a anarchist, to a Trotskyist, and, finally, horror of horrors, a Marxist-Leninist that endorses Stalin, such as myself. Look at the names. You see “Azov?” Nope. “Ukrainian Defenders.” What a crock of shit.Alexander Finnegan · February 24The Hoover InstitutionIt is a leading money printing machine for right wing, anti-communist scholars, war criminals, and fascist collaborators. No surprise that the leading anti-socialist, anti-Soviet propagandists, climate change deniers, and “intellectuals” get paid by this institution. Some examples: Robert Conquest—He was literally a paid propagandist who worked with the British Foreign Office’s Information Research Department. This was literally a propaganda outlet commissioned by the Labour Atlee government. Conquest would write press releases and directly feed them to the BBC and other media sources. Conquest decided to fashion himself a “historian,” and set about writing a series of anti-Stalin, anti-Soviet ahistorical propaganda books, which became the dominant narrative for Stalin and the Soviet Union as unprovoked mass murdering nightmares. Conquest’s work was largely debunked by the historian J. Arch Getty, who had access to the Soviet Archives. The “death toll” for the Soviet Union was radically decreased. Frank Dikotter—Hack Mao writer, famous for the “Mao killed the sparrows so now we are fucked” book. Dikotter has a propensity to mischaracterized Mao’s phrases out of context to purposefully deceive. Alexander Solzhenitsyn—Ultra right wing anti-Soviet writer who was awarded the Nobel Prize not for his writing, but for political purposes. Wrote primarily about the Soviet Union, a place so bad it gave him life-saving medical treatment so he could live until old age. Was sent to prison for being himself. During a live speech said that the U.S. had become “morally decadent” because it dared to stop carpet bombing Vietnam and killing innocent people to “stop communism.” Stephen Kotkin—Stalin author. Donald Rumsfeld—War criminal. Henry Kissinger—Even bigger war criminal. Condoleeza Rice—You be the judge. Thomas Sowell—Sleepy former academic and capitalist apologist. Billionaires like to go big, particularly the right wing ones. This is their propaganda outlet, for the production of right wing, anti-communist propaganda dressed up as actual scholarly work. Former dignitaries who spent their lives contributing to war crimes or helping to implement them (Kissinger is a book by himself), the 2003 invasion of Iraq, etc. The institution is associated with Stanford University to give it credibility. More money juicing. The Hoover Institution is the academic version of Fox News. Funding One of the leading financial supporters is the Hoover Institution is the Koret Foundation. It is a big funder of far right foundations. Nearly 60 percent of the $64 million provided by the foundation between 2010 and 2012 went to causes tied to Taube and Koret board members, Koret’s lawsuit alleges. That includes $3.2 million to right-wing political causes, according to the San Francisco Chronicle: $1 million for the American Values Initiative at Hoover, where Taube and Koret’s executive director are on the board; and smaller grants to the Ayn Rand Institute, the Federalist Society and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Another is the Scaife Foundation, which is a leading funder of climate change denial groups.https://alexanderfinnegan.quora.com/The-Hoover-Institution?ch=10&oid=62156233&share=6aed379f&srid=u717uA&target_type=post

This is the leading anti-communist think tank that hosts such infamous atrocity artists as Rumsfeld, Kissinger, and Cheney. But “communism bad,” okay. Don’t forget that.

Also, this was humor, in case you are zonked out and couldn’t tell:Alexander Finnegan · March 20When I hear an anarchist call us “tankies”:I must apologize for Stalin’s deeds. He tried, but he failed…: …to kill more people. Don’t judge. Never judge. Nobody is perfect.https://qr.ae/pv2bkp

1.7K views

25 upvotes

4 shares

Icon for Marxism-Leninism-

Marxism-Leninism-

Posted by 

Alexander FinneganApr 15

The Soviet Union death toll: the propaganda free version

Note:

The “Holodomor’ was not intentional. So how can you count that in? You can’t. The other numbers are very generous.Alexander Finnegan · Feb 20Why does my friend of Ukrainian descent try to make me feel bad about the “Holodomor”? He even claims his grandparents almost starved to death under the order of Comrade Joseph Stalin.1. First, be sympathetic. There was a Ukrainian Famine. It was bad. People did go hungry because food was scarce. These people did suffer. It makes no sense to say they didn’t. 2. From their perspective, they saw Soviet workers collecting all the grain, every drop. They were hungry and grain was being taken from them. Naturally they are going to wonder why. And there are kulaks telling them it is because Stalin is trying to starve them. Some of the officials who collected the grain were acting under extreme stress given the conditions and could be brutal, sort of like American cops. 3. Ukrainian nationalists hate communism. There are even thousands who form militias to fight beside the Nazis. 4. The Ukraine and Russia have a long history of famines going back millennia. Under the Tsar, famines were a regular occurrence. 5. So why was the grain taken? Why every last drop? Because the famine extended far beyond the Ukraine. The grain was collected and centrally sorted to be rationed for all people, including those in cities and for the Red Army. Stalin faced a dilemma—the U.S. would not accept gold or currency for payment. It insisted on receiving grain as payment. Originally Stalin was for keeping the NEP, kulak based farming system of private production. But it became clear that this wouldn’t produce enough grain. So Stalin switched and endorsed the collectivization of agriculture. This was to be a more efficient system utilizing economies of scale and modern farming tractors and techniques. Stalin needed all the farmers he could get to produce grain, but at the same time needed people to move to the cities to work in the factories. Starving millions of people while he was desperately trying to collectivize and industrialize would be suicidal. Of course he wouldn’t do that, even from a selfish perspective. The kulaks who owned the land were hoarding grain and selling it on the black market while people were hungry. They intentionally left the grain to rot in the fields and sabotaged the harvest out of spite against the collectivization plans. They slaughtered half the livestock needed to farm. 6. So why industrialize so quickly? Because it became obvious to Stalin and others that another war was inevitable with Germany given the political conditions of the day. Stalin predicted another war in 1929, and he was absolutely correct. Had the Soviet Union not industrialized so quickly, the Germans would have won. And their plans were total extermination of the Soviet populace to make room for Aryans. The Hunger Plan was no joke. This was a war of survival, and Stalin had no time to play games. Measures were taken to alleviate the famine by the government, and the relief measures were very serious: Your personal share link | GMX Cloud This is a letter written by Stalin translated into English: DOCUMENT 177 Letter from Stalin to Mikhail Sholokhov, May 3, I933, on sabotage by the grain growers of the Veshenskii raion [HandwrittenI Dear Comrade Sholokhov: As you already know, all of your letters have been received. The help for which you are asking has been approved. To investigate the matter, I am sending Mr. Shkiriatov to the Veshenskii mion to see you. I earnestly request you to render him assistance. So that’s that. But not all, Comrade Sholokhov. The problem is that your letters create a somewhat one-sided impression. I would like to write you a few words about that. I am thankful to you for your letters, as they reveal the open sores in party and Soviet work; they reveal how our officials, in their ardent desire to restrain the enemy, sometimes inadvertently beat up their friends and sink to the point of sadism. Collectivization 397 But this does not mean, that I completely agree with you on everything. You see one side of the situation, and you do not see it too badly. But this is only one side of the matter. In order not to make political mistakes (your letters are not fiction, but outright politics), you must observe widely; you must be able to see things from both sides. The other side is that the esteemed grain growers of your region (and not only from your region) have conducted a “sit-down strike” (sabotage!) and were not against leaving workers and the Red Army without bread. The fact that this sabotage was peaceful and outwardly harmless (bloodless) does not change the fact that the esteemed grain growers actually carried on a “quiet” war against Soviet authority. A war of starvation, dear Comrade Sholokhov. Of course, this circumstance cannot to any degree justify those terrible acts that were allowed to happen, as you are convinced, by our officials. Those guilty of these terrible acts should be punished accordingly. But it is clear as day that these esteemed grain growers are not as innocent as they appear to be from a distance. Well, so long, shaking your hand Yours J. Stalin May 5,1933[1] Another is a resolution passed by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party, November 27, 1932 concerning the harvest and measures to combat sabotage. These collectivization farmers are praising the collectives and asking for the elimination of the kulaks as a class. The Holomodor was a famine caused by drought, a higher birth rate prior to the famine, sabotage from kulaks and the intentional hiding of grain, resulting crop failure. The famine occurred not just in Ukraine, but other areas as well. Goebbels and Hearst fabricated a story that Stalin caused the famine and intentionally starved millions of people. This is against the facts. Hearst was a pro-Nazi newspaper publisher close to Goebbels. A fake news story about the famine being intentional was created and published. Old photos from the famine in 1917 were used. The idea was to stir up Ukrainian nationalism ahead of a German invasion. Goebbels was big on these types of psy-ops. Further, there is documented proof that Stalin ordered relief measures to Ukraine. Independent journalists also visited and confirmed that the famine was unintentional. The details can be found here: Alexander Finnegan’s answer to What is the history of famines and starvation in Russia 1850-present day? In this photo Soviet workers find grain hidden by kulaks. Before collectivization farming plots were small. Sadly, the conflicts with the kulaks has been politicized to vilify Stalin and the Soviets. The reality was much more nuanced than “Stalin killed and starved 20 million Ukrainians and kulaks.” In the modern day Ukrainian nationalists have been trying to get the Holomodor listed as a genocide because then the Ukraine could get reparations via the U.N. from Russia. It also serves as a useful victim card to play for political purposes. Interestingly, the Ukrainians received the same relief measures as others, including neighboring areas that were affected. Other proof: Goebbels at work “It is a matter of some significance that Cardinal Innitzer’s allegations of famine-genocide were widely promoted throughout the 1930s, not only by Hitler’s chief propagandist Goebbels, but also by American Fascists as well. It will be recalled that Hearst kicked off his famine campaign with a radio broadcast based mainly on material from Cardinal Innitzer’s “aid committee.” In Organized Anti-Semitism in America, the 1941 book exposing Nazi groups and activities in the pre-war United States, Donald Strong notes that American fascist leader Father Coughlin used Nazi propaganda material extensively. This included Nazi charges of “atrocities by Jew Communists” and verbatim portions of a Goebbels speech referring to Innitzer’s “appeal of July 1934, that millions of people were dying of hunger throughout the Soviet Union.” Tottle, Douglas. Fraud, Famine, and Fascism. Toronto: Progress Books,1987, p. 49–51″ Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor “This is Stalin urging the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine to take appropriate measures to prevent a crop failure. The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine. Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee — J. STALIN From the Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58. Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.” Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor “This is the response of Anna Louise Strong, an American journalist famous for reporting on the Soviet Union, to a question about the supposed genocide. QUESTION: Is it true that during 1932–33 several million people were allowed to starve to death in the Ukraine and North Caucasus because they were politically hostile to the Soviets? ANSWER: Not true. I visited several places in those regions during that period. There was a serious grain shortage in the 1932 harvest due chiefly to inefficiencies of the organizational period of the new large-scale mechanized farming among peasants unaccustomed to machines. To this was added sabotage by dispossessed kulaks, the leaving of the farms by 11 million workers who went to new industries, the cumulative effect of the world crisis in depressing the value of Soviet farm exports, and a drought in five basic grain regions in 1931. The harvest of 1932 was better than that of 1931 but was not all gathered; on account of overoptimistic promises from rural districts, Moscow discovered the actual situation only in December when a considerable amount of grain was under snow. Strong, Anna Louise. Searching Out the Soviets. New Republic: August 7, 1935, p. 356 Here is Strong again on the harvest of 1933. The conquest of bread was achieved that summer, a victory snatched from a great disaster. The 1933 harvest surpassed that of 1930, which till then had held the record. This time, the new record was made not by a burst of half-organized enthusiasm, but by growing efficiency and permanent organization … This nationwide cooperation beat the 1934 drought, securing a total crop for the USSR equal to the all-time high of 1933. Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 44–45 This is what a study of the Russian Archives led to. Recent evidence has indicated that part of the cause of the famine was an exceptionally low harvest in 1932, much lower than incorrect Soviet methods of calculation had suggested. The documents included here or published elsewhere do not yet support the claim that the famine was deliberately produced by confiscating the harvest, or that it was directed especially against the peasants of the Ukraine. Koenker and Bachman, Eds. Revelations from the Russian Archives. Washington: Library of Congress, 1997, p. 401 Another confirmation after a search of the Russian archives. In view of the importance of grain stocks to understanding the famine, we have searched Russian archives for evidence of Soviet planned and actual grain stocks in the early 1930s. Our main sources were the Politburo protocols, including the (“special files,” the highest secrecy level), and the papers of the agricultural collections committee Komzag, of the committee on commodity funds, and of Sovnarkom. The Sovnarkom records include telegrams and correspondence of Kuibyshev, who was head of Gosplan, head of Komzag and the committee on reserves, and one of the deputy chairs of Komzag at that time. We have not obtained access to the Politburo working papers in the Presidential Archive, to the files of the committee on reserves or to the relevant files in military archives. But we have found enough information to be confident that this very a high figure for grain stocks is wrong and that Stalin did not have under his control huge amounts of grain, which could easily have been used to eliminate the famine. Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932–1933 by R. W. Davies, M. B. Tauger, S.G. Wheatcroft.Slavic Review, Volume 54, Issue 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 642–657.” Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor The Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin’s Crime That Never Took Place This newspaper was published by Hearst as part of his deal with Goebbels to promote the Nazis. Hearst was also a Nazi supporter. The photos were found to be from other famines, one of them 10 years earlier. The “reporting” was fabrication. Other reporters that actually looked into it report that while there was a famine it was not intentional. “The CIA believed that Ukrainian nationalism could be used as an efficient cold war weapon.While the Ukrainian nationalists provided Washington with valuable information about its Cold War rivals, the CIA in return was placing the nationalist veterans into positions of influence and authority, helping them to create semi-academic institutions or academic positions in existing universities. By using these formal and informal academic networks, the Ukrainian nationalists had been disseminating anti-Russian propaganda, creating myths and re-writing history at the same time whitewashing the wartime crimes of OUN-UPA. “In 1987 the film “Harvest of Despair” was made. It was the beginning of the ‘Holodomor’ movement. The film was entirely funded by Ukrainian nationalists, mainly in Canada. A Canadian scholar, Douglas Tottle (1) , exposed the fact that the film took photographs from the 1921–22 ‘Volga famine’ and used them to illustrate the 1932–33 famine. Tottle later wrote a book, ‘Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard,‘ about the phony ‘Holodomor’ issue,” Professor Furr elaborated. “ The Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin’s Crime That Never Took Place “In the last 15 years or so an enormous amount of new material on Stalin … has become available from Russian archives. I should make clear that as a historian I have a strong orientation to telling the truth about the past, no matter how uncomfortable or unpalatable the conclusions may be. … I don’t think there is a dilemma: you just tell the truth as you see it. (“Stalin’s Wars”, FPM February 12, 2007. At http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/35… ) The common or “mainstream” view of Stalin as a bloodthirsty tyrant is a product of two sources: Trotsky’s writings of the 1930s and Nikita Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” to the XX Party Congress in February, 1956. This canonical history of the Stalin period — the version we have all learned — is completely false. We can see this now thanks mainly to two sets of archival discoveries: the gradual publication of thousands of archival documents from formerly secret Soviet archives since the end of the USSR in 1991; and the opening of the Leon Trotsky Archive at Harvard in 1980 and, secondarily, of the Trotsky Archive at the Hoover Institution (from where I have just returned).” Id. But what about the Wikipedia page? Later I discover that most of the early history about the Holodomor came from Robert Conquest. So I decide to look into him. Who is he? Turns out he is a British intelligence services agent and paid propagandist: In 1948 Conquest joined the Foreign Office’s Information Research Department (IRD), a “propaganda counter-offensive” unit created by the Labour Attlee government[10] in order to “collect and summarize reliable information about Soviet and communist misdoings, to disseminate it to friendly journalists, politicians, and trade unionists, and to support, financially and otherwise, anticommunist publications.”[11] The IRD was also engaged in manipulating public opinion.[12] WTF! So this is the guy the “reputable academics” in the West use as their primary source for why the Holodomor was a genocide? And it doesn’t end there. Modern authors like Simon Sebag Montefiore and Stephen Kotkin do the same thing. Look at the citations of their books and they either don’t have them or they cite each other in a kind of self-referential loop untethered from reality. Any time you question it then you are a “Stalin apologist,” so nobody considers it worth the effort.Alexander Finnegan · Feb 15What is the history of famines and starvation in Russia 1850-present day?“Throughout Russian history famines and droughts have been a common feature, often resulting in humanitarian crises traceable to political or economic instability, poor policy, environmental issues and war. Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union tended to occur fairly regularly, with famine occurring every 10–13 years and droughts every five to seven years. Golubev and Dronin distinguish three types of drought according to productive areas vulnerable to droughts: Central (the Volga basin, North Caucasus and the Central Chernozem Region), Southern (Volga and Volga-Vyatka area, the Ural region, and Ukraine), and Eastern (steppe and forest-steppe belts in Western and Eastern Siberia, and Kazakhstan).” Source: Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union – Wikipedia “Pre-1900 droughts and famines In the 17th century, Russia experienced the famine of 1601–1603, believed to be its worst as it may have killed 2 million people (1/3 of the population). Major famines include the Great Famine of 1315–17, which affected much of Europe including part of Russia as well as the Baltic states. The Nikonian chronicle, written between 1127 and 1303, recorded no less than eleven famine years during that period. One of the most serious crises before 1900 was the famine of 1891–92, which killed between 375,000 and 500,000 people, mainly due to famine-related diseases. Causes included a large Autumn drought resulting in crop failures. Attempts by the government to alleviate the situation generally failed which may have contributed to a lack of faith in the Czarist regime and later political instability. [List of post-1900 droughts and famines Starving woman, c. 1921 Three children who are dead from starvation, 1921 Starving children in 1922 The Golubev and Dronin report gives the following table of the major droughts in Russia between 1900 and 2000. * Central: 1920, 1924, 1936, 1946, 1972, 1979, 1981, 1984. * Southern: 1901, 1906, 1921, 1939, 1948, 1951, 1957, 1975, 1995. * Eastern: 1911, 1931, 1963, 1965, 1991. 1900s The failed Revolution of 1905 likely distorted output and restricted food availability. 1910s During the Russian Revolution and following civil war there was a decline in total agricultural output. Measured in millions of tons the 1920 grain harvest was only 46.1, compared to 80.1 in 1913. By 1926 it had almost returned to pre-war levels reaching 76.8. 1920s The early 1920s saw a series of famines. The first famine in the USSR happened in 1921–1923 and garnered wide international attention. The most affected area being the Southeastern areas of European Russia (including Volga region, especially national republics of Idel-Ural, see 1921–22 famine in Tatarstan) and Ukraine. An estimated 16 million people may have been affected and up to 5 million died. Fridtjof Nansen was honored with the 1922 Nobel Peace Prize, in part for his work as High Commissioner for Relief In Russia. Other organizations that helped to combat the Soviet famine were International Save the Children Union and the International Committee of the Red Cross. When the Russian famine of 1921 broke out, the American Relief Administration’s director in Europe, Walter Lyman Brown, began negotiating with Soviet deputy People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, in Riga, Latvia. An agreement was reached on August 21, 1921, and an additional implementation agreement was signed by Brown and People’s Commisar for Foreign Trade Leonid Krasin on December 30, 1921. The U.S. Congress appropriated $20,000,000 for relief under the Russian Famine Relief Act of late 1921. At its peak, the ARA employed 300 Americans, more than 120,000 Russians and fed 10.5 million people daily. Its Russian operations were headed by Col. William N. Haskell. The Medical Division of the ARA functioned from November 1921 to June 1923 and helped overcome the typhus epidemic then ravaging Russia. The ARA’s famine relief operations ran in parallel with much smaller Mennonite, Jewish and Quaker famine relief operations in Russia. The ARA’s operations in Russia were shut down on June 15, 1923, after it was discovered that Russia renewed the export of grain.” Source: Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union – Wikipedia The famine in the Ukraine in 1932–1933 was caused by drought, higher birth rates prior to it, the urbanization of the population, deliberate sabotage, and other factors. In this photograph Soviet workers found grain hidden by kulaks. Many hid the grain to speculate on the grain market or to hold out for higher requisition prices. Meanwhile people in the cities were starving. “The Famine of 1932–33 affected population of at least three Soviet republics, not just Ukraine, and in the areas predominantly populated by ethnic Russians: Southern Russia North Kazakhstan (primarily populated by ethnic Russians) Central and Eastern Ukraine (primarily populated by ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking population).” Source: Serge Mavrodis Goebbels blamed Stalin for the famine, which was untrue. In fact Stalin ordered grain to be sent to alleviate the famine: “It is a matter of some significance that Cardinal Innitzer’s allegations of famine-genocide were widely promoted throughout the 1930s, not only by Hitler’s chief propagandist Goebbels, but also by American Fascists as well. It will be recalled that Hearst kicked off his famine campaign with a radio broadcast based mainly on material from Cardinal Innitzer’s “aid committee.” In Organized Anti-Semitism in America, the 1941 book exposing Nazi groups and activities in the pre-war United States, Donald Strong notes that American fascist leader Father Coughlin used Nazi propaganda material extensively. This included Nazi charges of “atrocities by Jew Communists” and verbatim portions of a Goebbels speech referring to Innitzer’s “appeal of July 1934, that millions of people were dying of hunger throughout the Soviet Union.” Tottle, Douglas. Fraud, Famine, and Fascism. Toronto: Progress Books,1987, p. 49-51″ Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor “This is Stalin urging the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine to take appropriate measures to prevent a crop failure. The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine. Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN From the Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58. Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.” Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor “This is the response of Anna Louise Strong, an American journalist famous for reporting on the Soviet Union, to a question about the supposed genocide. QUESTION: Is it true that during 1932-33 several million people were allowed to starve to death in the Ukraine and North Caucasus because they were politically hostile to the Soviets? ANSWER: Not true. I visited several places in those regions during that period. There was a serious grain shortage in the 1932 harvest due chiefly to inefficiencies of the organizational period of the new large-scale mechanized farming among peasants unaccustomed to machines. To this was added sabotage by dispossessed kulaks, the leaving of the farms by 11 million workers who went to new industries, the cumulative effect of the world crisis in depressing the value of Soviet farm exports, and a drought in five basic grain regions in 1931. The harvest of 1932 was better than that of 1931 but was not all gathered; on account of overoptimistic promises from rural districts, Moscow discovered the actual situation only in December when a considerable amount of grain was under snow. Strong, Anna Louise. Searching Out the Soviets. New Republic: August 7, 1935, p. 356 Here is Strong again on the harvest of 1933. The conquest of bread was achieved that summer, a victory snatched from a great disaster. The 1933 harvest surpassed that of 1930, which till then had held the record. This time, the new record was made not by a burst of half-organized enthusiasm, but by growing efficiency and permanent organization … This nationwide cooperation beat the 1934 drought, securing a total crop for the USSR equal to the all-time high of 1933. Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 44-45 This is what a study of the Russian Archives led to. Recent evidence has indicated that part of the cause of the famine was an exceptionally low harvest in 1932, much lower than incorrect Soviet methods of calculation had suggested. The documents included here or published elsewhere do not yet support the claim that the famine was deliberately produced by confiscating the harvest, or that it was directed especially against the peasants of the Ukraine. Koenker and Bachman, Eds. Revelations from the Russian Archives. Washington: Library of Congress, 1997, p. 401 Another confirmation after a search of the Russian archives. In view of the importance of grain stocks to understanding the famine, we have searched Russian archives for evidence of Soviet planned and actual grain stocks in the early 1930s. Our main sources were the Politburo protocols, including the (“special files,” the highest secrecy level), and the papers of the agricultural collections committee Komzag, of the committee on commodity funds, and of Sovnarkom. The Sovnarkom records include telegrams and correspondence of Kuibyshev, who was head of Gosplan, head of Komzag and the committee on reserves, and one of the deputy chairs of Komzag at that time. We have not obtained access to the Politburo working papers in the Presidential Archive, to the files of the committee on reserves or to the relevant files in military archives. But we have found enough information to be confident that this very a high figure for grain stocks is wrong and that Stalin did not have under his control huge amounts of grain, which could easily have been used to eliminate the famine. Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933 by R. W. Davies, M. B. Tauger, S.G. Wheatcroft.Slavic Review, Volume 54, Issue 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 642-657.” Stop Spreading Nazi Propaganda: on Holodomor The Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin’s Crime That Never Took Place This newspaper was published by Hearst as part of his deal with Goebbels to promote the Nazis. Hearst was also a Nazi supporter. The photos were found to be from other famines, one of them 10 years earlier. The “reporting” was fabrication. Other reporters that actually looked into it report that while there was a famine it was not intentional. “The CIA believed that Ukrainian nationalism could be used as an efficient cold war weapon. While the Ukrainian nationalists provided Washington with valuable information about its Cold War rivals, the CIA in return was placing the nationalist veterans into positions of influence and authority, helping them to create semi-academic institutions or academic positions in existing universities. By using these formal and informal academic networks, the Ukrainian nationalists had been disseminating anti-Russian propaganda, creating myths and re-writing history at the same time whitewashing the wartime crimes of OUN-UPA. “In 1987 the film “Harvest of Despair” was made. It was the beginning of the ‘Holodomor’ movement. The film was entirely funded by Ukrainian nationalists, mainly in Canada. A Canadian scholar, Douglas Tottle(1), exposed the fact that the film took photographs from the 1921-22 ‘Volga famine’ and used them to illustrate the 1932-33 famine. Tottle later wrote a book, ‘Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard,‘ about the phony ‘Holodomor’ issue,” Professor Furr elaborated. “ The Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin’s Crime That Never Took Place “In the last 15 years or so an enormous amount of new material on Stalin … has become available from Russian archives. I should make clear that as a historian I have a strong orientation to telling the truth about the past, no matter how uncomfortable or unpalatable the conclusions may be. … I don’t think there is a dilemma: you just tell the truth as you see it. (“Stalin’s Wars”, FPM February 12, 2007. At http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/35305.html ) The common or “mainstream” view of Stalin as a bloodthirsty tyrant is a product of two sources: Trotsky’s writings of the 1930s and Nikita Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” to the XX Party Congress in February, 1956. This canonical history of the Stalin period – the version we have all learned — is completely false. We can see this now thanks mainly to two sets of archival discoveries: the gradual publication of thousands of archival documents from formerly secret Soviet archives since the end of the USSR in 1991; and the opening of the Leon Trotsky Archive at Harvard in 1980 and, secondarily, of the Trotsky Archive at the Hoover Institution (from where I have just returned). Khrushchev Lied In its impact on world history Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” is the most influential speech of the 20th century. In it Khrushchev painted Stalin as a bloodthirsty tyrant guilty of a reign of terror lasting more than two decades. After the 22nd Party Congress of 1961, where Khrushchev and his men attacked Stalin with even more venom, many Soviet historians elaborated Khrushchev’s lies. These falsehoods were repeated by Cold War anticommunists like Robert Conquest. They also entered “left” discourse through the works of Trotskyists and anarchists and of “pro-Moscow” communists. Khrushchev’s lies were amplified during Mikhail Gorbachev’s and Boris Eltsin’s time by professional Soviet, then Russian, historians. Gorbachev orchestrated an avalanche of anticommunist falsehoods that provided the ideological smokescreen for the return to exploitative practices within the USSR and ultimately for the abandonment of socialist reforms and a return to predatory capitalism. During 2005-2006 I researched and wrote the book Khrushchev Lied. In my book I identify 61 accusations that Khrushchev made against either Stalin or, in a few cases, Beria. I then studied each one of them in the light of evidence available from former Soviet archives. To my own surprise I found that 60 of the 61 accusations are provably, demonstrably false. The fact that Khrushchev could falsify everything and get away with it for over 50 years suggests that we should look carefully at other supposed “crimes” of Stalin and of the USSR during his time. Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’ From 1980 till the early 1990s Pierre Broué, the foremost Trotskyist historian of his day, and Arch Getty, a prominent American expert in Soviet history, discovered that Trotsky had lied, repeatedly and about many issues, in his public statements and writings in the 1930s. In my book Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’ (2015) I discussed the implications of these lies by Trotsky and of some additional lies of his that I discovered myself. They completely invalidate the “Dewey Commission,” to whom Trotsky lied shamelessly and repeatedly, as well as Trotsky’s denials in the Red Book and elsewhere of the charges leveled against him in the First and Second Moscow Trials. Challenging the “Anti-Stalin Paradigm” I have not reached these conclusions out of any desire to “apologize” for – let alone “celebrate” — the policies of Stalin or the Soviet government. I believe these to be the only objective conclusions possible based on the available evidence. The conclusions I have reached about the history of the Soviet Union during the Stalin period are unacceptable to people who, like Proyect, are motivated by prior ideological commitments rather than by a determination to discover the truth “and let the chips fall where they will.” The “anti-Stalin paradigm” is hegemonic in the field of Soviet history, where it is literally “taboo” to question, let alone disprove as I do, the Trotsky-Khrushchev-Cold War falsehoods about Stalin and the Stalin period. Those in this field who do not cut their research to fit the Procrustean bed of the “anti-Stalin paradigm” will find it hard if not impossible to publish in “mainstream” journals and by academic publishers. I am fortunate: I teach English literature and do not need to publish in these “authoritative” but ideologically compromised vehicles. Those who, like Proyect, are motivated not to discover the truth but to shore up their ideological prejudices think that everybody must be doing likewise. Therefore Proyect argues not from evidence, but by guilt by association, name-dropping, insult, and lies. A few examples: Guilt by association: Proyect claims that I am “like” Roland Boer, Roger Annis, and Sigizmund Mironin. Name-dropping: Davies and Wheatcroft are well-known and disagree with Tauger, so – somehow – they are “the most authoritative,” “right” while Tauger is “wrong.” Insult: Tauger is complicit in “turning a victim into a criminal.” Proyect: “…it seems reasonable that Stalin was forced to unleash a brutal repression in the early 30s to prevent Hitler from invading Russia—or something like that.” In reality neither I nor Tauger say anything of the kind. Lies: Proyect quotes a passage from Tauger’s research about the Irish potato famine and then accuses Tauger of wanting to exculpate the British: “The British government responsible? No, we can’t have that.” But the very next sentence in Tauger’s article reads: “Without denying that the British government mishandled the crisis…” Proyect is a prisoner of the historical paradigm that controls his view of Soviet history. A few examples: * Proyect persists in using the term “Holodomor.” He does not inform Cp readers that Davies and Wheatcroft, whose work he recommends, reject both the term “Holodomor” and the concept in the very book Proyect recommends! * Proyect: “…no matter that Lenin called for his [Stalin’s] removal from party leadership from his death-bed.” But, thanks to careful research by Valentin Sakharov of Moscow State University, even “mainstream” researchers know that this note, like “Lenin’s Testament,” is probably a forgery: There is no stenographic original of the “Ilich letter about the [general] secretary.” In the journal of Lenin’s activities kept by the secretarial staff there is no mention of any such “Ilich letter.” … not a single source corroborates the content of the January 4 dictation. Also curious is the fact that Zinoviev had not been made privy to the “Ilich letter about the [general] secretary” in late May, along with the evaluations of six regime personnel. The new typescript emerged only in June. (Stephen Kotkin, Stalin 505) * Proyect: “Largely because of his bureaucratic control and the rapid influx of self-seeking elements into the party, Stalin could crush the opposition…” However, in his 1973 work Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution Stephen Cohen wrote: But machine politics alone did not account for Stalin’s triumph. … within this select oligarchy, Stalin’s bureaucratic power was considerably less imposing…. By April 1929, these influentials had chosen Stalin and formed his essential majority in the high leadership. They did so, it seems clear, less because of his bureaucratic power than because they preferred his leadership and politics. (327) * Proyect: “Stalin’s forced march did not discriminate between rich and poor peasants.” But in 1983 James Mace, a champion of the Ukrainian Nationalist fascist collaborators, wrote about the role of “committees of poor peasants,” komitety nezamozhnykh selian, in supporting collectivization. There is much other evidence of peasant support for collectivization. Conclusion Correctly understood, history is the attempt to use well-known methods of primary-source research in an objective manner, in order to arrive at accurate – truthful — statements about the past. Very often the result is disillusioning to those who cling to false ideological constructs, even when those constructs constitute the “mainstream” of politicized historiography. No one who does not try to discover the truth and then tell it without fear or favor, is worthy to be called a historian, regardless of how famous, honored, or “authoritative” he or she may appear to be. Distortions and lies about Soviet history of the Stalin period predominate everywhere, including Ukraine, Russia, and in the West. These lies mainly consist in repeating Trotskyist and Khrushchevite lies, in defiance or in willful ignorance of the primary-source evidence now available. The newly-available evidence from archival sources necessitates a complete rewriting of Soviet history of the Stalin period and a complete revision of Stalin’s own role. This exciting yet demanding prospect is of great importance to all who wish to learn from the errors, as well as from the successes, of the Bolsheviks, the pioneers of the communist movement of the 20th century.” Source: The Ukrainian Famine: Only Evidence Can Disclose the Truth After the collectivization of agriculture and the relocation of the kulaks the output of agriculture improved significantly. Prior to Stalin’s reforms farmers were using livestock and wooden plows on small plots. America was using more advanced methods at this time. Stalin brought in modern farm equipment and improved efficiency. But the climate of the Soviet Union and drought have plagued it forever. Thanks to Putin’s reforms and adopting the large agribusiness model Russia has had no food shortages. Stalin’s reforms had been such a boost that despite urbanization the average person in the Soviet Union had a higher calorie and more nutritious diet than the average American. AMERICAN AND SOVIET CITIZENS EAT ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOOD EACH DAY BUT “Why Kolkhoz or Collektivize or not Collektivize? Before 1918 Russian agriculture was in especially bad shape. Agriculture has suffered centuries of backwardness, primitive methods of work and excess labor. The caricature from approximately 1860: illustrates the main reason for the ineffectiveness — a mind breaking patchwork of tiny plots prevented the usage of mechanization. Almost all agricultural work was performed manually or by using the horse-drawn (sometimes human-drawn) plow. Mineral fertilizers (mostly imported) accounted for no more than 1.6 kg per sown hectare (exclusive for landowners and kulak households). Agricultural and livestock productivity was low (cereal harvest in 1909-18 was about 7.4 kg/ha(yield per hectare of cereals in Europe —2800kg/ha), the mean annual yield of milk from a cow — about 1000 kg (15 000 kg in Israel kibbutz). Underdevelopment of the agriculture, their total dependence on the natural environment had caused frequent crop failures, mass death of livestock; in lean years famine covered millions of farms. Sokha – Wikipedia Soviet leaders, Stalin among them, decided that the only solution was to reorganize agriculture on the basis of large factory-type farms like some in the American Midwest, which were deliberately adopted as models. When sovkhozy or “Soviet farms” appeared to work well the Soviet leadership made the decision to collectivize agriculture. Contrary to anti-communist propaganda, most peasants accepted collectivization (emphasis added). Resistance was modest; acts of outright rebellion rare. By 1932 Soviet agriculture, including in the Ukrainian SSR, was largely collectivized. (ibid) Hence the answer to the title question cannot be other than collectivization in the USSR was a long time overdue action, not a blunder. II. Method Of course, it could be nice if Bolsheviks could mobilize an army of social workers in the US and entrust them with the task. Such an army would highly likely demonstrate an utmost politically correct way to perform that crash project of collectivization and make it in a colorful festival of happiness and goodwill. Alas, at that time the West was busy with the opposite — to smash the newbie Soviet Union ASAP and be what. So the Bolsheviks many of them former poor villagers themselves used the methods which once the Empire used against them. The former day, about six, I visited Sennaya*. The peasant woman there by whip Was beaten, devil power. No any sound’s heard from chest, The only scourge was whistling. Then to my Muse I said: “Look best – Here’s your sister-sibling!” Nikolay Nekrasov 1848 Translation: Людмила 31 — * Sennaya street in St.Petersburg BUT! The widely spread in the Western Sovietology allegation that the authorities killed 6-7 million during collectivization in 1929-1932 does not hold water. According to Viktor Zemskov, in 1930-1931 authorities did exile slightly more than 1.8 million so-called kulaks (mostly rich farmers and second-hand grain dealers). The fact is that since 1935, the fertility in the kulak settlements has become higher than mortality: 1932-1934 in kulak’s settlement 49168 was born and 271367 died but in 1935-1940 the numbers changed to 181090 and 108154 respectively. Do you see that? 1.8 million (1.8%) exiled out of the 100 million-strong private peasantry. That was the price. To declare it Holodomor (Golodomor) is a shameless lie. The truth is that the famine of 1930 has had environmental causes, collectivization not one of them. True, the timing was bad. But was there an option to delay the project for a more suitable time? III. Timing. The industrialization of agriculture was a matter of life or death, no question of it. And there was not any other time to accomplish it before the Nazi invasion. A Triumph of Socialism The Soviet collectivization of agriculture is one of the greatest feats of social reform of the 20th century, if not the greatest of all, ranking with the “Green Revolution,” “miracle rice,” and the water-control undertakings in China and the USA. If Nobel Prizes were awarded for communist achievements, Soviet collectivization would be a top contender. The historical truth about the Soviet Union is unpalatable not only to Nazi collaborators but to anticommunists of all stripes. Many who consider themselves to be on the Left, such as Social-Democrats and Trotskyists, repeat the lies of the overt fascists and the openly pro-capitalist writers. Objective scholars of Soviet history like Mark B. Tauger , determined to tell the truth even when that truth is unpopular, are far too rare and often drowned out by the chorus of anticommunist falsifiers.” Source: Hersh Bortman, Hersh Bortman’s answer to Why was collectivization in the USSR such a blunder? Photos of Collective Farming Sergey Bobyk’s answer to Would it be accurate to say that the Soviet famine known as Holodomor targeted ethnic Ukrainians specifically? Further, the reaction of the kulaks to the collectivization is important to understand. This is from Cass Dean: “Only recently have the NKVD archives opened to researchers, and one thing found has been reports of agents who attended all the rallies by the anti-government peasants’ parties and movements, passing back the slogans, the mood of the crowds, etc. They chanted “Sow no seeds!” Their brilliant leadership told them the way to defeat taxes (in kind): If the government was going to take 30% of your harvest, plant 30% less. (How do you blame Stalin for that? He was very big on everyone getting at least a primary education.) At the center of the revelations will be Mark B. Tauger, a professor of history whose specialization is “the history of agriculture and its impact on the history of civilizations.” There’s a bibliography on his website. One thing every theory needs to take into account is that in 1933 there was a bumper harvest, brought in on the same land, by the same people, still newly collectivized, still with no draft animals, easily surpassing the supposed impossible quotas of 1932. It’s also interesting that nobody had heard of the holodomor until all the witnesses were dead. It was entirely a theory of OUN until they started putting money into publicizing it in the late 1980s, when the paid for the first book ever to be written on it. (They wrote most of it, too.) Things that were simply not true. There was very little grain exported. The quotas were not “impossible” to attain. The quotas were also lowered repeatedly when the local agents reported shortages. Huge amounts of grain were returned as aid. Since the archives have been opened, we have such hard evidence as the railway manifests of shipments. Things to be remembered. Russian agriculture had always been communal; it was not a great innovation. The grain was cut, taken to threshing yards to be beaten off the stems, stored centrally and milled in a single facility. At no time did peasants have grain in their homes or barns. Or fake graveyards. Any they took home in the normal way would go home as flour. So any peasants who had troops dragging grain out of their cellars or attics or barns were guilty of sabotage or theft, no question. Another thing nobody thinks about. The center requisitioned grain even when there was not enough to feed the locals. They took it to the cities, the mines, the armies, where there was NONE AT ALL. What is a government supposed to do in an emergency shortage? Gather all the supplies and ration. What the Soviet Union did was what has always been done and always will be, and only in one case has it ever been questioned. The core issue was who owned the grain? The peasant attitude seemed to be that while it was all very nice to have foresters, miners, roads, railways, sailmakers, telegraphs, merchants, blacksmiths, cartwrights, publishing houses, defense forces, a merchant marine, none of these external entities were entitled to food. If there was a surplus, fine, they could buy it. But if there was a shortage, the grain belonged to the tiller. “Stalin was convinced that stubborn peasants simply hide grain and forced confiscations.” This was true. It had happened before and it happened in the 30s. It wasn’t just Stalin being paranoid. The trouble was that just leaving the locality to rely on hidden grain, however much there was, meant the population was at the mercy of those who had hidden it, probably not the most merciful among them.” Source: Sergey Bobyk’s answer to Would it be accurate to say that the Soviet famine known as Holodomor targeted ethnic Ukrainians specifically? comments section. The Ukraine was not the only area affected by famine. Dmitry Leontiev: “There was a famine in middle Asia. This famine was named after comrade Philip Goloshekin, who started confiscation campaign in Kazahkstan. 90% of cattle was killed because there was no food for them and this was one of the main reasons of famine in 1931–1933. I dunno how did communists achieved this, because there was plenty of food in steppes before collectivization.” Id. “An important additional consideration is that the locals hid important information that made the problem worse. Local leadership at this time run their turf more like a medieval barons. They get rewarded for hitting the targets (and more importantly been left alone) and investigated for failures. Investigation was likely to cost a place and a head and open a can of worms with likely irregularities, embezzlement and cronyism. In this situation they actively started to suppress an information to the central administration. By 1933 signals from the ground still managed to get to Kremlin and GPU (State security) had to investigate UNDER COVER OF EPIDEMIOLOGISTS. They did not trusted a local cadres at all and had to move undercover. Sound idiotic but its not. Below is actual documents from one of this reports from Ukraine. On a 5th March 1933. This is now declassified internal report regarding a Dnepro area with 35 rural districts in it. Total: starving 7291 families, dead 1814. It also mention an epidemic of malaria in areas close to Dnepro this year causing considerably death toll on already weakened population. Moscow realized that harvest failing and DECREASED grain tax on peasants as of 6th May 1932. Exports was cut off 4 times and some grain was even returned back. But it was all too late. Real harvest of 1932 was times worse off than usual but due to “estimates” based and widely falsified by local bosses numbers still hidden. Collapse in agriculture and lack of emergency grain stocks caused a dilemma between feeding the cities and countryside. There was already no good option left. Stalin was convinced that stubborn peasants simply hide grain and forced confiscations. So he tried to restrict a population movement by Army rightly fearing that influx of seriously pissed off and desperate millions to the central cities would likely to create an explosion he would not be able to control. Lessons of 1917 when Bread (or rather lack of it in capitals caused by intentional sabotage as country was overfilled in reality due to lack of exports for 3 years and exceptional harvest of 1916) was a direct trigger for fall of Empire was not wasted. Stalin was not willing to take a chances especially with even Party being split between Trotskysts and Stalinists. Problem was that if official harvest numbers would be correct (a big IF) than after collection of allocated grain tax peasants should still have a plenty left. But that meant to open up the falsifications of local administrations and likely execution for doing so. Result was that they dig the heels and in attempt to save an own hide to take a grain at all cost. But as reality of harvest was a lot worse, grain taken to feed the cities was not a surplus but a survival minimum for a peasants. Big issue was that growing cities and lacking yields created situation when a country could not really produce reliably a necessary amount of bread for itself. At the end Stalin sorted this problem on a minimal consumption level but growing population with increased affluence brought the same problem back in 1950s-1990s and eventually caused a collapse of USSR. Finally this 200 years old Russian nightmare got solved only now by Putin who finally managed impossible and turned country agriculture around for good.” Source: Sergey Bobyk’s answer to Would it be accurate to say that the Soviet famine known as Holodomor targeted ethnic Ukrainians specifically? Putin’s Reforms “By 2005 one of the most dramatic changes in Russian agriculture was the emergence of externally owned and managed commercial farming operations that are exceptionally large, typically ranging between 10,000-250,000 hectares. The investment community had long considered Russian agriculture as the sector with the most risk, carrying a high potential for loss and a low return on investment. By 2005, however, investors from outside the agricultural sector had acquired control over farm assets and millions of hectares of farmland and had begun introducing organizational changes such as vertical integration, custom and contract farming, land leasing, and central machinery stations. Responding to real profit opportunities, these entrepreneurs brought with them the means to overcome market and institutional imperfections, as well as human and physical capital limitations. This new phenomenon of non-agricultural new agricultural operators (NAO) participating in farm production and decision-making and engaging in “value through risk” investment ran contrary to the common expectation of how Russian agriculture would evolve in the post-Soviet era. Rather than a vibrant family-farming sector, what was emerging was a kind of Russian latifundia, owned not by the nobility [as under the Czars] or the State [as under the Soviets] but by corporations that in many cases are not directly related to food and fiber production. The highest level of vertical integration exists in the domestic poultry industry, where the five leading companies control 24 former collectives and newly established farms, providing 35% of the national broiler output. In other subsectors of Russian agriculture the level of integration is much lower even though the overall presence of leading agribusiness companies in agriculture is high. For example, in the grain industry, six of the ten leading exporters have grain production operations. The decision-making structure of the mother company is typically rooted in an industrial, trading, or financial culture that emphasizes economies of scale, standardization, and top-down approaches. This managerial orientation is not particularly well-suited for agriculture. Consequently the potentially hugebenefits of centralization and economies of scale are offset by the inability to make timely, local decisions. When the holding company tries to increase local decision-making authority, it often increases the risk of resource misuse and theft. Yields improved mainly because of the rise of these “new operators” – large, vertically integrated enterprises that combine primary agriculture, processing, distribution, and sometimes retail sale. The most common types of farms in these countries are big corporate farms, most of which are the former State and collective farms of the Soviet period that remained largely unreformed even into the 2000s. The more dynamic new operators usually acquire a number of these corporate farms and improve them, as well as bring investment; superior technology, including the use of imported high-quality seed; and better management practices into the entire agro-food system. The new operators are especially interested in grain production because of the opportunities for profitable export.” Agriculture Policy – Putin

499 views

12 upvotes

3 shares

2 comments

Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan

Alexander Finnegan

J.D. Law, Marxist-LeninistApr 14

What does genocide mean?

There is a lot of confusion about this term, primarily because the dementia-addled President of ours seems to have lost his metacognitive filter.

Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.[1]

That is why we see this is a very serious claim, and not one to be used for propaganda purposes and as a provocation to escalate a war, as Biden does. Even his handlers agree he is wrong, as does President Macron and everyone else.

The Holocaust was a REAL genocide. Let’s never forget that. It is well documented. Turns out, the Germans were still Germans when they were Nazis, meaning they were super organized, precise, and documented everything. They weren’t able to destroy the records before the Allies closed in. Here on Quora, Alex Mann has a space dedicated to proving the Holocaust that is very detailed.

The Holodomor was a FAKE genocide, meaning it never happened. There was a famine. It was bad. But it was not intentional. Not even a little bit.

“Holocaust-like denier” is a propaganda term used to invoke a cognitive frame. It means “You are a bad person because you won’t agree to our fake Holodomor Ukrainian propaganda, even though you actually do believe in the Holocaust.” It is manipulative.

Let’s be clear about Alexander Finnegan’s views:

  1. The Holocaust was real.
  2. The Holodomor was not.
  3. There is no Ukrainian genocide by Putin.
  4. There were likely some illegal killings of civilians by Russian troops. I condemn these killings.
  5. I support the use of chemical weapons against Azov Battalion members only. Never against regular troops or civilians.
  6. I support the use of tactical nukes if necessary to win the war in Ukraine. But as a last resort.
  7. I do not support the use of strategic nukes in Ukraine. If Russia’s survival is threatened, I do support the use of strategic nukes.
  8. I am against Pol Pot. I am against his killings. They were exaggerated for propaganda purposes, but there were atrocities. I don’t support those. He was an agriculturalist with a genocidal flare.
  9. I also condemn Suharto, who, with the help of the U.S., killed 500K+ communists and the media only focused on Pol Pot.
  10. I do support the measures to root out Nazism as used by those after WWII in Germany. These measures worked. They are called denazification. I support that.
  11. I do not support de-Ukrainization.

Footnotes

[1] What is Genocide?

1.2K views

23 upvotes

4 shares

3 comments

Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan

Alexander Finnegan

J.D. Law, Marxist-LeninistApr 13

Have atrocities been committed through atheism?

Let’s have an adult conversation.

First, let’s find out what “atrocity” means:

So it appears we have two elements.

  1. Physical violence or injury
  2. Extremely wicked or cruel

As you might be able to infer, the above has objective and subjective elements.

The infliction of violence on someone can be medically measured. That is the objective part. If you don’t inflict violence or injury, you cannot have been said to commit an “atrocity.”

What constitutes “extremely wicked” or “cruel” obviously is subjective. What you might consider cruel someone else might not.

War.

Key elements:

  1. Armed conflicts
  2. Between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Problem

“Armed conflict” is violent. Humans are primates. Primates who cannot peacefully resolve their differences resort to violence to force the other to do what they want.

Killing is violent. That’s the point. The problem we have is related to Western liberalism. Western liberalism is a religion, minus the Jesus. But it is a religion that has a worldview. The worldview is that “we are right” and “you are wrong.” It is moralized. No black and white. So our opponent, say, Saddam Hussein, is “literally Hitler.” We were told that if we refuse to invade Iraq we are “appeasers” like “Neville Chamberlin.” That Saddam would “use WMD’s” and “take over the Middle East.” We heard stories of multiple “atrocities,” such as “babies ripped from incubators.” I’m not kidding.

People bought this bullshit. Why? Because it uses your sense of empathy and caring against you. It weaponizes your good will. That, my friends, is cynical. It is manipulative. And it works.

Guilt manipulation is used to control and silence you. “Don’t you support the troops?”

Translation: “Don’t question the war or you are a heartless bastard.”

It is done with the fake Holodomor. If you call out the bullshit, you are a “enabler of atrocities,” who “support children being killed (the most vile form of guilt tripping),” the “rape of women,” blah, blah, blah.

It invokes a cognitive frame related to the Holocaust, which actually did happen. It is called transition. You invoke one frame to shift to another.

Holocaust shifts to Holodomor.

Guilt manipulation and emotional hijacking. It is irrational. Things exist or they do not exist. But your sense of good or bad is unrelated to the objective existence of something. You average person literally cannot reason. They are told what to think. The upper-middle classes can think, but they are heavily indoctrinated by “respectable” Western liberal media outlets like the oligarch Bezos owned “Washington Post.” David Ignatius is literally the voice of the U.S. propaganda state.

Atrocity misused

The use of the term “atrocity” has become propagandized. It is used to control the masses and quell dissent while enabling escalation of war. It is a provocation. The reality in Ukraine is that the Russians likely did some killings. But we don’t know the details, and the UK blocked an investigation at the UN. As we speak, there are no released autopsy reports. No forensic evidence from independent bodies. Nothing. Why? Because the West doesn’t care. It is a red herring.

Communism

The biggest shill ever has been the vilification of communism. For example, the Hoover Institution was created and funded by Ukrainian far right bourgeoise. They “escaped” from communism. This propaganda outlet funds war criminals like Kissinger and Rumsfeld. It has funded the “Mao killed the sparrows so we all died” Frank Dikotter, the literal British Intelligence agent Robert Conquest, who worked for the Atlee government in Britain. He used to feed propaganda to media outlets directly. He created the “Butcher Stalin” narrative that persists to this day. He received an award from President Bush for his propaganda efforts. Look it up.

Wikipedia is literally being edited by the CIA and FBI. Ever wonder why most of the communism articles referring to people like the propagandist Nicholas Werth, Stephen Courtois. or the goddamn liar Timothy Snyder? Stephen Kotkin is the only non-ghoul among them. Check citations, folks.Alexander Finnegan · February 24The Hoover InstitutionIt is a leading money printing machine for right wing, anti-communist scholars, war criminals, and fascist collaborators. No surprise that the leading anti-socialist, anti-Soviet propagandists, climate change deniers, and “intellectuals” get paid by this institution. Some examples: Robert Conquest—He was literally a paid propagandist who worked with the British Foreign Office’s Information Research Department. This was literally a propaganda outlet commissioned by the Labour Atlee government. Conquest would write press releases and directly feed them to the BBC and other media sources. Conquest decided to fashion himself a “historian,” and set about writing a series of anti-Stalin, anti-Soviet ahistorical propaganda books, which became the dominant narrative for Stalin and the Soviet Union as unprovoked mass murdering nightmares. Conquest’s work was largely debunked by the historian J. Arch Getty, who had access to the Soviet Archives. The “death toll” for the Soviet Union was radically decreased. Frank Dikotter—Hack Mao writer, famous for the “Mao killed the sparrows so now we are fucked” book. Dikotter has a propensity to mischaracterized Mao’s phrases out of context to purposefully deceive. Alexander Solzhenitsyn—Ultra right wing anti-Soviet writer who was awarded the Nobel Prize not for his writing, but for political purposes. Wrote primarily about the Soviet Union, a place so bad it gave him life-saving medical treatment so he could live until old age. Was sent to prison for being himself. During a live speech said that the U.S. had become “morally decadent” because it dared to stop carpet bombing Vietnam and killing innocent people to “stop communism.” Stephen Kotkin—Stalin author. Donald Rumsfeld—War criminal. Henry Kissinger—Even bigger war criminal. Condoleeza Rice—You be the judge. Thomas Sowell—Sleepy former academic and capitalist apologist. Billionaires like to go big, particularly the right wing ones. This is their propaganda outlet, for the production of right wing, anti-communist propaganda dressed up as actual scholarly work. Former dignitaries who spent their lives contributing to war crimes or helping to implement them (Kissinger is a book by himself), the 2003 invasion of Iraq, etc. The institution is associated with Stanford University to give it credibility. More money juicing. The Hoover Institution is the academic version of Fox News. Funding One of the leading financial supporters is the Hoover Institution is the Koret Foundation. It is a big funder of far right foundations. Nearly 60 percent of the $64 million provided by the foundation between 2010 and 2012 went to causes tied to Taube and Koret board members, Koret’s lawsuit alleges. That includes $3.2 million to right-wing political causes, according to the San Francisco Chronicle: $1 million for the American Values Initiative at Hoover, where Taube and Koret’s executive director are on the board; and smaller grants to the Ayn Rand Institute, the Federalist Society and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Another is the Scaife Foundation, which is a leading funder of climate change denial groups.https://alexanderfinnegan.quora.com/The-Hoover-Institution?ch=10&oid=62156233&share=6aed379f&srid=u717uA&target_type=postCIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia editsPeople using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816

Poisoning the Well

(also known as: discrediting, smear tactics, appeal to ethos [form of])

Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem (abusive) attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.

Logical Form:

Adverse information (be it true or false) about person 1 is presented.

Therefore, the claim(s) of person 1 will be false.

Example #1:

Tim: Boss, you heard my side of the story why I think Bill should be fired and not me. Now, I am sure Bill is going to come to you with some pathetic attempt to weasel out of this lie that he has created.

Explanation: Tim is poisoning the well by priming his boss by attacking Bill’s character, and setting up any defense Bill might present as “pathetic”. Tim is using this fallacious tactic here, but if the boss were to accept Tim’s advice about Bill, she would be committing the fallacy.

Example #2:

I hope I presented my argument clearly. Now, my opponent will attempt to refute my argument by his own fallacious, incoherent, illogical version of history.

Explanation: Not a very nice setup for the opponent. As an audience member, if you allow any of this “poison” to affect how you evaluate the opponent’s argument, you are guilty of fallacious reasoning.

Exception: Remember that if a person states facts relevant to the argument, it is not an ad hominem (abusive) attack. In the first example, if the other “poison” were left out, no fallacy would be committed.

Tim: Boss, you heard my side of the story why I think Bill should be fired and not me. Now, I am sure Bill is going to come to you with his side of the story, but please keep in mind that we have two witnesses to the event who both agree that Bill was the one who told the client that she had ugly children.

Variation: The appeal to ethos involves rejection of an argument based on a character attack of the person making the argument.

Gertie: Tony says that the movie starts at 8:00 tonight.
Jane: Well, Tony is misogynist pig!
Gertie: Hmm, we better double check that time then.

Fun Fact: To understand how powerful priming the audience with adverse information can be, consider the Rosenhan experiment where eight mentally healthy students and researchers briefly feigned auditory hallucinations in order to get admitted to psychiatric hospitals. After admission, they said they were no longer having hallucinations and acted normally. One of the patients, who was also a student, was taking notes for the experiment which was interpreted as pathological “writing behavior” by one of the hospital staff.

References:

Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press.[1]

Conclusion

Atheism has committed less atrocities than others. But don’t overly focus on the ideology. History and context matters, too. Too much reductionism loses the focus.

The most genocidal ideology ever created has been Nazism, which is ethno-nationalism.

Footnotes

[1] Poisoning the Well

910 views

15 upvotes

12 shares

3 comments

Icon for Alexander Finnegan

Alexander Finnegan

Posted by 

Alexander FinneganApr 10

The Crown Jewels: Toppling Russia first, then China

This is the ultimate goal of the new, “Ghouls-Based Order”

Fortress America: “We will force you to be free”

China’s Quest for Global PrimacyU.S.-China relations have entered a new phase characterized by sharpening competition. Beijing’s international and defense strategies aim to outcompete the United States and establish primacy in the Asia-Pacific region and leadership of the world order. What does this mean for U.S. policy?https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA447-1.html

Using the financial system to ruin our enemies. Starvation is the tool of empire. In fact, starving the people into revolution was stated as a goal by the U.S. State Department against Cuba. [1] That is why there are sanctions 60+ years later. You think Russia is going to have sanctions for any less time?The OutsidersThe international system can still check China and Russia.https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-04-06/china-russia-ukraine-international-system-outsiders

Terms:

  1. “Rules-Based Order”: The Western elites use neoliberalism to profit the bourgeoisie while imposing austerity on the populace. Who the fuck are you to decide what the “rules” are for China? Uppity Western pretentious ghouls.
  2. “International Community”: means “sit down, shut up, and do what you are told, even if it is against the well being of your own people.” The “members” are the obedient vassals of the U.S.
  3. “New World Order”: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
  4. “Kremlin propaganda”: Anything or anyone who disagrees with Western style neoliberalism and liberal democracy. Using “poison the well” propaganda techniques against dissenters and critics.
  5. “Freedom and democracy”: Freedom for slave owners and property owners. In the modern sense, wealthy stock-holders.
  6. “Harmony” and “unity”: Shut up and do what you are told. Disagreeing is not okay.
  7. “Disinformation”: Disagreeing with the conventional Western narrative.[2]
  8. “Domestic terrorist”: Disagreeing with the Western liberal elites who set the agenda. Anti-capitalists.[3]
  9. “Chinese Aggression”: China pursuing its logical national interests.
  10. “Campaign-against”: Unprovoked attack.

The Pentagon Must ‘Campaign’ Against China, Not Hope for a Goal-Line StandTo dissuade aggression, the U.S. military must continuously persuade its adversaries to doubt their chances of success.https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/04/pentagon-must-campaign-against-china-not-hope-goal-line-stand/365453/

Translation:

After Russia is wrecked from regime change and our multinational corporations rape and pillage it, we can then leave the people for dead and focus on wrecking China. That is the crown jewel.

Brzezinski on U.S. vs China Relations

Open admission of what awaits for China.

Soros openly discusses his attacks against China using his foundations.[4][5] It’s not a “hidden conspiracy of the right” if you openly admit to doing something. Nor does “anti-Semitism” have anything to do with it. That’s a red herring.

What the strategists “recommend” the U.S. do to China:

This list is actually more reasonable than one might expect for the U.S.:

Recommendations

  • More attention may need to be paid to the many creative ways in which Beijing could direct military action to gain positional advantages in a long-term competition.
  • U.S. policy should aim to weaken the force of Chinese criticisms by demonstrating responsive, effective U.S. leadership, thereby reducing the incentive for other countries to back Beijing’s efforts to renovate international organizations in ways that harm U.S. interests.
  • The U.S. Department of Defense may need to maintain a significant presence in the Middle East as a means of bolstering the U.S. position in the Indo-Pacific.
  • Closer coordination between competitive strategies, both within and outside the Indo-Pacific, will become even more essential.
  • Strengthening U.S. conventional capabilities and investing in a technologically advanced future force remain critical tasks, but military diplomacy may grow in importance.
  • As the competition intensifies, U.S. military planners may need to expand the portfolio of possible contingencies involving China beyond such traditional hotspots as Taiwan.
  • The appeal and feasibility of Chinese military efforts to resolve longstanding issues, such as Taiwan, may need to be reexamined through the lens of the broader competition.
  • The development of a strategy that includes some degree of reassurance and cooperation could help stabilize the competition and reduce risks of miscalculation and dangerous incidents.
  • To maximize deterrence and the protection of U.S. interests, the defense and foreign policy dimensions of any U.S. competitive strategy may need to be even more closely coordinated.[6]

Then we having something more dangerous:

The report describes four possible scenarios for China at mid-century—triumphant, ascendant, stagnant and imploding—with the middle two most likely. If China proves ascendant, the U.S. military should anticipate increased risk to already threatened forward-based forces in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, as well as a loss of the ability to operate routinely in the air and sea space above and in the Western Pacific.

The report recommends that the U.S Army be prepared for a China whose role on the Asia-Pacific and global stages grows steadily. To prepare for military conflict in such circumstances, the U.S. Army should optimize its abilities to deter hostilities, get troops and equipment to hotspots quickly, operate from forward bases, and work with allied forces.

The United States could field more robust cyber and network attack capabilities and other means to counter China’s unmanned aircraft systems, the authors assert. The capacity to respond quickly and effectively to China’s burgeoning reconnaissance-strike system will play an important role in determining the extent to which China’s leadership remains risk averse when considering military options to resolve regional disputes.

The report, conducted for the U.S. Army, is based on a review of Chinese and Western literature on the PRC’s long-term strategic development and security plans and objectives, official statements by high-level Chinese officials and institutions, speeches by paramount leaders, white papers published by the Ministry of National Defense and other PRC government agencies, authoritative People’s Liberation Army (PLA) texts, as well as Western and other non-Chinese analyses of these documents.

Other authors of the study, “China’s Grand Strategy: Trends, Trajectories, and Long-Term Competition,” are Edmund J. BurkeCortez A. Cooper IIISale LillyChad J. R. Ohlandt, Eric Warner, and J.D. Williams.

Research for the study was conducted within RAND Arroyo Center’s Strategy, Doctrine and Resources ProgramRAND Arroyo Center is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army.[7]China 2050: How the U.S. Should Prepare for an Ascendant ChinaThe United States should prepare for a triumphant or ascending People’s Republic of China—scenarios that not only align with current PRC national development trends but also represent the most challenging future scenarios for the U.S. military.https://www.rand.org/news/press/2020/07/24.html

Brezinski on the brain?

The attack plan:Nonviolent Ways the United States Could Exploit Russian VulnerabilitiesDespite its vulnerabilities and anxieties, Russia remains a formidable opponent in a few key domains. What non-violent, cost-imposing measures could the United States pursue to stress Russia’s economy, its military, and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad?https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html

From the CIA files:https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/36/36669B7894E857AC4F3445EA646BFFE1_Zbigniew_Brzezinski_-_The_Grand_ChessBoard.doc.pdfhttps://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/36/36669B7894E857AC4F3445EA646BFFE1_Zbigniew_Brzezinski_-_The_Grand_ChessBoard.doc.pdf

The Grand Chessboard Strategy used originally against Afghanistan and now being used in Ukraine against Russia. China is next.

How to non-violently overthrow the government manual:

This is the use of soft coup methods to create color revolutions in nations surrounding Russia for the purpose of achieving balkanization and division, thus enacting regime change.

The Arab Spring was the result of these methods, designed by Gene Sharp.

Gene Sharp

The goal:

Follow the money. This is all for profit. Money. That’s it.

Alexander Finnegan · April 9Propaganda for Armageddon:The purpose of this is to test the public for the following: 1. Nuclear war 2. Assassinating Putin 3. Using troops to fight directly 4. Bombing Ever wonder why these two whack jobs are together? Think about it folks. We are being tested. If the people take to it, expect the next level of priming. Then we will be conditioned to “accept” the next provocation. Watch the full interview! Biden is unable to be objective on this matter because of his involvement in Ukraine. And his personal vendetta against Putin. His mind is gone. So factions within the government—his handlers—are fighting over what to do. Hawks want to bring us to oblivion. USING KNOWN WHACK JOBS MEANS IF PEOPLE DON’T “TAKE” TO IT, WE CAN LAUGH OFF WHAT THEY SAID AS “CRAZY.” BECAUSE THEY ARE KNOWN TO BE CRAZY. We are in the most dangerous time in human history! GUIDE TO FREEING YOUR MIND FROM PROPAGANDA—FOREVER: It’s said that Putin and his government are masters of propaganda and misinformation. If so, how did they let the Ukraine situation get so out of control? It must be ultra-bad if even their propagandists can’t control it. Look at how they “covered” the event. Propaganda in action: Translation: 1. Left and right need to be “unified” in moving us toward escalation. Calls for “harmony” and “unity” are standard propaganda narratives to quell dissent. “Dissent” means not agreeing with the government’s nefarious plan. “Domestic terrorist” means “disagreeing.” If you do, you aren’t a dissenter or a political journalist, you are a “Putin bot,” “Russian troll,” etc. Working from the “troll farm.” This is poisoning the well technique, btw. 2. Different types are “put out there” to test for public reaction. 3. Bandwagon: “We all must help Ukraine. International Community (bandwagon) “committed.” 4. Appeal to emotion: Sean Penn describes the suffering he sees. 5. Use of moral guilt: “We must stand up to Putin, who is like Hitler” 6. Stereotyping: Putin is “literally Hitler.” 7. Appeal to authority: Hannity says we must “be strong like Churchill.” Not “appease.” This is standard cognitive framing type propaganda use. 8. Propaganda terms: “Rules-based order.” This actually means “everyone shutting the fuck up and doing what we say, the Western political elites.” If not, you are cognitively framed as a moral “criminal,” a “bandit,” essentially, who hates “order,” and so you must be forced to conform to the “rules-based order” or we will not have “unity” and “harmony.” Who is against harmony, right?https://qr.ae/pvKQ2AAlexander Finnegan · Apr 9Are the weapons sent to Ukraine ending up in the black market?Black market? Definitely. But the situation is far, far worse than you can possibly imagine. Many of these weapons stay in the hands of violent, radical extremists who use them against us. Directly. Arming these groups ALWAYS leads to blowback. Always. And we pay twice. First, for the weapons, and second, for more weapons to fight against our weapons. But we pay the price in security and human blood, too. For what? For playing the world’s police man using worse criminals than those whom we pretend to be fighting. Let’s look at history: Remember this guy? “Freedom fighter” against “Soviet aggression” in Afghanistan? According to the Ronald Reagan Library, the above-displayed photograph was taken in 1983, and it captures then-president Reagan meeting with Afghan rebel leaders to discuss the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. Snopes indicates that the original meme is a miscaption. In fact, this photo was taken in 1983. And these were the men who were to become the Taliban. They were the mujahedeen. Snopes is really engaging in semantics here. It’s bullshit. That is why you need to watch out for “fact-checkers” posing as actual fact-checkers. We live in a world where the fact-checkers need fact-checked. The reality is that the U.S. gave Osama bin Laden and what would be named (after victory) the Taliban. We gave weapons to the Taliban. And we would later spend 20 years fighting them. And they won. Not us. They won. Syria John McCain was the Father of ISIS Obama is the Father of Al Queda: WASHINGTON — The end came quickly for one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A. During a White House briefing early last month, the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels. The president swiftly ended the program. The rebel army was by then a shell, hollowed out by more than a year of bombing by Russian planes and confined to ever-shrinking patches of Syria that government troops had not reconquered. Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs — more than $1 billion over the life of the program — and reports that some of the C.I.A.-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda further sapped political support for the program. While critics of Mr. Trump have argued that he ended the program to curry favor with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, there were in fact dim views of the effort in both the Trump and Obama White Houses — a rare confluence of opinion on national security policy. The shuttering of the C.I.A. program, one of the most expensive efforts to arm and train rebels since the agency’s program arming the mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the 1980s, has forced a reckoning over its successes and failures. Opponents say it was foolhardy, expensive and ineffective. Supporters say that it was unnecessarily cautious, and that its achievements were remarkable given that the Obama administration had so many restrictions on it from the start, which they say ultimately ensured its failure. The program did have periods of success, including in 2015 when rebels using tank-destroying missiles, supplied by the C.I.A. and also Saudi Arabia, routed government forces in northern Syria. But by late 2015 the Russian military offensive in Syria was focusing squarely on the C.I.A.-backed fighters battling Syrian government troops. Many of the fighters were killed, and the fortunes of the rebel army reversed. Charles Lister, a Syria expert at the Middle East Institute, said he was not surprised that the Trump administration ended the program, which armed and trained thousands of Syrian rebels. (By comparison, a $500 million Pentagon program that envisioned training and equipping 15,000 Syrian rebels over three years, was canceled in 2015 after producing only a few dozen fighters.) “In many ways, I would put the blame on the Obama administration,” Mr. Lister said of the C.I.A. program. “They never gave it the necessary resources or space to determine the dynamics of the battlefield. They were drip-feeding opposition groups just enough to survive but never enough to become dominant actors.” Mr. Trump has twice publicly criticized the effort since he ended it. After The Washington Post first reported on his decision, Mr. Trump tweeted that he was ending “massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels fighting Assad.” During an interview with The Wall Street Journal last month, the president said many of the C.I.A.-supplied weapons ended up in the hands of “Al Qaeda” — presumably a reference to the Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front, which often fought alongside the C.I.A.-backed rebels. Michael V. Hayden, a former C.I.A. director, said the president’s comments “might give the agency pause with regard to how much he will have their backs on any future covert actions.” Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, the commander of United States Special Operations Command, said during a conference last month that ending the C.I.A. program was a “tough, tough decision.” “At least from what I know about that program and the decision to end it, it was absolutely not a sop to the Russians,” he said. “It was, I think, based on an assessment of the nature of the program, what we’re trying to accomplish, the viability of it going forward.” A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. President Barack Obama had reluctantly agreed to the program in 2013 as the administration was struggling to blunt the momentum of Syrian government forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad. It soon fell victim to the constantly shifting alliances in Syria’s six-year-old civil war and the limited visibility that American military and intelligence officials had over what was occurring on the ground. Once C.I.A.-trained fighters crossed into Syria, C.I.A. officers had difficulty controlling them. The fact that some of their C.I.A. weapons ended up with Nusra Front fighters — and that some of the rebels joined the group — confirmed the fears of many in the Obama administration when the program began. Although the Nusra Front was widely seen as an effective fighting force against Mr. Assad’s troops, its Qaeda affiliation made it impossible for the Obama administration to provide direct support for the group. American intelligence officials estimate that the Nusra Front now has as many as 20,000 fighters in Syria, making it Al Qaeda’s largest affiliate. Unlike other Qaeda affiliates such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Nusra Front has long focused on battling the Syrian government rather than plotting terrorist attacks against the United States and Europe. The American officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a program that is classified. In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus, who was then C.I.A. director, first proposed a covert program of arming and training rebels as Syrian government forces bore down on them. The proposal forced a debate inside the Obama administration, with some of Mr. Obama’s top aides arguing that Syria’s chaotic battlefield would make it nearly impossible to ensure that weapons provided by the C.I.A. could be kept out of the hands of militant groups like the Nusra Front. Mr. Obama rejected the plan. But he changed his mind the following year, signing a presidential finding authorizing the C.I.A. to covertly arm and train small groups of rebels at bases in Jordan. The president’s reversal came in part because of intense lobbying by foreign leaders, including King Abdullah II of Jordan and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who argued that the United States should take a more active role in trying to end the conflict. Image Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times Given the code name Timber Sycamore, the covert program began slowly, but by 2015 the C.I.A.-backed rebel groups had made significant progress against Syrian forces, pushing into areas of the country long considered to be government strongholds. The offensive gained momentum after the C.I.A. and Saudi Arabia began supplying the powerful tank-destroying weapons to the rebel groups. But the rebel push in Idlib, Hama and Latakia Provinces in northern Syria also created problems for Washington. The Nusra Front, often battling alongside the C.I.A.-supported rebel groups, made its own territorial gains. It was Nusra’s battlefield successes that Mr. Putin used as one justification for the Russian military offensive in Syria, which began in 2015. The Russian campaign, a relentless bombing of the C.I.A.-backed fighters and Nusra militants, battered the rebels and sent them into retreat. The program suffered other setbacks. The arming and the training of the rebels occurred in Jordan and Turkey, and at one point Jordanian intelligence officers pilfered stockpiles of weapons the C.I.A. had shipped into the country for the Syrian rebels, selling them on the black market. In November, a member of the Jordanian military shot and killed three American soldiers who had been training Syrian rebels as part of the C.I.A. program. White House officials also received periodic reports that the C.I.A.-trained rebels had summarily executed prisoners and committed other violations of the rules of armed conflict. Sometimes the reports led to the C.I.A. suspending cooperation with groups accused of wrongdoing. John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s last C.I.A. director, remained a vigorous defender of the program despite divisions inside the spy agency about the effort’s effectiveness. But by the final year of the Obama administration, the program had lost many supporters in the White House — especially after the administration’s top priority in Syria became battling the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, rather than seeking an end to Mr. Assad’s government. During one meeting in the White House Situation Room at the end of the Obama administration, with C.I.A.-backed rebels continuing to lose ground in the face of withering Russian air bombing, Mr. Brennan pressed the case that the United States continue to back the effort to topple Mr. Assad, according to one person who attended the meeting. But Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, shot back. “Make no mistake,” she said, according to the person in the meeting. “The president’s priority in Syria is fighting ISIS.” Backed by Russian aircraft, Syrian government forces gradually began to reclaim areas near the Turkish border that had long been rebel strongholds, and eventually pushed many of the rebels back to the besieged city of Aleppo. Aleppo fell to Syrian government troops in December. Ukraine and the Azov Battalion neo-Nazis: Members of the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment take part in a march to mark the anniversary of the founding of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army in Kyiv in 2020. (STR/NurPhoto via Getty Images) The US government has a well-documented history of backing extremist groups as part of a panoply of foreign policy misadventures, which inevitably end up blowing up in the American public’s face. In the 1960s, the CIA worked with Cuban anti–Fidel Castro radicals who turned Miami into a hub of terrorist violence. In the 1980s, the agency supported and encouraged Islamic radicals converging in Afghanistan, who would go on to orchestrate the September 11 attack. And, in the 2010s, Washington backed Syria’s not-so-“moderate” rebels who ended up cutting a swath of atrocities through civilians and the Kurdish forces that were meant to be US allies. Based on a new report, it looks like we may soon be able to add another to that list of fatally unlearned lessons: Ukrainian neo-Nazis. According to a recent Yahoo! News report, since 2015, the CIA has been secretly training forces in Ukraine to serve as “insurgent leaders,” in the words of one former intelligence official, in case Russia ends up invading the country. Current officials are claiming the training is purely for intelligence collection, but the former officials Yahoo! spoke to said the program involved training in firearms, “cover and move,” and camouflage, among other things. Given the facts, there’s a good chance that the CIA is training actual, literal Nazis as part of this effort. The year the program started, 2015, also happened to be the same year that Congress passed a spending bill that featured hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of economic and military support for Ukraine, one that was expressly modified to allow that support to flow to the country’s resident neo-Nazi militia, the Azov Regiment. According to the Nation at the time, the text of the bill passed in the middle of that year featured an amendment explicitly barring “arms, training, and other assistance” to Azov, but the House committee in charge of the bill was pressured by the Pentagon months later to remove the language, falsely telling them it was redundant. Despite sometimes open acknowledgement of its Nazism — its former commander once said the “historic mission” of Ukraine is to “lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival” in “a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen” — Azov was incorporated into the country’s National Guard in 2014, owing to its effectiveness in fighting Russian separatists. US arms have flowed to the militia, NATO and US military officials have been pictured meeting with them, and members of the militia have talked about their work with US trainers and the lack of background screening to weed out white supremacists. Given all this, it would be more of a surprise that the neo-Nazis of Azov haven’t been trained in the CIA’s clandestine make-an-insurgency program. And we’re already seeing the early signs of blowback. “A number of prominent individuals among far-right extremist groups in the United States and Europe have actively sought out relationships with representatives of the far-right in Ukraine, specifically the National Corps and its associated militia, the Azov Regiment,” states a 2020 report from the West Point US Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. “US-based individuals have spoken or written about how the training available in Ukraine might assist them and others in their paramilitary-style activities at home.” A 2018 FBI affidavit asserted that Azov “is believed to have participated in training and radicalizing United States–based white supremacy organizations,” including members of the white supremacist Rise Above Movement, prosecuted for planned assaults on counterprotesters at far-right events, including the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally that Joe Biden later co-opted as a rationale for his presidential campaign. While it seems the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque massacre didn’t travel to Ukraine as he claimed, he clearly took inspiration from the far-right movement there, and wore a symbol used by Azov members while carrying out the attack. Since taking office, Biden has launched an incipient domestic “war on terror” on the basis of combating far-right extremism, even though the strategy is quietly aiming to target left-wing protesters and activists, something it has already done. Yet at the same time, three separate administrations, Biden’s included, have been providing training, weapons, and equipment to the very far-right movement that’s inspiring and even training those same white supremacists. Destroying the Village to Save It Adding to the absurdity here is that the reason Washington has been giving Ukrainian Nazis its assistance is so they can serve as a bulwark against Russia, which war hawks liken, as they always do, to Adolph Hitler’s regime and its expansion through Europe in the 1930s. While Vladimir Putin’s Russia may be a malevolent actor on a number of fronts, Putin’s recent incursions into neighboring states like Ukraine are driven largely by the expansion of the NATO military alliance up to his borders and the security implications that come with it. In other words, to stop what US hawks classify as the next Hitler and Nazi Germany, Washington has been backing literal neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine, who are in turn communicating with and training homegrown white supremacists, which Washington in turn is ramping up a menacing repressive bureaucracy at home to counter. It’s what some have called the “self-licking ice cream cone” in action — the US national security establishment creating the very threats that justify itself. Instead of defusing the tensions by simply agreeing to long-standing Russian demands to set a hard limit on NATO’s eastward expansion, Washington has apparently decided that unlimited planetary military dominion is so important that it would rather just get into bed with actual fascists. The US alliance with Nazi-infected Ukraine has already proven awkward for a president who is both trying to strike a contrast with his far-right predecessor and establish the United States as the leader of a global effort to strengthen democracy. Late last year, in a vote that went completely unreported in the press, the United States was one of just two countries (the other being Ukraine) to vote against a UN draft resolution “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism.” Both countries have consistently voted against this resolution every single year since 2014. The Biden administration deployed a nearly identical, boilerplate explanation for its no vote that Donald Trump had used, citing the constitutional right to free speech even for those with repugnant views. But this concern is hard to square with the text, which simply expresses concern about public memorials, demonstrations, and rehabilitation of the Nazis, condemns Holocaust denial and hate violence, and calls on governments to eliminate racism through education and addressing far-right terrorist threats — all roughly the same as Biden’s own rhetoric and policies. Washington’s real concern here lies in its description of the resolution as “thinly veiled attempts to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns denigrating neighboring nations” — meaning Ukraine. But Ukraine’s connections to modern Nazism are far from Russian fake news, and are in fact extensive and well-documented: from Azov’s official incorporation into the ranks of Ukrainian law enforcement and government officials with far-right ties to state-sponsored tributes to Nazi collaborators and promotion of Holocaust denial. It’s no small irony that the US president, elected in large part to halt the perceived march of fascism at home, is continuing long-standing US support for literal Nazis in what might well be the nexus of international fascism. And if these Ukrainian Nazis really are among the insurgents being trained by the CIA, it will be no small tragedy if they one day take the same career trajectory as Osama bin Laden. It gets much, much worse: As the conflict between Ukraine and Russia continues to escalate and dominate the world’s attention, the increasing evidence that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is and has been working to create and arm an insurgency in the country has received considerably little attention considering its likely consequences. This is particularly true given that former CIA officials and a former Secretary of State are now openly saying that the CIA is following the “models” of past CIA-backed insurgencies in Afghanistan and Syria for its plans in Ukraine. Given that those countries have been ravaged by war as a direct result of those insurgencies, this bodes poorly for Ukraine. Yet, this insurgency is poised to have consequences that reach far beyond Ukraine. It increasingly appears that the CIA sees the insurgency it is creating as more than an opportunity to take its hybrid war against Russia ever closer to its borders. As this report will show, it appears the CIA is determined to manifest a prophecy propagated by its own ranks over the past two years. This prediction from former and current intelligence officials dates from at least early 2020 and holds that a “transnational white supremacist network” with alleged ties to the Ukraine conflict will be the next global catastrophe to befall the world as the threat of COVID-19 recedes. Per these “predictions”, this global network of white supremacists–allegedly with a group linked to the conflict in the Donbas region of Ukraine at its core–is to become the new Islamic State-style threat and will undoubtedly be used as the pretext to launch the still-dormant infrastructure set up last year by the U.S. government under President Biden for an Orwellian “War on Domestic Terror.” Given that this CIA-driven effort to build an insurgency in Ukraine began as far back as 2015 and that the groups it has trained (and continues to train) include those with overt Neo-Nazi connections, it seems that this “coming Ukrainian insurgency,” as it has been recently called, is already here. In that context, we are left with the unnerving possibility that this latest escalation of the Ukraine-Russia conflict has merely served as the opening act for the newest iteration of the seemingly endless “War on Terror.” Insurgency Rising Soon after Russia began military operations in Ukraine, Foreign Affairs – the media arm of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)–published an article entitled “The Coming Ukrainian Insurgency.” The piece was authored by Douglas London, a self-described “retired Russian-speaking CIA operations officer who served in Central Asia and managed agency counterinsurgency operations.” He asserted in the article that “Putin will face a long, bloody insurgency that will spread across multiple borders” with the potential to create “widening unrest that could destabilize other countries in Russia’s orbit.” Other notable statements made by London include his assertion that “the United States will invariably be a major and essential source of backing for a Ukrainian insurgency.” He also states that “As the United States learned in Vietnam and Afghanistan, an insurgency that has reliable supply lines, ample reserves of fighters, and sanctuary over the border can sustain itself indefinitely, sap an occupying army’s will to fight, and exhaust political support for the occupation at home.” London explicitly refers to models for this apparently imminent Ukrainian insurgency as the CIA-backed insurgencies in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the “moderate rebels” in Syria from 2011 to the present. London isn’t alone in promoting these past CIA-backed insurgencies as a model for “covert” U.S. aid to Ukraine. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose State Department helped to create the “moderate rebel” insurgency in Syria and oversaw the U.S. and NATO-backed destruction of Libya, appeared on MSNBC on February 28th to say essentially the same. In her interview, Clinton cited the CIA-backed insurgency in Afghanistan as “the model that people [in the U.S. government] are now looking toward” with respect to the situation in Ukraine. She also references the insurgency in Syria in similar fashion in the same interview. It is worth noting that Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff when she was Secretary of State, Jake Sullivan, is now Biden’s National Security Adviser. The Afghanistan insurgency, initially backed by the U.S. and CIA beginning in the late 1970s under the name Operation Cyclone, subsequently spawned the U.S. empire’s supposedly mortal enemies–the Taliban and Al Qaeda–who would go on to fuel the post-9/11 “War on Terror.” The U.S.’ campaign against the descendants of the insurgency it had once backed resulted in horrific destruction in Afghanistan and a litany of dead and war crimes, as well as the longest (and thus most expensive) war and occupation in American military history. It also resulted in the bombings and destruction of several other countries along with the whittling down of civil liberties domestically. Similarly, in Syria, the U.S. and CIA’s backing of “moderate rebels” was and remains incredibly destructive to the country it supposedly wants to merely “liberate” from the rule of Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. military continues to occupy critical areas of that country. With these openly touted as “models” for the “coming Ukraine insurgency,” what is to become of Ukraine, then? If the history of CIA-backed insurgencies is any indicator, it heralds significantly more destruction and more suffering for its people than the current Russian military campaign. Ukraine will become a failed state and a killing field. Those in the West cheering on their governments’ support for the Ukrainian side of the conflict would do well to realize this, particularly in the United States, as it will only lead to the escalation of yet another deadly proxy war. However, in addition to the above, we must also consider the very unsettling reality that this Ukrainian insurgency began to be formed by the CIA at least several months, if not several years, prior to Russia’s currently ongoing military campaign in Ukraine. Yahoo! News reported in January that the CIA has been overseeing a covert training program for Ukrainian intelligence operatives and special ops forces since 2015. Their report explicitly quotes one former CIA official with knowledge of the program as saying that the CIA has been “training an insurgency” and has been conducting this training at an undisclosed U.S. military base. This training of Ukrainian “insurgents” was supported by the Obama, Trump, and now Biden administrations, with the latter two expanding its operations. While the CIA denied to Yahoo! that it was training an insurgency, a New York Times report also published in January stated that the U.S. is considering support for an insurgency in Ukraine if Russia invades. Given that the CIA, at that time and prior to this year, has been warning of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine up until the current escalation of hostilities took place, it is worth asking if the U.S. government and the CIA helped “pull the trigger” by intentionally crossing Russia’s “red lines” with respect to NATO encroachment in Ukraine and post-2014 Ukraine’s acquisition of nuclear weapons when it became clear that the CIA’s repeated predictions about an “imminent” invasion failed to materialize. Russia’s red lines with Ukraine have been stated clearly–and violated repeatedly by the U.S.–for years. Notably, the U.S.’ efforts to provide lethal aid to Ukraine have coincided with the winding down of its lethal support to Syrian “rebels”, suggesting that the U.S. war and intelligence apparatus has long seen Ukraine as the “next” on its list of proxy wars. However, more recently, the CIA’s warnings of an imminent invasion of Ukraine were scoffed at, not only by many American analysts, but also apparently by both the Russian and Ukrainian governments themselves. It is alleged that this all changed, at least from the Russian perspective, following Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s claim at the Munich Security Conference that his government would seek to make Ukraine a nuclear power in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Surely, Zelensky and his supporters in Washington DC and Langley, Virginia would have known that such an extreme claim from Zelensky would elicit a response from Russia. One need only consider the reverberations that follow any country announcing its intentions to become a nuclear power on the world stage. Russian leadership has since made the case that they felt compelled to act militarily after Ukraine, which has been regularly attacking separatists along its border with Russia with embedded paramilitary units that have called for the “extermination” of ethnic Russians who live in those regions, announced plans to acquire nukes. In addition, given Ukraine’s growing ties to NATO and its desire to integrate itself into that alliance, these theoretical nuclear weapons would be NATO-controlled nukes on Russia’s border. Zelensky, the U.S., and their other allied parties surely knew that this intention, particularly its admission in public, would push an already tense situation to the next level. Of course, this statement from Zelensky followed a U.S.-led airlift of weapons to Ukraine early last month, weeks before the current Russian military campaign. U.S. lethal aid to Ukraine has previously been described as being tantamount to a “declaration of war” on Russia by the U.S., per members of Russia’s Ministry of Defense as far back as 2017. It is worth considering that these red lines and the potential to cross them was discussed by Zelensky and representatives of Ukraine’s intelligence services when they met with the head of the CIA, William Burns, in January. The CIA, at that time, was already claiming a Russian invasion of Ukraine was imminent. Given the events described above, could it be possible that the CIA wanted to bring about the insurgency they have been preparing for, potentially since 2015? Would they have done so by pushing their allies in Ukraine’s government to manifest the conditions necessary to begin that insurgency, i.e. prompting them to cross Russia’s “red lines” to elicit the reaction needed to launch a pre-planned insurgency? With the CIA also training Ukraine’s intelligence operatives for nearly seven years, the possibility is certainly one to consider. If this theory is more than plausible and close to the truth of how we got here, we are left with more questions, mainly–Why would the CIA look to launch this insurgency in Ukraine and why now? The apparent answer may surprise you. Manufacturing the Narrative and the Threat In May 2020, Politico published an article entitled “Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next.” The article was written by Garrett Graff, former editor of Politico, a professor at Georgetown’s Journalism and Public Relations program, and director of cyber initiatives at The Aspen Institute–a “non-partisan” think tank funded largely by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Carnegie Corporation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Graff’s introduction to the piece states the following: Every year, the intelligence community releases the Worldwide Threat Assessment—a distillation of worrisome global trends, risks, problem spots and emerging perils. But this year, the public hearing on the assessment, usually held in January or February, was canceled, evidently because intelligence leaders, who usually testify in a rare open hearing together, were worried their comments would aggravate President Donald Trump. And the government has not yet publicly released a 2020 threat report. In 2020, the CIA did not release a “worldwide” threat assessment for the first time since it first began annually releasing them decades ago. This article published by Politico was intended by Graff to serve as a “Domestic Threat Assessment” in the absence of the CIA’s Worldwide Threat Assessment and is styled as a “list of the most significant events that might impact the United States” in the short, medium and long terms. Graff created this Threat Assessment document after interviewing “more than a dozen thought leaders,” many of whom were “current and former national security and intelligence officials.” A few months later, the Department of Homeland Security, for the first time since its creation in 2003, would publish its own “Homeland” Threat Assessment in October of that year. As I noted at the time, this signalled a major shift within the U.S. national security/intelligence apparatus away from “foreign terror”, its ostensible focus since 9/11, to “domestic terror.” Just months after this Homeland Threat Assessment was published, the war on domestic terror would be launched in the wake of the events of January 6th, which itself was apparently foreseen by then-DHS official Elizabeth Neumann. In early 2020, Neumann had presciently stated: “It feels like we are at the doorstep of another 9/11—maybe not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers—but that we can see it building, and we don’t quite know how to stop it.” Indeed, when January 6th took place, no real effort was made by Capitol Police or other law enforcement officials present to stop the so-called “riot”, with plenty of footage from the event instead showing law enforcement waving the supposed “insurrectionists” into the Capitol building. This, however, did not stop top politicians and national security officials from labelling January 6th as the “another 9/11” that Neumann had apparently predicted. Notably, the DHS’ first-ever Homeland Threat Assessment, Neumann’s warning, and the subsequent official narrative regarding the events of January 6th were all heavily focused on the threat of “white supremacist terror attacks” on the U.S. homeland. Returning to the May 2020 Politico article–Graff notes that many supposed pandemic “experts”, which–per Graff–includes Bill Gates and U.S. intelligence officials James Clapper and Dan Coats, had “projected the spread of a novel virus and the economic impacts it would bring as well as “details about the specific challenges” the U.S. would face during the initial phase of the COVID-19 crisis. Graff then asks “What other catastrophes are coming that we aren’t planning for?” According to the “thought leaders” he consulted for this piece, which included several current and former intelligence officials, the most immediate “near-term threat” likely to disrupt life in the U.S. and beyond following Covid was “the Globalization of White Supremacy.” In discussing this imminent threat, Graff wrote: ‘Terrorism’ today conjures images of ISIS fighters and suicide bombers. But if you ask national security officials about the top near-term terrorism threat on their radar, they almost universally point to the rising problem of white nationalist violence and the insidious way that groups that formerly existed locally have been knitting themselves together into a global web of white supremacism. In recent weeks, the State Department—for the first time—formally designated a white supremacist organization, the Russian Imperial Movement, as a terrorist organization, in part because it’s trying to train and seed adherents around the globe, inspiring them to carry out terror attacks… (emphasis added) Graff then adds that “There are serious—and explicit—warnings about this coming from U.S. government and foreign officials that eerily echo the warnings that came about for al Qaeda before 9/11.” He then quotes FBI Director Christopher Wray as stating: “It’s not just the ease and the speed with which these attacks can happen, but the connectivity that the attacks generate. One unstable, disaffected actor hunkered down, alone, in his mom’s basement in one corner of the country, getting further fired up by similar people half a world away. That increases the complexity of domestic terrorism cases we have in a way that is really challenging.” This quote from Wray was first published in a piece Graff had written a month prior to publishing his Politico piece. The focus of that interview centered around domestic terrorism in the U.S., with extensive discussion about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the Russian Imperial Movement. In that article, published in Wired, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, Nathan Sales, characterized that movement as “a terrorist group that provides paramilitary-style training to neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and it plays a prominent role in trying to rally like-minded Europeans and Americans into a common front against their perceived enemies.” This Russian Imperial Movement, or RIM, advocates for the re-establishment of the pre-1917 Russian empire, which would exert influence over all territory inhabited by ethnic Russians. Their ideology is described as white supremacist, monarchist, ultra-nationalist, pro-Russian Orthodox, and anti-Semitic. They are not considered neo-Nazi, but have worked to build ties with other, far-right groups with neo-Nazi connections. RIM was allegedly responsible for training a bomber whose acts resulted in no deaths in Sweden from 2016-2017. The bomber, Victor Melin, was not an active RIM member but was reportedly trained by them, and he conducted 2 of his 3 bombings with an individual completely unaffiliated with RIM. Melin was, however, a member of the Nordic Resistance Movement at the time. A few years later, in April 2020, RIM became the first “white supremacist” group to be labeled a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity (SDGT) by the U.S., despite not being tied to an act of terror since 2017 and despite those previous acts resulting in no deaths. The acts of terror cited as justification by then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were those perpetrated by Melin. However, the Nordic Resistance Movement, of which Melin was an active member at the time of the bombings, did not receive the SDGT label, even though it is significantly larger in terms of membership and reach than RIM. The decision to label RIM this way was considered “unprecedented” at the time. It has since been claimed that the group now numbers in the “several thousand” worldwide, though little publicly available evidence exists to support this statistic and that statistic notably only emerged roughly a month after the U.S. terror designation and originated from a U.S.-based institute. There are also no statistics available on the number of individuals they have allegedly trained via their paramilitary arm, known as the Imperial Legion. Per the U.S. government, RIM’s reach is global and extends to the U.S.. However, its U.S. ties are based on dubious allegations of a relationship with Atomwaffen Division’s Russian affiliate and a “personal relationship” with the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally organizer Matthew Heimbach. However, this again is based on the allegations (not direct evidence) that Heimbach received funds from RIM. Heimbach’s group, the Traditionalist Workers’ Party, has been inactive since 2018, two years before the U.S. SDGT designation for RIM. It is also alleged that RIM offered to train other “Unite the Right” figures, though RIM and the “white supremacists” who supposedly received this offer deny the reports. Furthermore, there remains no evidence of any U.S. citizen ever participating in paramilitary training with RIM. This contradicts Nathan Sales’ April 2020 claim that RIM plays “a prominent role in trying to rally like-minded Europeans and Americans into a common front against their perceived enemies.” Despite the lack of evidence left-leaning, non-partisan, and right-leaning think tanks have continued to use RIM as proof of a “large, interconnected, transnational network” of violent white supremacists. It seems odd that a group that is apparently small and very limited in terms of its presence in the U.S. and that is responsible for no deadly terror attacks would earn the honor of becoming the first U.S.-designed, white supremacist Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity. This is especially true when the acts cited as justification for the SDGT designation were committed by a member of a different, larger group, a group that did not receive this designation at the time or in the years since. However, in the context of current events in Ukraine, the 2020 designation of RIM begins to make more sense, at least from the U.S. national security perspective. RIM is alleged to support separatists in Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions since 2014 and has been described by the U.S. as “anti-Ukrainian.” These regions are at the center of the current conflict and its most recent escalation last month. The U.S. government and pro-Western think tanks list RIM’s “first attack” as its involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. According to Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), the number of fighters sent by or trained by RIM in Eastern Ukraine is unknown, though one report states RIM sent “groups of five to six fighters” from Russia to Eastern Ukraine in mid-June 2014. RIM’s paramilitary arm, the Imperial Legion, has not been active in Ukraine since January 2016. However, some reports have asserted that “some individuals opted to stay and continue fighting.” Claims have also been made in more recent years that RIM members have fought in the Syrian conflict and in Libya on the side of General Haftar. Following this “first attack,” Stanford’s CISAC claims that, from 2015 to 2020, they have been “building a transnational network,” though as previously noted–their success in that endeavor is based on reports of dubious authenticity and/or significance, particularly in the United States. However, their alleged role on the side of separatists in the Donbass has been used by U.S. think tanks to argue that RIM advances Moscow’s policy goals, which they say include “seeking to fuel white supremacist extremism in Europe and the United States.” Some think tanks in the U.S., like Just Security, have used RIM to argue that Russia’s government plays a major role in “transnational white supremacy” due to “a mutual affection between Western white supremacists and the Russian government.” They claim that because Russia “tolerates” RIM’s presence domestically, “the Kremlin facilitates the growth of right-wing extremism in Europe and the United States that exacerbates threats to the stability of democratic governments.” However, what Just Security fails to mention is that RIM has vocally opposed and protested against Putin’s government, has been labeled an extremist group by the Russian government and has even had its offices raided by Russian police because of their opposition to Putin’s leadership. Notably, Just Security’s advisors included former CIA deputy director and Event 201 participant, Avril Haines as well as former deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton at the State Department, Jake Sullivan. Haines and Sullivan now serve as Biden’s Director of National Intelligence (i.e. the top intelligence official in the country) and Biden’s National Security adviser, respectively. The Dawn of “Domestic Terror” As a result of the current escalation of events in Ukraine, it appears inevitable that the effort to use RIM to paint Russia as a driving force behind “transnational white supremacism” are due to resurface. This effort appears to have as one of its goals the minimization of the role that neo-Nazi groups like the Azov Battalion, the Neo-Nazi paramilitary unit embedded within Ukraine’s National Guard, are actively playing in the current hostilities. In January of this year, Jacobin published an article about the CIA efforts to seed an insurgency in Ukraine, noting that “everything we know points to the likelihood that [the groups being trained by the CIA] includes Neo-Nazis inspiring far-right terrorists across the world.” It cites a 2020 report from West Point which states that: “A number of prominent individuals among far-right extremist groups in the United States and Europe have actively sought out relationships with representatives of the far-right in Ukraine, specifically the National Corps and its associated militia, the Azov Regiment.” It adds that “U.S.-based individuals have spoken or written about how the training available in Ukraine might assist them and others in their paramilitary-style activities at home.” Even the FBI, though more publicly concerned about RIM, has been forced to admit that U.S.-based white supremacists have cultivated ties with the group, with the Bureau stating in a 2018 indictment that Azov “is believed to have participated in training and radicalizing United States–based white supremacy organizations.” In contrast, there remains no proof of any concrete ties of a single U.S. citizen to RIM. With the CIA now backing an insurgency that prominent former CIA officials are claiming will “spread across multiple borders,” the fact that the forces being trained and armed by the agency as part of this “coming insurgency” include Azov battalion is significant. It seems that the CIA is determined to create yet another self-fulfilling prophecy by breeding the very network of “global white supremacy” that intelligence officials have claimed is the “next” big threat after the COVID-19 crisis wanes. The injection of the group RIM into the narrative should also be of concern. It seems plausible, given the pre-conflict terror designation for the group and its alleged past ties to the Ukraine conflict, that a CIA-trained Ukrainian insurgent, perhaps from a group like Azov or an equivalent, would willingly pose as a member of RIM, allowing RIM to be labeled as the “new Al Qaeda”, with its base of operations conveniently located in Russia and its presence there “tolerated” by Moscow. It certainly would serve the now, rather pervasive narrative equating Putin with Adolf Hitler in the wake of Russia’s decision to launch its military campaign in Ukraine. It would also serve to launch, in earnest, the up-until-now largely dormant War on Domestic Terror, the infrastructure for which was launched by the Biden administration just last year. While January 6th was used to equate support for former President Donald Trump with neo-Nazism and white supremacism, recent articles that have followed Russia’s recent military campaign against Ukraine deliberately link this “Putin as Hitler” narrative with U.S. Republicans. U.S. conservatives have long been the focus of “domestic terror” fear-mongering over the past several years (They are also, incidentally, the majority of gun owners). An editorial by Robert Reich published in The Guardian on March 1st claims “the world is frighteningly locked in a battle to the death between democracy and authoritarianism.” Reich goes onto to state that Russia’s incursion into Ukraine “is a new cold war… The biggest difference between the old cold war and the new one is that authoritarian neo-fascism is no longer just an external threat to America and Europe. A version of it is also growing inside western Europe and the U.S.. It has even taken over one of America’s major political parties. The Trump-led Republican party does not openly support Putin, but the Republican party’s animus toward democracy is expressed in ways familiar to Putin and other autocrats.” Other articles making similar claims have appeared in The New York Times and The Intercept, among others, in just the past week. On March 2, Salon followed Reich’s piece with a similar editorial entitled “How white supremacy fuels the Republican love affair with Vladimir Putin,” which concludes with the assertion that “today’s Republican Party is America’s and the world’s largest white supremacist and white identity organization” and “that “conservatism” and racism are now fully one and the same thing here in America.” As this muddying of the waters regarding the relationship among Putin, the U.S. Republican Party, and white supremacism escalates, we also have intelligence agencies in Europe and the U.S. increasingly linking opposition to Covid measures, like lockdowns and vaccine mandates, to neo-Nazism, white supremacism and the far-right, frequently with little to no evidence. This recently occurred with the Freedom Convoy in Canada and, more recently, German security agencies and officials asserted just days ago that they can no longer distinguish between “far-right radicals” and those who oppose vaccine mandates and Covid restrictions. However, these efforts to link opposition to Covid measures with “domestic terrorism” and the far-right go back to 2020. In addition to these trends, it also seems inevitable that the “Russian misinformation” label, used and abused for the past several years so that any dissenting narrative was often labeled “Russian” in origin, is likely to make a comeback in this context and provide the justification for a zealous censorship campaign online and particularly on social media, where this “transnational white supremacist network” is said to be dependent upon for its supposed success. The coming “global white supremacist” terror threat, if we are to believe our unusually prescient intelligence officials, appears to be the “next thing” to befall the world as the Covid crisis wanes. It also appears that the CIA has crowned itself the midwife and chosen Ukraine as the birthplace of this new “terror threat,” one which will create not only the next proxy war between U.S. empire and its adversaries, but also the pretext to launch the “War on Domestic Terror” in North America and Europe. Members of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion learn how fire a UK-made NLAW rocket in March 2022 Conclusion: We just created, literally, a global white supremacist threat. We manufactured it. And we will be fighting that, next. For what? To fight the Russians? How did that work out in Afghanistan? Ask Al Quaeda and the Taliban.

Free your mind from propaganda—forever!

Alexander Finnegan · Apr 9It’s said that Putin and his government are masters of propaganda and misinformation. If so, how did they let the Ukraine situation get so out of control? It must be ultra-bad if even their propagandists can’t control it.Bookmark this one. This is going to be a deep dive into understanding disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda. If you understand this, you will free your mind—forever. Frankly, Russian propaganda is not that impressive compared to Western propaganda. The Brits are fairly good at it. American propaganda is the finest in the world. The reason? Because we Americans believe that because our media is technically “private,” that means it is more authentic. It’s not. In the old days, the government used to infiltrate the media, which made some effort to sort of be independent. Operation Mockingbird with the CIA is an example of this. The media used to have some journalistic standards. Those are largely diluted now. In fact, the government and the media are so closely tethered that deciphering them is difficult. And the concentration of media in terms of ownership and control is more focused. For example, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, owns The Washington Post. It is considered one of the foremost authoritative sources of mainstream news in the United States, second only to the New York Times. Identifying propaganda and counter-propaganda, and counter-counter propaganda: This is an interesting video that claims to cover Putin propaganda. You must watch this first: The essence of it is to create doubt in your mind, so you are unsure what to believe. This breaks down the narrative. For example, some people were going to be engaged in protests. Propaganda was used to seed doubts about the protests and their value. Doubt and mistrust is the goal. Counter-Propaganda to the counter-propaganda However, what if the above video is actually counter-propaganda? What if it is made to poison the well against Putin? I think it may be. Analyze the video for yourself. I want you to do it. The guy in the video uses many of the same techniques he warns against. The player getting played, right? Yup. Either way, it opens your eyes to all propaganda. And that is the benefit you can gain here. Above claims to be a propaganda poster. Who created it? Euromaidan Press. Who’s that? Ukraine based. Getting my drift? Anti-Russian propaganda designed to prime you to not accept “propaganda” created by The Big Bad Putin™. This is big boy and big girl propaganda. 4 dimensional chess Cutting through the bullshit: Major techniques are used to control your mind. Pay attention because this is life changing information right here: 1. Priming. This is the use of preparing you via social media and regular media for a message they will implant in your mind. It is foreshadowing. For example, a non-serious media figure will mention the possibility of something very bad. “Putin will do a chemical attack,” or “Putin will rebuild the Soviet Union.” Few details will be offered. Just mentioned. But it will be stated at least twice. Expect this to go on for a few days to a week before the real information comes. 2. Testing. Often, hairbrained ideas will be “tested” for public opinion by someone known to be kind of whacky. If the public freaks out in a bad way, it is nixed. You won’t hear about it again. But if it doesn’t make waives, you’ll see it again. Sean Penn and Hannity, for example. What kind of twisted shit are they floating here? 3. Rerun. First, some propaganda message will be printed in a lesser known market, not the NYT. More recently, we had the “dead Ukrainian kids” story. Initially, the focus was on dead adults of fighting age. That is more believable. In Bucha, for example, we probably had a hybrid of deaths. The bodies were obviously in varying stages of decomposition, consistent with different dates and methods of death. We know the Azov Battalion swept through and went looking for “collaborators.” Usually this means killing people for minor things like selling a few eggs to Russian troops who occupied the town. We also had shelling, which tends to kill people. Further, it is highly probable the Russian troops did kill some people. For example, there is a video where a guy was walking his bicycle, out of sight of a line of tanks. He rounds a corner, and after becoming visible to the tanks, two of the tanks appear to bring him down. Bad, right? Did the tanks shoot him while he was walking down a long street? No. They shoot as he turns the corner and gets into their vision. Mind you, this is an adult male, who could have been carrying a rocket launcher. Civilians were subject to civilian defense requirements, and the Russians have lost a number of soldiers and tanks. So they were going to be edgy. We have no proof of the other killings. This evidence was produced by satellite images provided by Maxar Satellites, which are used by the CIA and other government institutions. There is no way to independently verify the dates of the satellite images “showing” bodies on the ground for several weeks. We have to take their word for it, although apparently the AFP also replicated the results. But we don’t know if they “replicated” them in a fair and transparent manner. This isn’t like Google Earth, where you can check for yourself. No idea why Google didn’t assist or say anything here. 4. Repetition. The news cycle will run these messages over, and over, and over. The mere exposure effect kicks in. The message “feels” right to you. Your brain “owns it.” You will even defend the message to others, because it causes cognitive dissonance if you don’t. It seems unnatural to listen to any counter narratives. 5. Poisoning the well. This is the primary mind control technique used in the world today. This primes you to shut off your own mind from any new facts. You self-censor. There is no need for modern day censorship if you censor your own mind. You become a self-controlled mental automaton. A willing slave. So anything Putin or the Russians says is tainted. Anything. Putin could say “2+2=4” and it would be lies. Pure Putin propaganda, right? No. Truth exists irrespective of who states it. That is basic logic. It is mathematically true. And math cannot be propaganda—unless you are a fucking moron. 6. “Insider secret” This is one that is used by some top Quoran propagandists. It is the equivalent of telling people that they are getting the “inside scoop.” It primes them, but it also appeals to their egos. It provides a feeling of closeness. And people want that. Nobody listens to each other anymore. But this person does. Right? Wrong. This is a crack in your defenses to implant the illogical notion that a person is ALL bad. Pure fucking evil. No nuance. Is that the way life is? The only person who is pure evil I can think of is Hillary Clinton. She is the exception to the rule. Most people fall on a spectrum of good vs evil. In reality, life has shades of gray. It is nuanced. But propaganda takes that away. If you can be convinced someone like Putin or whomever is depraved beyond all redemption, then you cannot rationally understand that person. This means you cannot strategize. The power is taken from you and given to someone else. 7. Supervillain This is it. I am old. I remember when they did this to Saddam Hussein. He is “literally Hitler,” they said. Really? Hitler used industrial scale killing techniques. cattle cars, and killed 11+ million people, and then cremated them and/or buried them in mass graves. Did Saddam Hussein do that? No. He was brutal. He gassed the Kurds. He was a motherfucker. But he was an amateur compared to Hitler. In fact, when you are arguing with someone online and they call you Hitler, that means the conversation has totally broken down. It is called “Godwin’s Law.” Now we have Putin as “literally Hitler.” And we have been prepared for this for months and years. That is why the Bucha deaths and the “genocide” claims work with the public. The reality is that Putin is non-ideological. He has been around for over two decades. If he was Hitler, we would have known about it now. In fact, by Russian standards, he is fairly moderate. But even as I say this, people will say I am being a bot. Good. 8. I am telling you right now. Do not fucking trust me. What if Alexander Finnegan is a real Putin propagandist? What then? Does that make me wrong? Would it change anything I have just told you? Would the methods not work if I were literally a Putin bot? No. 2+2=4 is the same. If my doctor lights a cigarette and tells me smoking is bad for my health, is he wrong? What if he was also a cigarette vender as his gig job? Still doesn’t matter. What if my doctor was Dr. Evil? Still doesn’t matter. If I am entirely wrong about my opinions regarding what happened in Bucha, I am okay with that. I am open to it. Because you know what? I have no fucking clue. None. I am just speculating. My goal is to provide you the ability to inoculate yourself against propaganda. Because if everyone is less indoctrinated and brainwashed, we would have a better world. And maybe even less war, because we would listen to each other. And then maybe my kids could grow up without dying in a nuclear holocaust.Bold, effective and risky: The new strategy the U.S. is using in the info war against Russia“It doesn’t have to be solid intelligence,” one U.S. official said. “It’s more important to get out ahead of them [the Russians], Putin specifically, before they do something.”https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-declassified-intel-fight-info-war-russia-even-intel-isnt-rock-rcna23014?featureFlag=false&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab#anchor-strongLeaningforwardstrong

Crackdown on Dissent: Not agreeing with capitalism means you are a “domestic terrorist.”

Has Joe Biden made anti-capitalism illegal? Domestic terrorism strategy explainedThe White House published a new strategy document for tackling domestic terrorism, and argued “we need both short-term steps to counter the very real threats of today and longer-term measures to diminish the emerging threats of tomorrow.”https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-report-anti-capitalism-illegal-domestic-terrorism-1602506NATO will deploy a permanent full-scale military force on its border with Russia to combat a future invasion, alliance’s chief saysNATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told The Telegraph that the alliance was “in the midst of a very fundamental transformation.”https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-deploy-military-force-defend-borders-against-russia-stoltenberg-2022-4

Europe will be a vassal state of the U.S. after this is over.

Increased provocation based on “mass graves?” Incoming. Expect significant escalation soon!

Alexander Finnegan · Apr 9It’s said that Putin and his government are masters of propaganda and misinformation. If so, how did they let the Ukraine situation get so out of control? It must be ultra-bad if even their propagandists can’t control it.Bookmark this one. This is going to be a deep dive into understanding disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda. If you understand this, you will free your mind—forever. Frankly, Russian propaganda is not that impressive compared to Western propaganda. The Brits are fairly good at it. American propaganda is the finest in the world. The reason? Because we Americans believe that because our media is technically “private,” that means it is more authentic. It’s not. In the old days, the government used to infiltrate the media, which made some effort to sort of be independent. Operation Mockingbird with the CIA is an example of this. The media used to have some journalistic standards. Those are largely diluted now. In fact, the government and the media are so closely tethered that deciphering them is difficult. And the concentration of media in terms of ownership and control is more focused. For example, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, owns The Washington Post. It is considered one of the foremost authoritative sources of mainstream news in the United States, second only to the New York Times. Identifying propaganda and counter-propaganda, and counter-counter propaganda: This is an interesting video that claims to cover Putin propaganda. You must watch this first: The essence of it is to create doubt in your mind, so you are unsure what to believe. This breaks down the narrative. For example, some people were going to be engaged in protests. Propaganda was used to seed doubts about the protests and their value. Doubt and mistrust is the goal. Counter-Propaganda to the counter-propaganda However, what if the above video is actually counter-propaganda? What if it is made to poison the well against Putin? I think it may be. Analyze the video for yourself. I want you to do it. The guy in the video uses many of the same techniques he warns against. The player getting played, right? Yup. Either way, it opens your eyes to all propaganda. And that is the benefit you can gain here. Above claims to be a propaganda poster. Who created it? Euromaidan Press. Who’s that? Ukraine based. Getting my drift? Anti-Russian propaganda designed to prime you to not accept “propaganda” created by The Big Bad Putin™. This is big boy and big girl propaganda. 4 dimensional chess Cutting through the bullshit: Major techniques are used to control your mind. Pay attention because this is life changing information right here: 1. Priming. This is the use of preparing you via social media and regular media for a message they will implant in your mind. It is foreshadowing. For example, a non-serious media figure will mention the possibility of something very bad. “Putin will do a chemical attack,” or “Putin will rebuild the Soviet Union.” Few details will be offered. Just mentioned. But it will be stated at least twice. Expect this to go on for a few days to a week before the real information comes. 2. Testing. Often, hairbrained ideas will be “tested” for public opinion by someone known to be kind of whacky. If the public freaks out in a bad way, it is nixed. You won’t hear about it again. But if it doesn’t make waives, you’ll see it again. Sean Penn and Hannity, for example. What kind of twisted shit are they floating here? 3. Rerun. First, some propaganda message will be printed in a lesser known market, not the NYT. More recently, we had the “dead Ukrainian kids” story. Initially, the focus was on dead adults of fighting age. That is more believable. In Bucha, for example, we probably had a hybrid of deaths. The bodies were obviously in varying stages of decomposition, consistent with different dates and methods of death. We know the Azov Battalion swept through and went looking for “collaborators.” Usually this means killing people for minor things like selling a few eggs to Russian troops who occupied the town. We also had shelling, which tends to kill people. Further, it is highly probable the Russian troops did kill some people. For example, there is a video where a guy was walking his bicycle, out of sight of a line of tanks. He rounds a corner, and after becoming visible to the tanks, two of the tanks appear to bring him down. Bad, right? Did the tanks shoot him while he was walking down a long street? No. They shoot as he turns the corner and gets into their vision. Mind you, this is an adult male, who could have been carrying a rocket launcher. Civilians were subject to civilian defense requirements, and the Russians have lost a number of soldiers and tanks. So they were going to be edgy. We have no proof of the other killings. This evidence was produced by satellite images provided by Maxar Satellites, which are used by the CIA and other government institutions. There is no way to independently verify the dates of the satellite images “showing” bodies on the ground for several weeks. We have to take their word for it, although apparently the AFP also replicated the results. But we don’t know if they “replicated” them in a fair and transparent manner. This isn’t like Google Earth, where you can check for yourself. No idea why Google didn’t assist or say anything here. 4. Repetition. The news cycle will run these messages over, and over, and over. The mere exposure effect kicks in. The message “feels” right to you. Your brain “owns it.” You will even defend the message to others, because it causes cognitive dissonance if you don’t. It seems unnatural to listen to any counter narratives. 5. Poisoning the well. This is the primary mind control technique used in the world today. This primes you to shut off your own mind from any new facts. You self-censor. There is no need for modern day censorship if you censor your own mind. You become a self-controlled mental automaton. A willing slave. So anything Putin or the Russians says is tainted. Anything. Putin could say “2+2=4” and it would be lies. Pure Putin propaganda, right? No. Truth exists irrespective of who states it. That is basic logic. It is mathematically true. And math cannot be propaganda—unless you are a fucking moron. 6. “Insider secret” This is one that is used by some top Quoran propagandists. It is the equivalent of telling people that they are getting the “inside scoop.” It primes them, but it also appeals to their egos. It provides a feeling of closeness. And people want that. Nobody listens to each other anymore. But this person does. Right? Wrong. This is a crack in your defenses to implant the illogical notion that a person is ALL bad. Pure fucking evil. No nuance. Is that the way life is? The only person who is pure evil I can think of is Hillary Clinton. She is the exception to the rule. Most people fall on a spectrum of good vs evil. In reality, life has shades of gray. It is nuanced. But propaganda takes that away. If you can be convinced someone like Putin or whomever is depraved beyond all redemption, then you cannot rationally understand that person. This means you cannot strategize. The power is taken from you and given to someone else. 7. Supervillain This is it. I am old. I remember when they did this to Saddam Hussein. He is “literally Hitler,” they said. Really? Hitler used industrial scale killing techniques. cattle cars, and killed 11+ million people, and then cremated them and/or buried them in mass graves. Did Saddam Hussein do that? No. He was brutal. He gassed the Kurds. He was a motherfucker. But he was an amateur compared to Hitler. In fact, when you are arguing with someone online and they call you Hitler, that means the conversation has totally broken down. It is called “Godwin’s Law.” Now we have Putin as “literally Hitler.” And we have been prepared for this for months and years. That is why the Bucha deaths and the “genocide” claims work with the public. The reality is that Putin is non-ideological. He has been around for over two decades. If he was Hitler, we would have known about it now. In fact, by Russian standards, he is fairly moderate. But even as I say this, people will say I am being a bot. Good. 8. I am telling you right now. Do not fucking trust me. What if Alexander Finnegan is a real Putin propagandist? What then? Does that make me wrong? Would it change anything I have just told you? Would the methods not work if I were literally a Putin bot? No. 2+2=4 is the same. If my doctor lights a cigarette and tells me smoking is bad for my health, is he wrong? What if he was also a cigarette vender as his gig job? Still doesn’t matter. What if my doctor was Dr. Evil? Still doesn’t matter. If I am entirely wrong about my opinions regarding what happened in Bucha, I am okay with that. I am open to it. Because you know what? I have no fucking clue. None. I am just speculating. My goal is to provide you the ability to inoculate yourself against propaganda. Because if everyone is less indoctrinated and brainwashed, we would have a better world. And maybe even less war, because we would listen to each other. And then maybe my kids could grow up without dying in a nuclear holocaust.

How to free your mind from propaganda—literally, forever!

Footnotes

[1] Cuba Embargoed: U.S. Trade Sanctions Turn Sixty

[2] Cyberspace Solarium Commission – Disinformation White Paper

[3] Has Joe Biden made anti-capitalism illegal? Domestic terrorism strategy explained

[4] Xi’s Dictatorship Threatens the Chinese State

[5] New Documents Show Power Games Behind China’s Tiananmen Crackdown (Published 2019)

[6] China’s Quest for Global Primacy

[7] China 2050: How the U.S. Should Prepare for an Ascendant China

Who is right about communism, Alexander Finnegan or Dima Vorobiev?

Dima Vorobiev used to live in the Soviet Union. He worked for the government in the propaganda ministry. He has knowledge about Soviet propaganda and communism as it existed in the Soviet Union. Unless someone has lived that experience, it would not make sense to question his experience of the Soviet Union, communism, and propaganda. His entries are always interesting and well written. I enjoy reading them.

Dima is not a communist. He has clearly stated this. He has stated that he isn’t interested in Russia becoming communist again. While it worked out well for him, he does not believe communism worked well for his country.

I did not live in the Soviet Union. I have not lived in a communist country. I am a communist, or more precisely, a Marxist Leninist. I acknowledge the purges, the political repression, the restrictions on the freedom of speech, owning a business, and being able to leave the country whenever one wants. I have addressed these issues in my writings.

Let’s pretend that the U.S. collapsed. It then became communist. I start writing on Quora about my experience of the U.S. when it was capitalist. My job is a lawyer, so I would discuss what it was like practicing law in a capitalist nation. Then someone from Cuba who is a capitalist starts writing. My family has money. So capitalism personally has worked out great for me. I have lived a fairly good life compared to people in the inner city or rural Appalachia. But I am a communist. I am because I don’t believe capitalism has worked out well for the poor in the U.S. I would prefer that capitalism be swept away and communism take its place.

Now imagine the person from Cuba (a capitalist living in a communist country) tells me, using facts and figures, how much better America was under capitalism. He tells me I misunderstood capitalism. Or he says that America was never really capitalist because of crony capitalism. He says that a pure capitalist nation would be better than the U.S. How would I respond?

First, if he gave me facts and figures about how capitalism was working out in America better than I recognized, I would accept them if they were true facts and figures. These are different from opinions. If he said that I was “wrong” for not liking capitalism then we have a problem. This is not a fact. It is an opinion. If I responded that I saw the suffering experienced by those in a capitalist society such as people dying from not receiving medical care due to cost, homelessness, or racism due to the commodification of people then I have the right to this opinion. If I responded to the Cuban by saying that capitalism always devolves into crony capitalism because of the nature of competition in a capitalist society that promotes greed, then this is also an opinion (that I believe is right). He and I would argue about that. But that is a political argument, not one based on him needing to live in a capitalist nation to know.

Then someone posts a question: “Who is right about capitalism, Alexander Finnegan or Cuban guy?”

My response would be like Dima’s.

Facts about capitalism are objective. So long as the sources are good then no debate there.

We are going to have different perspectives about capitalism on the abstract level. This is not experiential. It is ideological.

I wouldn’t say the Cuban guy is “wrong” about capitalism so long as the Cuban guy doesn’t attempt to tell me what my experience “should have been.” Only I can answer that question.

If the Cuban guy said that capitalism could work so long as it is not tainted by crony capitalism as it happened in the U.S. I would disagree with him based on my understanding of capitalism because I couldn’t “experience” the U.S. without crony capitalism any more than he could. Obviously I could also talk about my experience of capitalism in the U.S. (whether or not it was crony capitalist or capitalist).

So there is no “X is right, Y is wrong about communism” given these factors as it relates specifically to X and Y.

“Who is right about communism?” is an abstract political question. It is not empirical. Therefore, the question cannot be answered empirically. The answer demands an abstract political argument.

Finally, there are differences in political orientation. Dima is conservative, and this colors his approach to politics. I am a leftist, so this colors my approach. We have different views of human nature and the world. This is a big factor. This is a fundamental orientation difference, rooted in entirely different values.

Edit:

This man’s experience growing up in the Soviet Union vs post Soviet Russia is upvoted by dozens of Russians. His experience coincides with the facts on paper which I often describe. So Dima’s “experience” is not the end all, be all of the matter.

Mikhail Buleev’s answer to How did the collapse of the Soviet Union affect you?

Edit:

At the beginning of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, the early humans wake up to find the monolith. They nervously approach it, not sure what to make of it. It fascinates them, so they get closer and poke at it, but then they cower away. They are intrigued, terrified, fascinated, and mystified by it. It is alien to them. It is so beyond their range of comprehension, it is literally beyond anything they could imagine. It is alien to them. They don’t know what to make of it. Their best guesses are not even close. It is an entirely different paradigm. It represents the next leap forward of human existence, and they don’t know it yet. It is far beyond anything they could even imagine—and it is their only hope of survival. I see this same phenomenon on how people approach communism. There is no difference. Communism is the monolith. You can be looking right at it, standing right next to it, in fact, but you can’t see it.

EDIT:

In many ways Dima and I are the direct opposites of each other.

  1. Dima lived in a socialist society but didn’t believe in socialism. But he was paid to make others believe it. To this day he clearly hates socialism.
  2. I lived in a capitalist society but don’t believe in capitalism. I am not paid anything to support socialism. But I do believe in socialism and work to bring about a socialist society. I am paid nothing. To this day I hate capitalism.

Which one you prefer remains your own choice.

Imagine if the U.S. collapsed and became socialist. If someone asked me about what life was like under capitalism, what do you think I would say? This is the position from which Dima is coming.

EDIT: Dima’s propaganda was mostly images that I have seen. If you read my actual answers you would see that I am quoting Lenin, Marx, Stalin and others directly. I am not relying on Russian government secondary sources. So you actually know nothing of my work. The claim that I am merely regurgitating Dima’s propaganda is ironically propaganda in and of itself. I rely on Western academics like Getty, Harris, and others. They are certainly not Russian propagandists. It is amazing how people feel fit to make criticisms of my work without troubling themselves to even see whom I am quoting, and it wasn’t Dima. I don’t speak Russian. I reused photos, but my work is far more academic than simple propaganda photos.

EDIT: Interesting conversation that kept getting deleted:

Here is a refrain that I keep getting about how I rely on unreliable Soviet statistics. Totally wrong. Here is the original meme and check the response:

I suppose this meme was produced by Dima Vorobiev, too, right? LOL.

Western disinformation fed to the public via the media

Disinformation is common during times of peace. Robert Conquest was a British intelligence services agent who spent his career as a propagandist dressed up as a “historian.” He worked for the Atlee government. Early in his career, he fed disinformation to the BBC and other outlets, which they published.

Then he decided to create anti-communist propaganda. He focused on the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. He was the one who created the narrative of the Big Bad Stalin™ who was an omniscient dictator who killed 60+ million people. Conquest always took the biggest number and doubled or tripled it. Even he would have to revise his numbers after the Soviet archives were opened briefly under Yeltsin. He had to do it to save face.

In the modern era, the governments in the West even openly admit to pumping out disinformation, which they call “unverified” information. But anything can be unverified, because it is. They can let the imagination run wild. And they do.

Two techniques are huge now. The first is calling everything “apologism.” It is a poison the well technique, which taints anything your opposition says. It forces you to self-censor. You become your own slave master, one who likes to keep you dumb. Vladimir Putin could say 2+2=4 and he would be wrong, just because he is a “Kremlin bot” and “Russian apologist,” right?

The second is vilification. Your enemy is ALL bad, evil, “capable of anything.” Also, “unhinged,” “Hitler,” etc.

There are some disinformation nuggets out now directly from the intelligence services.

The primary one is that Putin has cancer.

Another, is that he, like Saddam Hussein, conveniently has:

“Become insane”

“Unhinged”

“Lost the plot”

“Mid-life crisis”

“Literally Hitler”

“Trying to conquer the world”

“A fascist/Nazi”

“Has a small penis/Napoleon complex/short man syndrome”

“Has dementia”

“Is genocidal”

“A genocide-denier”

These are the ones used against me since I challenged the Western narrative and offered critical support for Putin and Russia. My position is to end the Biden sanctions which will deindustrialize Europe. This would quickly end the war as the Russians would run out of weapons. Failing that, I would like the Russians to prevail so Russia is not destroyed and a multipolar order is created.

Check out these examples:

Why is psychopathy often the first trait people think of when they think of tyrants?

Because it is easy to get confused. People are largely motivated by fearanger, or the search for power. Those who are hungry for power and psychopaths are willing to also engage in Machiavellian means to climb the pile of skulls. Some are members of the Dark Triad.

So there is a self-selection bias. However, even if you aren’t a psychopath, being a tyrant has its own playbook. Most tyrants behave the same way because these methods work. Those who don’t follow the playbook are overthrown. So it is not “psychopathic” per se, but those who are both psychopaths and tyrants have few problems doing what is needed to rule without a conscience getting in the way.

Notice how many psychopathic traits seem to overlap with the playbook of tyrants.

For example, let’s pretend you are a tyrant who finds out your uncle is having secret talks to foment a coup against you. You know this because your secret police are following him and have his phones tapped. There is no doubt he is up to no good.

What do you do? What if he become loud and hell bent on getting rid of you? Do you put him in jail after a trial? Do you have him killed? Or do you let him continue and see what happens?

It depends, doesn’t it? A psychopath would just go based on logic and not look back. But a non-psychopath might decide to have him put on trial. What if there is a technical error and he goes free, and then starts up more trouble? What then? Your life and the millions of others might depend upon it. Libya without Gaddafi is a failed state with public slave markets. Life is pretty terrible for Libyans now.

The Tyrant’s Playbook

I am not endorsing these, btw. I am just listing them.

You have to be savvy:

  1. Have a secret police to spy on your political friends and enemies—especially your friends. If they are betraying you, you need to know asap. If they are up to things which might provide you political leverage or for blackmail purposes, you need that. For example, you may find out that the “happily married” rival government official who has been opposing you is actually happy because he is fucking his secretary. Might want to get some photographic proof of that. Or a religious leader who is criticizing you happens to be anti-gay—while having a side boyfriend without his wife’s knowledge. For the right price, his boyfriend might be willing to “expose” that. Knowledge is power. And you want to be a god.
  2. You need to always tell the truth, even when you lie.
  3. Make sure the military is directly controlled by you and nobody else. Your power comes from the use of state controlled violence. Don’t forget that.
  4. As Machiavelli made clear, love is fickle, but fear is forever. If you have to choose between one vs the other, go with fear. It is a strong motivator. And one that is easier to induce.
  5. Groups of citizens who attempt an insurrection must be dealt with immediately, fully, and with absolute brutality. Somebody fucks with you, you tear off their heads completely, and make sure everybody sees you do it, so they know not to fuck with you.
  6. No society on Earth has complete freedom of speech. Yours shouldn’t be the first.
  7. Uppity academics and journalists must be first nicely reminded of their professional responsibility—which is primarily to maintain peace and order of the state, in harmony with its leadership. Criticism isn’t harmony.
  8. Voting is essential. I’ll do the counting.
  9. The ends justify the means. We don’t want to limit ourselves.
  10. You’ll see what I want you to see. Nothing more.
  11. The people will always forgive mistakes while winning, so long as you win. But they will despise you for losing, even if you played by the rules. So you should win, no matter the cost. Losing is not an option.
  12. Use both the carrot and the stick. People want to win your approval. But they should always be trained to fear your punishment.
  13. Paranoid is good. That keeps you alive. Better to be too paranoid than not paranoid enough.
  14. As Sun Tzu said: “Attack is the secret of defense; defense is the planning of an attack.”
  15. Control the past and you control the future. Rewrite history and teach that in schools.
  16. Never trust yes-men. They don’t have your best interest in mind.
  17. Use the power of visuals and sound to help guide your audience to the truth—the truth is the benevolence of your rule.
  18. Filmmakers, artists, musicians, and others should be your best friends. Their assistance is the best propaganda in the world. Make sure they don’t regret “showing you kindness,” if you know what I mean.
  19. Violence and cunning are your best friends.
  20. Limit your aggression. Hitler failed because he didn’t know when to quit. Franco and Pinochet knew their limits, and they stayed in power, long term. Be a Franco, not a Hitler.

The above are gleaned from Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” the writings of Sun Tzu, the lives of various dictators, and history.

What is the brutal truth about Putin?

That he is a convenient scapegoat for the failures of the Democrats.

It all goes back to 2016. The Democrats had hoped for a coronation of a certain someone, but things went sidewards…

Turns out, people preferred this guy. Someone with a little more humanity…

Gaddafi had an agreement with the U.S. that if he abandoned his WMD program, he would be secure from Western assaults. Obama scrapped that idea. Hillary, as Secretary of State, reveled in his murder by French backed rebels.

DNC Chief Stepping Down in Wake of Leaked Email Scandal

Turns out, the fix was in. No matter how well Bernie did in the primaries, superdelegates had already pledged their votes to Clinton. The game was rigged. In fact, this is no speculation. The DNC admitted in court that it rigged the primaries.

Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders

The 2016 Democratic National Convention was more akin to a Satanic Black Mass, one in which Bernie Sanders was offered as a sacrifice to Satan. It was a ghoulish celebration of identity politics, one in which the old white male Jew was sacrificed before the altar of wokeness to feed the blood of the Demonic Clinton. I cried my eyes out to see how the Democratic Party had sunken so low. I promised to vote for anyone but her.

Donald Trump was considered a dream candidate for Clinton. He couldn’t win, right? Wrong. The morning of the election, NPR was already predicting Clinton’s likelihood of winning at 87%.

“It’s her turn” said Connie Schultz, nasty wife of Senator Sherrod Brown, Bitcoin-hater.

Shultz argued that her cohort was “entitled” to win the Presidency, after all those nasty, horrible white males had dominated the Presidency for so long.

Nobody is entitled to be President. Last time I checked, it was about merit, not the presence of a penis or not.

Trump is deplorable. Nasty, rude, narcissistic. But Hillary is a psychopath. She promised to continue funding the Syrian jihadi’s who were ripping Syria apart. Hillary never found a war she didn’t like, and she promised to go “eye to eye” with Vladimir Putin.

Translation: She would push things right to the edge.

No thanks.

American politics is always about choosing the lesser evil. It could get no worse than a psychopath with no sense of fear. I have always been very opposed to the arming of jihadi’s and Obama’s murderous imperial foreign policies. Obama is one of the biggest mass killers of the last 50 years.

And then the election results came in. Hillary lost. Turns out, people don’t like it when you make elections about identity politics. Especially when the deciding voters are white, working class guys that Hillary promised to put out of work in the coal mines of West Virginia.

Turns out, “go learn computers” is not too appealing.

Trump may have been horrible, but at least he promised not to eliminate their jobs. And he didn’t talk to them like they were pieces of shit. Nor did he promise to take us to the edge of nuclear oblivion.

MSNBC presenter stops reporting to remind viewers: ‘You’re not dead and you haven’t gone to hell’

‘This is your life now’

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/donald-trump-wins-msnbc-rachel-maddow-you-re-not-dead-dreaming-a7406906.html

It took about 5 seconds for the Democrats to start looking for excuses. How could it be that Americans could vote for Trump? It couldn’t have been their identity politics, nasty, mean, unappealing candidate, Hillary Clinton. It had to be…

The Big Bad Putin™

He must have engineered it! Turns out, the Democrats were finding the Russkies everywhere!

Democrats lost here? Putin

Democrats lost there? Putin

Hemorrhoid? Putin

In France, during the height of the French protests, guess who they blamed? Putin! I’m not kidding.

Whatever happened, Hillary Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate. Her husband, Bill, had even offered to help advise her campaign. He told her to lose the identity politics angle and focus on the economy. She told him, “no.”

The voters disagreed.

Now, Joe Biden, the dementia-addled President, is leading us to the brink with his proxy war on Putin. How much of this is designed to improve his failing polling numbers? Whatever the case, his foreign policy agenda is disastrous. And the Biden Sanctions will lead to the deindustrialization of Germany, which is the plan. Industry cannot continue without affordable energy. Biden is working to stop the import of oil and coal to Germany. It will be a death sentence for the middle classes of Europe. But that’s the plan. It is a neoliberal assault on Europe. Detroit comes to Europe. This was the idea all along. Add to it “regime change” in Moscow, paid for by Ukrainian lives, as they “fight to the last Ukrainian.” The goal is to cause the fall of Putin, a power vacuum, and the collapse of Russia, causing it to balkanize. Meanwhile, the U.S. has supported N.G.O’s that foment color revolutions in encircling nations of Russia. As the whole thing comes crashing down, U.S. financiers and multinationals can swoop in and steal the natural resources and take advantage of these markets. Nobody cares what happens to the Russians themselves.

“You will be fighting in Ukraine soon”

Pure fucking evil.

But guess who is at fault, once again?

Sorry. I’m not falling for it.