Putin is Right: Sanctions Are an Act of War

The KGB despot in the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin, is correct when he says that sanctions are an act of war. Shipping arms into an active conflict zone is also an act of war violating any pretense to neutrality. Cutting off a nation from the international financial system is, again, an act of war. Why, then, don’t I support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or back Russia? The answer is simple: Putin started that war and is the aggressor whose flagrantly immoral militarism initiated this cascading catastrophe. 

The fundamental problem with Putin’s grumbling about sanctions is that he is the one who started the war. His nation’s tanks are the ones on another nation’s soil. His cruise missiles are the ones hitting airports and apartment buildings. His soldiers are the ones advancing into and occupying foreign territory. His invasion is the one forcing a million refugees to flew into Western Europe for safety. He gave the orders and he bears the culpability. 

The besieged nation, Ukraine, never attacked Putin or his people. Ukraine didn’t annex part of Russia in 2014. Ukraine didn’t steal 5% of Russian territory, occupy it with mercenaries, and then use a phony referendum to claim it wanted to be detached from its mother country. Ukraine didn’t commit genocide, as Putin claimed just prior to invading. Ukraine is not a fictitious state created by the Soviet Union and therefore has no right to exist, as Putin also alleges. 

Furthermore, Ukraine is not under control of “Nazis” – the international Elites’ favorite bogeyman for the past ninety years. Putin isn’t going to “de-Nazify” anything. Putin is not “liberating” Ukraine or protecting Russian people – that was the lie Stalin told to justify his Poland land grab in 1939. Putin is a liar, a dictator, and a warmonger who ruthlessly oppresses his own people. How can one who oppresses his own people claim to be liberating a foreign land? 

Since Putin’s invasion, over 4,300 Russians have been arrested for protesting the war. As a result of these mass demonstrations against his militarism, Putin signed a law criminalizing “fake news” about the war and military – in other words, criminalizing dissent and free speech. I fully support a nation, in the midst of an existential conflict, clamping down on traitors who attempt to undermine the war effort. Nothing is more sensible to my mind. However, that’s not what’s happening here. This is the case of the aggressor nation suppressing the voice of its people and throwing them into the GULAG for daring to want peace with their brothers. 

For the crime of opposing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Russian citizens face up to fifteen years in prison. Vyacheslav Volodin of the Russian Duma has said the draconian law is designed to “protect our soldiers and officers, and to protect the truth.” It is a twisted individual who would seek to throw a man in prison for fifteen years for vocally opposing a tyrant’s unnecessary foreign war and claims he’s doing it to “protect the truth.” The law also states it exists for the purpose of “maintaining international peace and security.” That’s rich! George Orwell was correct when he observed that “intellectual honesty is a crime in any totalitarian country.” 

A deluge of potentially catastrophic consequences have come from Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine. As noted, the West jumped into the fray with the harshest economic sanctions I’ve ever seen. In retaliation for these counterattacks, Putin has suspended fertilizer exports for a two-month period. Russia is the world’s biggest fertilizer exporter. Countries like Brazil and the United States, which rely heavily upon these exports, will suffer. 

As the idea was being proposed, I talked with a man from the prime coffee growing district in Colombia who told me the financial burden such a ban would impose. Innocent people in parts of the world that have nothing to do with the fighting will suffer because a KGB dictator decided to invade his neighbor in order to reconstitute the Soviet Empire. 

Wheat shortages and price hikes are also in our future as the “breadbasket of the world,” Ukraine, and to an extent Russia, is cut off from the global market. The shortages have already caused some nations to restrict exports. Hungary banned their exports entirely. In my Red Alert Newsletter at the end of December, I noted that China was hoarding unprecedented amounts of the world’s grain – over half by end of last year. An article produced in January noted grimly: “By mid-2022, China will hold 69% of the world’s corn reserves, 60% of its rice and 51% of its wheat, according to USDA predictions.” 

Some said COVID-1984 was the reason for Red Chinese hoarding. Now, it’s clear that they had foreknowledge of Russia’s invasion and wanted to stockpile supplies before the rush. It’s a cunning strategy to profit from disaster and gain more power over desperate nations. If you didn’t prepare and get all the wheat and other food stuffs you could beforehand, now it will be much harder and more expensive. Yet, you still have time. Prepare

Gas prices will also increase. If you drive a car, you’ll feel the pain. Prices were already jumping up and would have continued rising even without this war, but this had quickened the increase noticeably. Oil prices are racing past traditional levels to the highest they’ve ever been, with prominent banks warning of $200/barrel oil before the close of the year. 

Glenn Beck said it best when he observed: “We are weakening ourselves at the same time we’re weaking Putin. And really it is a race to see which one collapses first. . . . I’m telling you now, we’ve hit the iceberg. Get into the lifeboats. Get into the lifeboats.” 

Yes, the West shares blame in creating the energy crisis. Absolutely. The Marxist Elite were already engineering a total collapse before Putin pulled the trigger on Ukraine. But this gives both sides the pretext to expedite their moves in the direction of global cataclysm. The Hegelian Dialectic which both sides follow dictates that this crisis must happen. 

Problem, reaction, solution. Putin has followed the same scientific communist process to foment chaos in Ukraine, blame NATO and “Nazis,” and ride in on his white horse as precisely as the Western Elite have released bioweapons, blamed dissenters to tyranny for the spread of the disease, and introduced a more dangerous bioweapon in the form of a needle. 

If the Western faction of the global conspiracy perpetrates yet another false-flag attack, such as a cyberattack to take down our electrical grid, and blames it on Russia, it will have been Putin who handed them the plausible pretext for getting away with such a heinous act. Using reverse psychology, we’re also reaching a stage of chaos that would hand Russia and China the opportunity to carry out their long-planned takedown of the West and then say the West did it to scapegoat poor, picked-on Russia and China, knowing that certain people in the United States would parrot that lie just as they’re parroting the Kremlin’s talking points right now and blaming everything on Soros, NATO, and the West. 

People must wake up immediately to the fact that both sides are wrong, both sides are governed by wicked tyrants, and both sides are intentionally leading us down the road to serfdom. The string-pullers in Russia, China, and the U.S.-led bloc all adhere to the same ideological agenda, pursue roughly the same path toward world domination, often belong to offshoots of the Illuminati-communist conspiracy, and serve the same malevolent being who is the father of lies, terror, hate, oppression, and misery. 

To know that Russia is on the wrong side, it should suffice to say that Putin is a communist with nostalgia for the Soviet era. He’s admitted as much. His goals are the same now as during his KGB days. He was hand-selected and installed in power in the Russian Federation by Russia’s KGB-aligned oligarchs. Everything he knows and is was crafted by Soviet intelligence and the communist underworld. He’s their man, all his crafty rhetoric about being a so-called Christian and a family man aside. He’s neither. He’s an adulterous, murdering, KGB-trained dictator and one of the world’s most evil men. 

In closing, yes, sanctions are an act of war, but the first act of war was committed by Russia. Yes, shipping anti-tank weapons into a war zone is an act of hostility, but so is invading a sovereign nation on false pretenses. Yes, some Ukrainian leaders are corrupt, but so are Putin and his cronies. Yes, the West has dealings in Ukraine; are you so naïve to think Russia doesn’t? Finally, yes, the Western Elite, NATO, and the leadership of the United States are venomous vipers who want war and are glad Putin has taken their bait, but does that excuse the violent actions of a man who was trained by the KGB, assassinates dissidents, jails his political opposition, arrests anti-war protestors, invades his neighbors, and routinely threatens the world with nuclear war? Decide for yourself. As for me, I say Sic Semper Tyrannis! 

Zack Strong, 
March 8, 2022

More Russian Lies

On December 29, 2021, I published a 15,000-word article detailing some of the lies Russia has been telling about the disaster situation they caused in Ukraine. I honed in on three key facts; namely, that communism never fell in Russia and that the hardliners are still pursuing the same old agenda, that Russia is not surrounded by NATO, and that Russia is the aggressor. Today, I want to expand my analysis and cite several more of Russia’s deceptions that are hoodwinking people high and low in the West. 

First, I want to give a quick overview of the last eight years. In 2014, Russia backed a coup that deposed the Ukrainian president while pretending to support him – then blamed it on NATO. Using this as a pretext, Russian supporters in Donetsk and Luhansk – the region known as Donbass – declared independence. This was of course supported by Russian troops and mercenaries. Russian soldiers simultaneously stole Crimea, which Putin then annexed. Leonid Ragozin called the annexation a “masterclass in political manipulation,” stating: 

“Putin succeeded in using a revolution that could have spelt the end of his regime to his advantage by forcing Russia’s entire population into binge watching daily episodes of an endless series about Ukraine burning in hellfire.” 

The endless streaming of malicious propaganda against Ukraine continues today with Ukraine being depicted as an illegitimate vassal state of NATO or the United States – a state that is literally perpetuating “genocide,” a claim Putin has now made more than once and is using as a justification for Russian intervention in Ukraine. 

Going back to 2014, however, I would be remiss if I didn’t note that a total of 5% of Ukraine was stolen and placed under outright or de facto Russian control. Russia has since granted almost 1 million Ukrainians in these stolen territories Russian passports and citizenship, partially to convert the area in Russia proper and make claims of “defending” its people more tenable (which is the reason Russia has engaged in mass settler colonialism throughout its former satellites states) and partially to reverse bad demographic trends. As Ukraine has justly fought back against these Russian-supported separatists and their Kremlin controllers, some 14,000 people on both sides have perished. 

A few days ago, as alleged Ukrainian saboteurs were being caught crossing into Russia and a supposed bombing attempt was being thwarted by Luhansk authorities, the Russian Duma approved a proposal to recognize Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states. On February 21, Putin approved the proposal. One of the stunning things about this move is that Luhansk and Donetsk claim control over territory that they actually don’t control and which is controlled by Ukraine. What if Ukraine decides to exert its control over its own territory in these falsely claimed areas? Will Putin call this an “invasion” or “aggression” and go to war to “defend” the newly independent states? 

Perhaps the point is mute because as incredible as it is to steal a nation’s territory and then recognize the territories’ “independence,” the old KGB tactician took it a step farther. Immediately upon recognizing the so-called “independence” of Luhansk and Donetsk, Putin ordered Russian troops into the region to “maintain peace.” Is this how you treat an “independent” state, by occupying it with your soldiers? Can it truly be called “independent” when, on day one, a foreign military under the command of a foreign dictator enters and takes over? Hardly! 

This is conquest by any other name and I’m losing my mind watching Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and others justifying this invasion. Now, because of these latest developments, any Ukrainian action against the separatists in what is rightfully Ukrainian territory will risk the chance of engaging Russian forces and igniting a larger war. If that happens, remember it was Vladimir Putin who made it so. Glenn Beck has a mostly-accurate segment from his show on this news which a follower of one of my Facebook pages sent to me this morning and which I commend to you. 

Numerous sources are now reporting 10,000 Russian troops have already entered Donbass, though reports are a little hazy. Whether boots are actually on the ground yet or not (they’ve been there for eight years in one form or another, so why wouldn’t be), the Red Tsar’s decree exists and will be acted upon sooner or later. KGB dictator Putin, after sending in troops, requested the Duma to grant him authorization to use military force outside of Russian territory.  

The false narrative that Russia is the “savior” has again been repeated and fortified by the events. And the gullible fools in the West remain oblivious to the fact that Russia has orchestrated this entire episode using classic Soviet tactics of subversion, deception, and manipulation. 

Now, let’s proceed with Russia’s lies about Ukraine and NATO and the tactics they’ve used to steal part of Ukraine for themselves. The first thing that comes to mind is Vladimir Putin’s fatalist, alarmist, and, frankly, psychotic, rhetoric. First, he has continuously lied about NATO aggression, expansionism, and threatening Russia’s borders. I’m no supporter of NATO, but I’m also not a friend of lies and distortions. I dispensed with this absurdity in my “Russia Lies” article mentioned earlier, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of states bordering Russia are not NATO members, including Ukraine.  

Another fact is that the only states bordering Russia that are in any way hostile and which also contain NATO forces are those, like Estonia, which invited NATO forces to be stationed there AFTER Russia engaged in hybrid-warfare against them. It’s essential you understand the old communist shtick of proclaiming innocence in all things while blaming the enemy for the exact same things you are in reality doing or planning to do. Trained in KGB subversion tactics, Russia plays the victim card masterfully. But Russia isn’t a victim of anything except its own communist regime’s tyranny and conquest ambitions. 

Since I’ve been closely studying Russia, not a year has gone by that some Russian leader or general hasn’t threatened NATO or the United States with nuclear war. It’s a sick compulsion. If anyone in the West ritualistically threatened Russia or China with nuclear war, we’d rightly call him a lunatic. Vladimir Putin is a lunatic. I cite but three examples of his nuclear rhetoric. 

Last week, while in France, Putin fumed at his audience, warning them how quickly he would drop atom bombs on their heads in the event of NATO interfering in Ukraine: 

“Do you understand it or not, that if Ukraine joins Nato and attempts to bring Crimea back by military means, the European countries will be automatically pulled into a war conflict with Russia? 

“Of course, Russia and Nato [military] potentials are incomparable. We understand it. But we also understand that Russia is one of the leading nuclear states. 

“There will be no winners, and you will be pulled into this conflict against your will.” 

“You won’t even have time to blink your eye when you execute Article 5.” 

Imagine if doddering Biden said he would strike third-party nations with nuclear weapons if any of their allies attacked, say, Canada. That’s essentially the situation. That’s what Putin is saying. If NATO dares to help a smaller nation who has been attacked by Russia defend itself against further Russian aggression, then Russia will drop nuclear weapons all over Europe. Think of how maniacally insane that is! 

But this isn’t the first, and I doubt it will be the last, time that Putin has made such threats. In 2018, he again played the victim card, but still managed to voice his willingness – in seconds – to order a nuclear strike: 

“Our strategy of nuclear weapons use doesn’t envision a preemptive strike. Our concept is a launch under attack. 

“Only when we become convinced that there is an incoming attack on the territory of Russia, and that happens within seconds, only after that we would launch a retaliatory strike.” 

It should be noted that the nation that fires nuclear missiles second will be in better shape than the one that fires first, nullifying any idea Putin may have intended to convey about Russia’s benevolence.   

Finally, in a 2014 military document, Russia made a statement that puts Putin’s threats – most of which I haven’t included here – in better context: 

“The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.” 

Putin would be willing not only to launch missiles if missiles were headed for Russia, which is understandable, but he is formally, on paper, prepared to launch nukes even in a conventional war or “in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation.” It should be alarming, then, to hear Putin so frequently accuse NATO of aggression and of threatening Russia. 

What’s more, Putin has taken to accusing Ukraine of literal genocide in Donbass. He said that, in Russia’s analysis, what’s happening “constitutes genocide.” Apart from the larger and more obvious false claims of the Allies against Germany, search the Katyn Forest Massacre. For years, the massacre of 10,000 Polish officers was blamed on Germany. Germany denied it, but no one listened. Only later was it confirmed that the Russians had perpetrated the slaughter and then blamed it on Germany – the world Elites’ favorite scapegoat. 

Back to Russia and Ukraine. Using the claims of “genocide” and imminent invasion as a pretext, the Russian-backed rebel authority of Luhansk, Leonid Pasechnik, and of neighboring Donetsk, ordered an immediate evacuation of all residents to Russian territory and called all able-bodied man to arms. In my Red Alert newsletter of February 19, I said: “Perhaps he’s clearing the area for Russian armor and troops to occupy the area or make an offensive.” 

Two days later, my prediction came true as Putin ordered Russian military into the area to “maintain peace.” “Maintain peace,” in Putin speak, is the same as “normalize” in Soviet speak; that is, to put down all dissent and take control of an area. Russia loves to create pretexts to send in troops as “liberators.” Think of Afghanistan, Syria, Georgia, Crimea, Armenia, and so forth. The Soviets said it’s impossible for communists to be the aggressors because they’re always fighting the true oppressors of humanity – capitalists, Christians, etc. Russia is carrying forward the same ridiculous claims today. 

Tellingly, the evacuation order was pre-recorded on February 16, but released only February 18. In the video, they use the word “today,” though that is an apparent fabrication. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported: 

“Videos of Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine ordering an “emergency” evacuation posted on February 18 were actually filmed on February 16, an analysis by RFE/RL’s Russian Service of metadata from the messaging app Telegram shows. 

“In the video posted online and on Telegram on February 18, Denis Pushilin, the de-facto head of the separatist-occupied Donetsk region, claimed an increase in the number of Ukrainian military personnel and weapons along the line of contact. 

“He ordered the evacuation, claiming that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was soon to give an order to “invade the territory” of separatist-controlled areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk region. 

“A leader in the separatist-controlled Luhansk region issued a similar call based on similar claims. 

“An investigation by RFE/RL’s Russia Service shows that the videos were actually made on February 16, indicating that the sudden evacuation was actually preplanned.” 

Remember the United States warning of a Russian false-flag event? Could this be it? Russia and the separatists alike are claiming that Ukraine is currently shelling Donbass, committing “genocide,” and is preparing to invade. Recall and apply what I said about Putin blaming the enemy for the very things he’s doing or planning to do. 

Oleksiy Danilov, Ukraine’s top security chief, responded to the allegations simply: “There are no orders to liberate our territories by force.” I love that he said “our territories,” because the Donbass is rightfully Ukrainian sovereign territory which was broken off by Russia, which now uses any Ukrainian move in the area to claim “aggression” and “genocide.” 

In an interview with Dr. Lada L. Roslysky, the founder of the Black Trident Defense Group out of Kiev, Molly Gambhir of WION news asked about Russia’s claims that five Ukrainian saboteurs had been killed in a firefight while trying to sneak into Russia. She gave a great comment: 

“We’ve become quite cynical to these types of claims because they’re false claims. What is on the Ukrainian territory is the Russian armed forces. And Russian weaponry is already in Ukraine and they have been there for eight years. We are completely surrounded. And when we are listening to the Kremlin, we should always look into it like a reverse mirror: What the Kremlin claims is what the Kremlin is actually doing.” 

I’ve been saying the same thing for years. Communists are incapable of telling the truth. Even when they tell the truth, they lie – because they tell it out of context or to suit an agenda by which telling an unsavory truth will harm their geopolitical adversaries. Putin, the schooled KGB master he is, used these types of doublespeak and reverse reality tactics constantly. 

As noted above, Russia has now sent potentially 10,000 troops into Donbass. What I didn’t write then, because the situation is so fluid that it changes and updates every hour, is that the Russian Duma have now, only after the fact, unanimously approved Putin’s “request” to send troops into foreign territory. Such is the sham dictatorship posing as a “democracy” that is Russia. If you know anything about how Stalin ruled the Soviet Union by fiat, you see its shades in Putin’s Russia. 

One of the lies Putin has been peddling about the situation is that Ukraine is the aggressor and doesn’t want peace. What of the Minsk Accords? What of the Budapest Memorandum? What of Ukraine’s various peace proposals? Russia never followed either the Minsk Accords or Budapest Memorandum, so why should they play nice when Ukraine asks for peace? 

In “Russia Lies,” I talked about the Minsk Accords and the ways Russia has violated them from the beginning. But what of the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994? In it, the United States, UK, and Russia pledged to “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and to refrain from force or violence. It also stripped Ukraine of its massive stockpile of nuclear weapons – its only real deterrent to Russian aggression. Sadly, Russia didn’t abide by the Budapest Memorandum just as it ignored the Minsk Accords. Ukraine’s claims against Russia are just and Russia’s claims are just . . . garbage. 

Part of Putin’s underlying motivation for invading Ukraine is the notion that Ukraine never really existed, but has always been part of Russia. Historically, this claim has legs, though it’s not so cut-and-dry. The name Russia originated in the name “Rus,” which was historically located in Ukraine. Ukraine, not modern Russia, was the birthplace of the Russian people, Russian Orthodoxy, etc. The center of power shifted, however, to Moscow. The state of “Ukraine” as we know it today only came into existence in 1991. Yet, Ukraine – especially Western Ukraine – is home to peoples who have always resented Russia and who speak a different language. Some of these are Cossacks who have always had a tense relationship with Russia. 

I share this truncated view of Ukrainian history to give context to a comment Putin made that gives us a bird’s eye view of his rationale. I quote from a surprisingly good Yahoo!News article

“In a speech announcing his decision, Putin said that “Ukraine for us is not just a neighboring country. It is an integral part of our own history, culture, spiritual space,” according to a translation provided by The New York Times. He also claimed that Ukraine has “never had a tradition of genuine statehood” and that “[m]odern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia, more precisely Bolshevik communist Russia,” according to Reuters. Therefore, Putin claimed, “decommunization” should have entailed the re-incorporation of Ukraine into Russia. “We are ready to show you what real decommunization means for Ukraine,” Putin said.” 

If Putin wants to “decommunize” something, he should start by ordering his military to remove the hammers and sickles from their equipment, by changing the music of Russia’s national anthem (which is the Soviet anthem tune and was handpicked by Putin), and then by resigning from the Russian government. He is, after all, a KGB mafioso. 

The rest of his comment is somewhat revealing in its implications. Ukraine wasn’t the only state created by Soviet Russia. The Baltic states were created by Russia. The “stans” were engineered by Russia, too. Extending Putin’s logic, does Russia, then, have a right to incorporate – whether by hook or cook – these now independent nations back into Russia? If Putin can simply dismiss Ukraine’s sovereignty and conquer their nation by saying Russia created them, then why can’t he do the same for Estonia or Tajikistan or Palestine (the PLO was created wholly by Soviet intelligence, and their current president, Mahmoud Abbas, was trained in Soviet Russia, as was Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat. Iran’s Ayatollah was KGB-trained, too, in case anyone was curious. So were the Iraqi Republican Guard, which became the leaders of ISIS). 

Putin’s logic is, of course, intellectually bankrupt. What kind of world would this be if any nation that ever created another nation could simply take it back and claim it as their own? Most of the geopolitical map of Africa, though preexisting in their various tribal entities, was drawn up by European states – France, England, Italy, etc. Does Putin think they should be able to take them back? They created their distinctive borders and nation-states, after all. 

Let’s pull this article back to reality. Here’s another Russian lie. Russia swore that its annual military drills in Belarus would end when scheduled (February 20) and that Russian troops would head home. When a limited number of Russian troops seemingly did go home, many in the West cheered and said NATO was wrong and Russia followed through on its word. They spoke too soon. 

It turns out that Russia’s “partial withdrawal” and ending of drills was a fiction. Belarus has announced that Russian troops will remain “indefinitely” in Belarus – to defend Belarus, of course. 30,000 are there now with a large amount of tanks, jets, and equipment. And, so, Russian troops are not only along Ukraine’s border, but are moving into the newly “independent” states in Donbass. 

Where are all the “conservatives” and media talking heads who cheered Putin’s integrity now? They’re making excuses, dodging reality, blaming NATO, or buying claims of “genocide” which, naturally, justify the “unexpected” change of plans. Can’t we finally admit Putin lied? And can’t we also acknowledge Russia’s contradictory claims – first there was no mass buildup up of troops, then the troops were being withdrawn? It’s one lie on top of another. 

Some are justifying everything that’s happened over the past eight years by the fact that, on the whole, the people of Donbass are happy to be either independent or Russian citizens. In a normal situation, I approve and applaud the right of self-determination. However, that’s not what happened here. None of this was organic. It was all orchestrated by the Kremlin. 

Let’s do a little comparison. If Chinese troops moved into San Francisco and occupied it, and the high Asian population there cheered, would that be justified? Would it be justified if the Asians there had a referendum and voted to become part of China? 

If that’s an absurd example, let’s use one closer to home. Much of the current Western United States was inhabited by Mexicans or Spanish-speakers before the territory fell into U.S. hands. Would they be justified, then, in passing referendums to join Mexico and break off from the United States? What if Mexican mercenaries or drug cartels entered Arizona, or Texas, or California, and sealed off a section of territory, declaring it to be independent and no longer under Washington’s control?  

Just for emphasis, let’s use a third example. Would the American Indians be justified in rising up to reclaim some of their lands? They already possess “nations” that aren’t really part of the United States. What if they decided they wanted some of their traditional lands back and sent out their braves to, by force of arms, cut off a slice of, say, Virginia. What if the people of that area agreed that the Indians should probably have that territory? What if they were even happy about it? Would that be justified? 

Would any of this be justified? Of course not! None of these are organic movements. Each example I’ve used employs force and compulsion. Such is the case in Ukraine. The people of Donbass, in a time of peace, didn’t simply vote to leave Ukraine. If they had, I’d support them. However, they were aided by foreign mercenaries and troops to force a separation. This separation has been contested by the power rightfully controlling that jurisdiction. 14,000 people have died as a result and war continues to rock the area. 

The foreign mercenaries and troops, of course, were Russians. They were sent there with the deliberate purpose of breaking off Donbass from the rest of Ukraine as part of a long-term strategy of consuming Ukraine piecemeal. Recall that Russia outright stole and annexed Crimea. In all, Russian troops aided local rebels in cutting off 5% of Ukraine’s total territory and enforcing the separation, later hastily voted on, at the point of the sword. None of this is justifiable. It’s invasion and conquest by any other name. And if it happened to us, we’d go to war and wouldn’t allow it. But when Ukraine fights back or dares raise any complaints about their illicitly stolen territory and population, stolen through force of arms by a foreign enemy, Russia accuses them of “genocide,” expansion, and aggression. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious and if so many gullible people weren’t going along with the narrative. 

The most disgustingly asinine and repugnant comment I’ve heard so far regarding Putin’s order to send troops into Ukraine was made on The American Journal radio show, a branch of InfoWars. Most of what Alex Jones and the various other co-hosts say is correct. However, just as they did in 2014, they’ve chosen the wrong side in the Ukraine situation. To wit, the imbecilic comment I refer to was made today, February 22, by Harrison Smith and said: 

“Thank God, thank God, somebody is standing up against the imperialist war hawks that now run this country and have occupied the American government. It’s not me. It’s not me they’re at war with, that Russia’s at war with. It’s not the American People that Russia’s at war with. It is the despicable and detestable cabal that runs our country. So, good riddance to them; good luck Russia. I don’t know, maybe, you know, when Texas breaks away, Russia will be there to declare us a sovereign state – a sovereign, breakaway, independent nation. I don’t know, it might be nice.” 

I’ve rarely heard anything so stupidly ignorant and so blatantly treasonous as this blather. I’d fire Harrison Smith immediately, if I were Alex Jones. The only thing despicable here is the idea that an American would welcome Russian troops into America. If Russian troops come into my community, it’s an act of war and I’ll open fire. I’m sick of Russian aggression, Russian hypocrisy, and Russian lies. We have enough of that in America – we don’t need to deal with it from a foreign, paganized, communist nation like by a KGB agent who has said the (fake) fall of the USSR is “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Click the hyperlink to watch a forty-two-minute presentation on my Liberty Wolf podcast about the fake fall of communism. It’s crucial to understand this deception. 

The final myth I want to bust is that Russia and Putin stand in opposition to the Western New World Order. This is utterly absurd. Let’s start with a fun fact. There’s been plenty of news, especially from the alternative media, about Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum. Alex Jones, in particular, has been rightly ranting every day about the WEF’s admitted influence throughout the world and how numerous world leaders, such as Justin Trudeau are devotees and trainees of the WEF. What about Putin? Did you know that Vladimir Putin, the so-called savior from the new World Order, is a member of the World Economic Forum and Davos group and that he has been attending their forums for years? Surprised? 

In January 2021, Klaus Schwab personally introduced Dictator Putin for a speech at the Davos summit in Switzerland, eagerly stating: “Mr. President, the world is waiting to hear from you.” What did Putin say to the world? You can watch his address here and read the official transcript here. But here’s how Putin began: 

“I have been to Davos many times, attending the events organised by Mr. Schwab, even back in the 1990s. Klaus just recalled that we met in 1992. Indeed, during my time in St Petersburg, I visited this important forum many times. I would like to thank you for this opportunity today to convey my point of view to the expert community that gathers at this world-renowned platform thanks to the efforts of Mr. Schwab.” 

In the talk, Putin parroted the same propaganda we hear from our overlords here in the West. He played his part, bashing the United States, putting down free enterprise, and touting Russia’s great accomplishments for the world, but, if you pay attention, he also praised the World Bank, applauded the global COVID-19 response, pushed vaccines and called for a mass vaccination program in developing countries, called for international coordination to save the climate, referred to the hoax of “global warming” as a “critical problem” that required international “cooperation” to solve, and so forth. I don’t like the term “globalist,” but if anyone is a “globalist,” it is Putin. 

Isn’t it interesting that the ostensibly anti-New World Order Putin is so friendly with the very organs of world government and that he has so many decades of experience working with them? He considers them “experts” and is on a first-name basis with “Klaus.” If the Alex Joneses of society rip on Trudeau for being a WEF stooge, why don’t they also condemn Putin for being on the same side? To bash one but not the other for the very same connections is hypocrisy. 

Why would Putin be hobnobbing with Klaus Schwab – the architect of the Great Reset – and the world financial Elite that hold sway in the West if he was truly their enemy and opposed their agenda? Why would Putin be implementing WEF, Davos, and U.N. policies in Russia if he was opposed to this cabal? The fact is, of course, he’s playing for the same team. When will people understand that the cabal that threatens us is an international cabal and has its agents in every nation? 

A Breitbart headline from yesterday tells it all: “Russia Presides over U.N. Security Council Meeting on Russian Aggression.” The article states: 

“Ukraine requested an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) on Monday night in response to Russia’s military incursion. 

“The rotating presidency of the UNSC happens to be held by Russia at the moment.” 

Russia is ensconced in global governance. Communists are the true “globalists.” Their entire program, which Putin was trained in and adheres to, is internationalist and seeks world hegemony with its partner in crime, Red China. There’s no shady, underhanded, thieving, corrupt, conspiratorial, murderous, genocidal thing you can imagine that Russia – both in the Soviet era and today – haven’t engaged in. 

From abortion to transgenderism to political correctness to the psychopolitics of medicine to mass surveillance, most of the ills that plague the West first came from Russia. Trust me, as one who lived in Russia for two years and spent my time talking with average folks and observing, it is a crass, violent, and degenerate society. I talked about this at length in “Russia – Bastion of Traditionalism?” 

I’m of course speaking collectively and not individually; there are some great Russians with beautiful souls. But their parasitic system, which exists in the West, too, has left deep scars on Russian society and Russia has been used for a century as a base of operations against humanity. Those raised in this culture of communist corruption and perfidy are among the foremost of those who, though they are perpetrating horrors, are now seen, because of mass deception, as liberators, saviors, and heroes. 

Why would Putin allow this state of affairs to continue in his country if he was truly against it? Why wouldn’t he use his dictatorial powers and mass wealth to curb the corruption, stop the global disinformation campaigns, or stop his nation’s cyberattacks on other countries? Why did his operatives help the Democrats in their false “collusion” narrative against Donald Trump? Why would he send his people to arrest his political opposition or poison dissidents? Would an honest, Christian man, as Putin alleges he is, do these things? 

Putin has gone along with the Western Elite’s machinations at nearly every turn. He was the first to support George W. Bush’s “war on terror” after 9/11. He went along with COVID-19 scaremongering and locked his country down. He then mass-produced vaccines and delivered them all over the world. He supports the ludicrous “global warming” hoax. Russia has been a host of numerous transhumanist conferences and, in fact, is home to billionaire Dmitry Itskov’s “2045” project. These transhumanists plot to subjugate mankind and fuse us to machines in some sick mirror of the Matrix.  

Why would Putin allow these transhumanist conferences in his country if he was so opposed to their goals? Why would he participate with the World Economic Forum for thirty years? Why would he have assassinated dissidents, jailed his biggest political rival, and rigged elections if he was such a good statesman? Why would he have invaded and intervened in nations from Georgia to Ukraine to Armenia to Kazakhstan to Syria if he was such a peace-loving man?  

Is Vladimir Putin not smart enough to see the agenda of the transhumanists and world economic Elite? Is he to narrow-minded not to comprehend the great conspiracies swirling around him? Of course he knows their agenda! He’s part of the conspiracy! The only difference is that he wants to be the one leading it and doesn’t want to play second fiddle to anyone. 

These types of questions and observations could be made ad nauseum. The same questions could be asked of Putin’s closest ally, the Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. His Davos 2022 speech, which openly calls for more globalization, may be read here. All of these dictators, whether Putin in Moscow or Xi in Beijing or Biden in Washington or Trudeau in Ottawa, belong to the same clubs and share the same ideals. That they squabble about lesser things is tangential. None of them actually care about Ukraine. It’s a pawn in a larger scheme whose stakes are the world. But the game must be played the right way to fool the pawns and to get them to go along, for, without them, the Elite have no power. 

Most of the big names that dominate the news are Illuminati-communists or their puppets and belong to the same occult conspiracy. Whether in the East or the West, they’re Marxist-Leninists in principle and believe in the almighty state. They are the high priests of Lucifer and will, together, each playing his part, eventually damn humanity. 

Zack Strong 
February 23, 2022 

Russia Lies

*I wrote and published this article as installment number forty-three of my Red Alert Newsletter. Because I deem it of higher-than-usual importance, I have decided to share it here as well. I encourage you to visit Red Alert and consider subscribing. Wait until January, however, when I will be lowering the subscription price and changing up the format. Until then, please share this article and thank you for your support!*

You may call this article a rebuttal to the Russophiles out there and to the misguided pundits in our camp. Specifically, two weeks ago, I heard Alex Jones in one instance, and Jeff Rense and Mitchell Henderson in the other instance, say that Russia is the victim in the Ukraine debacle and that NATO is the one pushing us to war. This is sheer insanity and an inversion of reality!

To all those who see Russia as the picked-on, besieged, blameless little victim, please understand three facts: 1) The “collapse” of the Soviet Union was a strategic ruse, world communism is stronger than ever and is pursuing its age-old goal of world domination, and Russia and China are still spearheading the agenda on the ground; 2) Russia is not “surrounded” and hemmed in by NATO; and 3) Russia, not NATO, is the aggressor in Ukraine and started that conflict. 

1. The Contrived Collapse of Communism 

In 1989, the Berlin Wall was allowed to “fall.” The Kremlin gave orders to its agents in East Germany to open the borders and not stop people from crossing. They simply stood down. It was all on purpose; a stage production. 

In 1991, the Soviet regime once again stood down its forces, lowered the Soviet flag, and allowed the Soviet Union to change its name. It even faked a weak military coup in which we’re supposed to believe that the Soviet military and intelligence services were so inept that they couldn’t arrest Gorbachev or even Yeltsin, the latter standing up on a tank in public in a dramatic moment to denounce the “hardliners.” It was good acting in a well-crafted ruse. 

It was a contrived “collapse” – a psyop with few rivals in human history. It was precisely the type of big lie the West wanted to hear and which they eagerly gobbled up. Yet, political theater is not reality and wishful thinking doesn’t change the truth on the ground. And the truth is that the Soviets, which are part of a larger and ongoing conspiracy against mankind, pre-planned this “collapse” years in advance as part of a mass deception to lull the West into complacency in preparation for the final death blow. 

For more details and analysis of the fake “fall” of the Soviet Union, see the relevant chapters in my books A Century of Red and Red Gadiantons. Here, I want to touch upon just several of the compelling points against the “collapse” narrative. 

First, think of human nature and history. Where in the annals of history has a mighty, tyrannical regime ever given up its power without a struggle? Where have people who were entirely stripped of their Liberty ever regained their Freedom without bloodshed or an uprising? Cite me one example except for the Soviet “collapse” in 1991. You can’t do it. It’s never happened before and it will never happen. This is because of human nature and the near universal lust to dominate and control other people, wealth, and power. 

Yet, the controlled press, and the communist world, want us to believe that the impossible happened in 1991 – that the greatest mass-murdering oppressors in world history suddenly had a change of heart, relinquished their design of world domination, folded their sprawling system of psychological, espionage, and subversion operations, gave up their power and control over the world’s most fearsome stockpile of weapons, and restored Freedom and sovereignty to the Soviet peoples. If you believe that, I have a bridge on Jupiter to sell you! 

Why should we even be tempted to believe the communists suddenly changed their minds and beat their swords into ploughshares? Hadn’t the mass-murdering Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said on September 17, 1955: “[I]f anyone believes that our smiles involve abandonment of the teaching of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, he deceives himself poorly. Those who wait for that must wait until a shrimp learns to whistle”? And hadn’t the early Soviet leaders foretold of a day when they’d stage a deception and show of peace in order to trick the West before the final victory? 

In 1930, Soviet bureaucrat Dmitri Z. Manuilsky told the students at the Lenin School of Political Warfare: 

“War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 to 30 years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist.” 

Here you have a Soviet leaders openly speaking of a generational plan to simulate peace and make “unheard-of concessions,” all while preparing to deal the final death blow to the West. Lenin and others also spoke openly about the need to hoodwink the West into accepting, funding, and befriending Soviet Russia by pretending to be peace-loving and democratic. It’s all a lie, ladies and gentlemen! If you think the Soviet masterminds discarded their plan to fake “the most spectacular peace movement on record,” you’re a sucker and don’t know anything about how the world truly works. 

Feigning weakness while preparing to strike is an ageless tactic which the Soviets adopted and perfected. The Reds in both Russia and China have used the method to throw the off West, regroup, gain concessions (usually in the form of financing and trade), and prepare for further aggression. This is what the period of “Détente” during the Cold War was all about. This is what Mao did whenever his Chinese bandits began to lose ground to Chiang Kai-shek. While pretending to desire peace and sending envoys to engage in vain peace talks and sign agreements that he knew he would later break, he was busy regrouping, repositioning, rearming, and preparing for new offensives. Communists have used this stratagem ad nauseum. 

The Soviet defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, an intelligence operative, warned the West that the Soviets used Détente as a ruse and that they were preparing an even greater performance to fool us – the “fall” of the Soviet Union. That’s right, Soviet intelligence agents like Golitsyn warned us years in advance of the fake “fall” of the Soviet Union. This is the second great evidence against its veracity. 

If Golitsyn was full of it, how did most of what he predicted on a range of topics come true? Why, if he was really as crazy as some say, did his prediction about the fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR come true? He wasn’t a dreamer; he was a truth-teller. And the truth is that the West has been conned again by the masters of deceit who have tricked us repeatedly. 

In his book New Lies for Old, Golitsyn essentially said the Soviet conspirators would deceive us by rebranding the Soviet Union the same way that Coke redesigns its cans and commercials yet still serves you the same disgusting poison purporting to be soda. The book must be read as a whole and quoting parts of it is insufficient. However, I’ve drawn out a several segments to give the flavor of his observations regarding Soviet strategic deception. Remember, you’re reading the personal witness of a former Soviet intelligence officer who knew whereof he spoke: 

“The launching of a strategic disinformation program in 1958 invalidated the conventional methodology of Western students of communist affairs. A carefully controlled flood of information was released through the whole range of sources under communist control. As in the NEP period in the 1920s, this flood of information confused and distorted Western views on the situation in the communist world. Western analysts, lacking the ability to acquire inside information on communist strategic thinking, planning, and methods of operation, gratefully accepted the new stream of information at face value. Without their knowing it, their conventional methods of analysis were invalidated and turned back on them by the communist strategists. Because of the deliberate projection by these strategists of a false image of the dissolution of communist unity, the noncommunist world ignored or undervalued open and significant evidence pointing to bloc cooperation from 1957 onward on a new footing of equality and commitment to fundamental ideological principles and long-term policy objectives. The new dispensation allows for variation in domestic and international tactics and provides unlimited opportunities for joint efforts between bloc countries to misrepresent the true state of relations between them whenever this should be to their mutual advantage. Unnoticed by the West, communist ideology was freed from its Stalinist straitjacket and revived on Leninist lines. The change was successfully misrepresented as the spontaneous replacement of ideology by nationalism as the driving force behind the communist world. 

“Noncommunist studies came increasingly to be based on information emanating from communist sources. While observers in the noncommunist world sometimes showed some awareness that information was reaching them through channels under communist control, there was virtually no recognition of the fact that the information had been specially prepared behind the Iron Curtain for their benefit. The political role of the intelligence services was ignored, and since the evidence of planning and coordination in the activities of the bloc was also overlooked, the growth of internal opposition movements and the eruption of disputes between communist states and parties were wrongly seen as spontaneous developments. 

“. . . The evidence of evolution and splits in the communist world was so overwhelming in volume and so convincing in character that none could continue to question its validity. Acceptance in particular of the Sino-Soviet split as a reality became the common basis for all noncommunist attempts to analyze present and future policies and trends in the communist world. As a result Western perception of offensive communist intentions was blunted and the evidence of coordination in the execution of worldwide communist strategies was discounted. 

“Because strategic disinformation was not recognized as such, Western views on internal developments in the communist world came increasingly to be shaped and determined by the communist strategists in the interests of their own long-range policy. In the Soviet Union the dropping of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and the introduction of market-orientated enterprises and other measures of economic reform seemed to presage a reversion toward capitalism. The gradual rise in living standards seemed to be taking the edge off the Soviet appetite for revolutionary change, generating new pressures on the regime to allow greater freedom and improve the supply of consumer goods. Apparent differences in the Soviet leadership between the liberal reformers and conservative ideologists on how to grapple with these pressures and reconcile the need for progress with lip service to ideology confirmed Western belief in the recurrence of power struggles, mainly behind the scenes but sometimes in the open, as in the case of Khrushchev’s dismissal. When the liberals appeared to have the upper hand, expectations were aroused of increasing cooperation between the Soviet Union and the West. Moderation in Soviet propaganda and expressions of interest in peaceful coexistence and businesslike negotiations seemed genuine, especially when compared with the implacable hostility of the Chinese. Occasional aggressive Soviet actions were attributable to the survival within the leadership of a group of die-hard Stalinists who had to be appeased from time to time by the liberal reformers. If the Stalinists were once more to regain control, detente would be reversed and there might be a Sino-Soviet reconciliation. The West therefore had an interest in strengthening the hand of liberal reformers. Provided they survived, there were prospects of an improvement in relations owing to the existence of common interests between the Soviets and the West in avoiding nuclear conflict and confronting Chinese militancy. In the long run the technological revolution offered prospects of a gradual narrowing of the gulf between the communist and non-communist systems. 

“Such were the arguments of the 1960s. Despite the revival of neo-Stalinism toward the end of the decade, the arguments survived and gained weight until the later 1970s. 

“The apparent opening up of cracks between the communist states was assessed as an encouraging development. The emergence of a range of different brands of communism seemed to show how ideology had lost its binding force. The rivalries between the communist states appeared rooted in traditional national sentiment. . . . 

“To sum up, the apparent loss of revolutionary ardor, the apparent disunity in the bloc and movement, the apparent preoccupation of the communist states with fratricidal struggles, and the advent of détente all pointed to the same conclusion: The Cold War was over. The new situation seemed to demand accommodation and a positive response to communism rather than the old forms of resistance and containment. . . . 

“The abandonment by the West of concerted policies toward the communist world led to changes in Western diplomatic practice. Personal contacts—including confidential talks—negotiations, and understandings between leading communist and noncommunist statesmen, even if initiated by the communist side, were welcomed in the West. A unilateral approach to relations with communist countries became the norm. General de Gaulle’s visit to Moscow in 1966 revived talk of the Franco-Russian alliance of the 1890s and the Franco-Soviet pact of the 1930s. The United States agreed to conducting the SALT negotiations with the Soviet Union on a bilateral basis. Regular bilateral political consultations between the Soviets and the French and Italian governments became accepted practice. In West Germany the argument for an opening to the East gathered strength and found expression in Chancellor Brandt’s Ost politik in the early 1970s. The Western response to China’s détente diplomacy appeared not to be concerted. There were conspicuous examples of failure to consult; for example, the Japanese were not warned by the Americans of the Nixon-Kissinger initiative in China in 1971; President Giscard d’Estaing gave his allies little or no notice of his meeting with Brezhnev in Warsaw in May 1980. 

“The widening of the range of the contacts between communist diplomats and politicians in the noncommunist world was as warmly greeted as the widening of Western contacts with the communist world. 

“With the advent of detente Western business interests pressed for the expansion of trade with communist countries. . . . 

“Detente and disinformation on communist “evolution” provided grounds for socialist parties to view with greater favor the formation of united fronts with communist parties. Apart from improving the chances of socialists’ gaining power, united fronts looked like a promising device for influencing communist parties to move closer to social democracy and further from the Soviet Union. . . . 

“Opposition to communism in principle became unfashionable. The basic differences between democracy and communism were lost from sight. It was considered more rewarding to seek out common interests through increasing East-West scientific, cultural, and sporting exchanges that, it was thought, would contribute to the liberalization of communist regimes. In the 1960s anticommunist writers virtually lost their admission tickets to the communications media; their attitude was deemed inimical to détente. . . . 

“The success of the communist disinformation program has engendered a state of crisis in Western assessments of communist affairs and therefore a crisis in Western policy toward the communist world. The meaning of developments in the communist bloc is misunderstood and the intentions behind communist actions are misinterpreted. Enemies are accepted and treated as though they were allies of the West. The Soviet military threat is recognized, but the strategic political threat is not comprehended and is therefore underestimated. Communist political offensives, in the form of détente diplomacy and disarmament negotiations, are seen as indications of communist moderation. Communist strategy, instead of being blocked, is unwittingly assisted by Western policies. . . . 

“. . . the communist strategists are now poised to enter into the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of communism. Given the multiplicity of parties in power, the close links between them, and the opportunities they have had to broaden their bases and build up experienced cadres, the communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and strategems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such previously unthinkable strategems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, in the Soviet Union and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. . . . 

“If in a reasonable time “liberalization” can be successfully achieved in Poland and elsewhere, it will serve to revitalize the communist regimes concerned. The activities of the false opposition will further confuse and undermine the genuine opposition in the communist world. Externally, the role of dissidents will be to persuade the West that the “liberalization” is spontaneous and not controlled. “Liberalization” will create conditions for establishing solidarity between trade unions and intellectuals in the communist and noncommunist worlds. In time such alliances will generate new forms of pressure against Western “militarism,” “racism,” and “military-industrial complexes” and in favor of disarmament and the kind of structural changes in the West predicted in Sakharov’s writings. . . . 

“The promotion of the former KGB chief [Andropov], who was responsible for the preparation of the false liberalization strategy in the USSR, indicates that this factor was decisive in his selection and further points to the imminent advent of such “liberalization” in the near future. 

“The rise of Andropov fits into a familiar pattern whereby the former security chief becomes the party leader in order to secure the important shift in the realization of the strategy. Kadar, who introduced the so-called “liberalization” in Hungary; Hua Kuo-feng, under whom China shifted to “capitalist pragmatism”; and Kania, who initiated the Polish “renewal” and recognized Solidarity—all had been former security chiefs. This pattern reflects the crucial role of the security services in the “liberalization” of communist regimes. . . . 

“. . . the “liberalization” will not be limited to the USSR, but will be expanded to Eastern Europe and particularly to Poland. . . .  

“The coming offensive of the communist strategists will pursue the following objectives: 

“• The establishment of a model government for Western Europe, which will facilitate the inclusion of the so-called Eurocommunist parties into government coalitions with socialists and the trade unions. 

“• The dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pacts, the neutralization of Western Europe, and the Finlandization of Western Europe in general, through the advocacy of European collective security. 

“• The provision of a broader basis and impetus for expansion of the antimilitary movement by a more active involvement of Catholics and other believers in the West, thereby forcing the United States into a disadvantageous disarmament. 

“• Influencing the 1984 United States presidential election in favor of candidates who are more likely to deal with the leaders of the “liberalized” regimes in the USSR and East Europe and are more inclined to sacrifice the US military posture. 

“The dialectic of this offensive consists of a calculated shift from the old, discredited Soviet practice to a new, “liberalized” model, with a social democratic facade, to realize the communist planners’ strategy for establishing a United Europe. At the beginning they introduced a variation of the 1968 Czechoslovakian “democratization.” At a later phase they will shift to a variation of the Czechoslovakian takeover of 1948. 

 “Developments have accurately confirmed the prediction that the communist strategists would undertake the political initiative on disarmament, particularly against West Germany. The trip of Gro-myko to Bonn, the invitation of social democratic opposition leaders to Moscow, and the statements of Andropov on missile concessions (made to influence the West German elections) are all clear indications of such a political initiative. As expected, the communist initiative revealed that its main target was the socialist parties. It also showed that there are elements in their leadership who are vulnerable to such an initiative, especially those in the West German social democratic party who have anti-NATO and anti US views, or who like Brandt and Sweden’s social democrat Palme are ready to embrace Rapacki’s idea of a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe. The initiative increased also the pressure on the US for concessions to the USSR. In the opinion of the author, however, the communist initiative has not yet reached its peak. How will the Western German social democrats respond when the communist regimes begin their “liberalization” by making concessions on human rights, such as easing emigration, granting amnesty for the dissidents, or removing the Berlin wall? One can expect that Soviet agents of influence in Western Europe, drawing on these developments, will become active. It is more than likely that these cosmetic steps will be taken as genuine by the West and will trigger a reunification and neutralization of West Germany and further the collapse of NATO. The pressure on the United States for concessions on disarmament and accommodation with the Soviets will increase. During this period there might be an extensive display of the fictional struggle for power in the Soviet leadership. One cannot exclude that at the next party congress or earlier, Andropov will be replaced by a younger leader with a more liberal image who will continue the so-called “liberalization” more intensively.” 

Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows this is the truth. You can see the various predictions that have come true. And you can see, without me needing to explain it, how it ties into the present situation. 

Lastly, the communist leaders have admitted their deception – we just haven’t paid attention. Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over Glasnost (reeopening) and Perestroika (restructuring), for instance, wrote at length about the deception. He laughed at the West’s ignorance in assuming these programs meant the end of communism. In his book Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, he wrote exactly what this Soviet-engineered “new thinking” is all about: 

“The life-giving impetus of our great Revolution was too powerful for the Party and people to reconcile themselves to phenomena that were threatening to squander its gains. The works of Lenin and his ideals of socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity. His very image is an undying example of lofty moral strength, all-round spiritual culture and selfless devotion to the cause of the people and to socialism. Lenin lives on in the minds and hearts of millions of people. Breaking down all the barriers erected by scholastics and dogmatists, an interest in Lenin’s legacy and a thirst to know him more extensively in the original grew as negative phenomena in society accumulated. 

“Turning to Lenin has greatly stimulated the Party and society in their search to find explanations and answers to the questions that have arisen. . . . 

“The concept of restructuring with all the problems involved had been evolving gradually. Way back before the April Plenary Meeting a group of Party and state leaders had begun a comprehensive analysis of the state of the economy. Their analysis then became the basis for the documents of perestroika. Using the recommendations of scientists and experts, our entire potential, all the best that social thought had created, we elaborated the basic ideas and drafted a policy which we subsequently began to implement. . . . 

“I have long appreciated a remarkable formula advanced by Lenin: socialism is the living creativity of the masses. Socialism is not an a priori theoretical scheme, in keeping with which society is divided into two groups: those who give instructions and those who follow them. I am very much against such a simplified and mechanical understanding of socialism. 

“People, human beings with all their creative diversity, are the makers of history. So the initial task of restructuring—an indispensable condition, necessary if it is to be successful—is to “wake up” those people who have “fallen asleep” and make them truly active and concerned, to ensure that everyone feels as the is the master of the country, of his enterprise, office, or institute. This is the main thing. . . . 

“In the West, Lenin is often portrayed as an advocate of authoritarian methods of administration. This is a sign of total ignorance of Lenin’s ideas and, not infrequently, of their deliberate distortion. In effect, according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible. By gaining democratic freedoms the working masses come to power. It is also only in conditions of expanding democracy that they can consolidate and realize that power. There is another remarkably true idea of Lenin’s: the broader the scope of the work and the deeper the reform, the greater the need to increase the interest in it and convince millions and millions of people of its necessity. This means that if we have set out for a radical and all-round restructuring, we must also unfold the entire potential of democracy. . . . 

“Perestroika means overcoming the stagnation process, breaking down the braking mechanism, creating a dependable and effective mechanism for the acceleration of social and economic progress and giving it greater dynamism. 

“Perestroika means mass initiative. It is the comprehensive development of democracy, socialist self-government, encouragement of initiative and creative endeavor, improved order and discipline, more glasnost, criticism and self-criticism in all spheres of our society. It is utmost respect for the individual and consideration for personal dignity. 

“Perestroika is the all-round intensification of the Soviet economy, the revival and development of the principles of democratic centralism in running the national economy, the universal introduction of economic methods, the renunciation of management by injunction and by administrative methods, and the overall encouragement of innovation and socialist enterprise. 

“Perestroika means a resolute shift to scientific methods, an ability to provide a solid scientific basis for every new initiative. It means the combination of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with a planned economy. 

“Perestroika means priority development of the social sphere aimed at ever better satisfaction of the Soviet people’s requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care. It means unceasing concern for cultural and spiritual wealth, for the culture of every individual and society as a whole. 

“Perestroika means the elimination from society of the distortions of socialist ethics, the consistent implementation of the principles of social justice. It means the unity of words and deeds, rights and duties. It is the elevation of honest, highly-qualified labor, the overcoming of leveling tendencies in pay and consumerism. 

“This is how we see perestroika today. . . . 

“. . . The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice. Such is the essence of perestroika, which accounts for its genuine revolutionary spirit and its all-embracing scope. . . . 

“Perestroika is closely connected with socialism as a system. That side of the matter is being widely discussed, especially abroad, and our talk about perestroika won’t be entirely clear if we don’t touch upon that aspect. 

“Does perestroika mean that we are giving up socialism or at least some of its foundations? Some ask this question with hope, others with misgiving. . . . 

“To put an end to all the rumors and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting all our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika—and the program as a whole, for that matter—is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy. . . . 

“More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life, more culture and humanism in production, social and personal relations among people, more dignity and self-respect for the individual.” 

After reading this, only a fool can believe the Soviets’ “restructuring” and “openness” were anything other than ploys to trick the easily-deceived ignoramuses in the West – those who don’t know a single thing about what communism is, what it wants, and how it operates. 

I remind you that this admission of strategic deception was written in 1987, showing how pre-planned and contrived this Soviet-engineered Leninist revival really is. It should make people step back and reconsider the media lies they were fed when the Soviet dictator who presided over and instituted “Perestroika” and the Soviet “collapse” admits in writing that the entire purpose was to have “more socialism” in the world, “more collectivism in everyday life,” and to revitalize Leninism! Remind me again how “communism is dead. . .” 

The Soviets have always self-evaluated and have changed tactics when necessary. They’re pragmatists. For these Satanic conspirators, the ends justify the means. They’ll present any false face, wear any outward disguise, make any high-minded promise, and do any underhanded and wicked act to achieve their goal. And what is their goal? The crest of the USSR tells us plainer than words can – a hammer and sickle over the globe. 

As noted earlier, this “collapse” was pre-planned. Early on, the Soviets planned to launch “the most spectacular peace movement on record” and give “unheard-of concessions” to the “stupid and decadent” West. This was always in the cards. Gorbachev was simply the one installed to make it happen. And who told him to make it happen? That’s the real kicker. 

It may surprise many to know that Mikhail Gorbachev did not concoct this plan. Neither did his political predecessors. Rather, all of these were operating on orders from a higher source. The source? Satan. You can choose to roll your eyes or discount the Devil’s existence or the extent of his influence, but I testify that Satan actively governs the nations and is very hands-on in the work of global oppression. But Satan is cunning – he doesn’t come in his own name, nor does he appear in a ball of fire with a gleaming pitchfork. Rather, he appears as an angel of light, the light-bearer, and a friend of humanity and progress. 

The name Lord Maitreya is not known to many people, but it is known to the world Elite. Lord Maitreya is the leader of a group of disembodied evil spirits known as the Hierarchy or Brotherhood. Their followers are occultists. They’re found at the United Nations, in governments, in militaries, in private organizations, etc. 

I call forth merely one corroborating account from a former U.S. diplomat named Wayne S. Peterson. He says that one of the Ascended Masters of Wisdom, which is what the members of the Hierarchy are called, appeared to him and he was instructed by him and was taught of Lord Maitreya. On one particular diplomatic trip, Peterson spoke of being introduced to a large group of world leaders whom, he was told, all knew of Lord Maitreya. His account reads: 

“The monarch then explained that everyone in the room knew Maitreya and was cooperating with his mission, although their identities must be kept secret until Maitreya himself comes forward and speaks openly to the world. 

“There was one individual, however, who made it clear he had no problem with the public knowing he had met the Christ. His name was Mikhail Gorbachev. . . . 

“I was not surprised to learn this about Mr. Gorbachev, since I had heard much earlier of his involvement with Maitreya from a Pentagon official. I had also heard, from people I place much confidence in, that Mrs. Gorbachev had been to India several times to see the Avatar Sai Baba . . . From the freedom and openness [Gorbachev] introduced to the Soviet Union, it appeared obvious to me that he was being influenced by the Christ. Eventually, we will hear more of this story and how the Soviet empire collapsed. 

“What I appreciate about this story is story is the sure knowledge that the Masters have already undertaken the task of offering important world leaders a role in the coming global changes and of preparing them for the Day of Declaration. These leaders, who are undoubtedly disciples of the Masters, will be working to promote the goals of the Spiritual Hierarchy” (Wayne S. Peterson, Extraordinary Times, Extraordinary Beings: Experiences of an American Diplomat with Maitreya and the Masters of Wisdom, 99-100). 

Mass-murdering Soviet dictator Gorbachev was a follower of Lord Maitreya and was operating on his orders when he “collapsed” the Soviet Union! Numerous other household names could be placed on the list of Maitreya’s followers. Satan, parading as an angel of light, actively appears to the world Elite, giving them instructions for how to usher in a one-world government and one-world occult religion. The Apostle John wasn’t lying when he said the Dragon, Satan, is the one who empowers the beast system that is to seize control of the world and overcome the saints (Revelation 13). 

Dear reader, communism is not dead. The Soviet Union did not fall. It’s planned “collapse” was political theater choreographed by demons and acted out by skilled conmen. Russia today is every bit as much on the dark side as the USSR was. It pretends to be a bastion of traditionalism and Christianity, but, having lived there, I can put that myth to rest with zero hesitation. 

Vladimir Putin, a KGB operative and one of the conmen mentioned, has cleverly played his part, deceiving the nations. Putin openly lamented the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the last century, has invaded multiple nations, tampers in American society and politics, threatens NATO with nuclear war as a matter of habit, holds Europe hostage through their dependence on Russia’s natural gas, is allied with Iran, Turkey, China, and other tyrannical regimes, oppresses his own people, kills or imprisons his political opposition, and is a fake “Christian” who targets real Christian churches and leads gullible conservatives by the nose with polished rhetoric about his supposed faith and principles. 

Those who believe Russia is an innocent victim, the democratic defender of picked-on peoples, or think Russia gets a bad rap, don’t have any clue and are blind to reality. They want Russia to be one of the good guys. They want Putin to be a true opponent to the New World Order. They want Russia to be a revivalist nation and a safe haven for Western values. But all of this is wishful thinking unsupported by facts. If only people would finally admit that the Soviet Union did not “collapse,” but faked its “fall” in order to fool the West and lull us to sleep in preparation for the final battle for communist world domination, the long-awaited “World October,” perhaps the scales would fall from their eyes and the truth would have a chance to enter their minds. 

2. Russia is NOT Surrounded by NATO 

One of the most prevalent and poppycock deceptions I see floating around is that poor ol’ Russia is surrounded by a threatening and hostile NATO. Have the people who repeat this stupidity looked at a map recently? Have they bothered to count Russia’s allies? Have they studied geopolitics for five minutes? I know geography isn’t most people’s strongest area, but I hope I can convince you that it’s an important factor in correctly analyzing world events. 

When you look at a map, you realize that Russia is by far the largest nation on earth and is bordered by the following: 

Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, and North Korea. Russia also shares sea “borders” with Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Iran, Turkmenistan, Japan, and the United States. The part of Russia that borders Poland is a small parcel called Kaliningrad and is not attached to Russia proper.  

Let’s look at these countries more closely. Japan, North Korea, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Finland are not NATO members. By my count, that’s eleven –the majority. Of the other ten that are NATO members, four of them – the United States, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey – only share water “borders,” and one, Poland, doesn’t touch Russia proper. That’s hardly “surrounded” by NATO. 

“But, but, but,” people splutter, “look at a map – NATO is hemming Russia in on its western flank!” Really? Hemming them in how? And from what? If Russia has no ambitions to expand westward, what is everyone so worried about? A major portion of the western border is the Ukraine – a country which Russia invaded in 2014 and is gradually consuming and turning into Russia proper. The other major part of the border is the extremely close ally Belarus.  

Let’s talk about Belarus. Russia routinely conducts military war games in Belarus and in November conducted a snap combat drill there with its paratroopers. Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t that a provocation to NATO? But we must ask, why has Belarus been in the news lately? That’s right, because Russia has been using it to conduct hybrid-warfare operations against Poland and Western Europe. The specific action is to allow illegal immigrants to flood across Belarus’s border in an attempt to overload Europe and create humanitarian crises. Interestingly, the capital of Belarus is Minsk where the Minsk Accords were signed regarding Ukraine. Perhaps Russia’s and Belarus’s duplicity towards Poland should cast a shadow of doubt over their constant cries that NATO is violating the Minsk Accords in Ukraine (a falsehood we’ll discuss below). 

Russia could easily use Belarus and Ukraine as buffer states, but, instead, they invade the one and use the other to stage operations against Poland and to house their soldiers. So, who is really provoking whom? 

Not counting Poland, which only touches tiny Kaliningrad and doesn’t border traditional Russian territory, Russia only borders the small Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Scandinavian nations of Finland and Norway. Finland isn’t in NATO, but the others are. Let’s ask: Is Norway a threat? Hardly. Are the Baltic nations going to invade Russia anytime soon? Nope. Yes, Estonia does have NATO troops – which were invited in after Russia conducted sabotage operations against the nation and tried to orchestrate a coup. Again, how can anyone with honesty say NATO surrounds Russia or that Russia lives in fear of NATO aggression? 

Let’s talk about Turkey and Iran. Turkey, though a member of NATO, is a de facto ally of Russia. Yes, Turkey is nationalistic and would love to return to its Ottoman glory days and generally plays to gain its own advantages, but it knows the realities on the ground and has curried favor with Russia. Ankara is also heavily dependent upon Russian oil and natural gas, importing approximately 50% of its gas from its northern neighbor. When push comes to shove, I highly doubt Turkey will be in NATO’s camp. They have too much to lose by ticking off Russia and too little to gain by standing should-to-shoulder with NATO during a conflict. 

Additionally, in 2018, Russia, Turkey, and Iran held a joint summit, cementing their friendship and strengthening ties and pulling Turkey farther away from NATO. The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies observed at the time: 

“Several threats have brought Iran, Turkey, and Russia together: the war in Syria; terrorism and extremism; and, to an extent, Kurdish separatism (Russia shares Ankara’s and Tehran’s concerns about this). Crucially, US pressure of varying degrees on each of the three powers serves as glue to promote their cooperation in resisting the liberal world order. The three seek to remake the world order as they no longer benefit sufficiently from post-Cold War arrangements. Each wants new space for balancing. . . . 

“Significantly, the Russian, Turkish, and Iranian peoples all have a similar historical experience of anti-imperialist struggle. They believe “Eurasia” can provide an alternative to the West’s cultural, historical, political, and economic dominance. 

“More importantly for smaller countries, the three also advance the concept of “regional ownership,” which prioritizes bilateral cooperation in regional problems without the involvement of third parties. In this way, Turkey and Russia pursued a shared vision in the Black Sea and cooperated in the South Caucasus following the Second Karabakh War. Efforts were made in Libya as well, and similar ideas were expressed (at least rhetorically) about the recent crisis between Israel and the Hamas organization. 

“Iran has similar aspirations to Russia when it comes to the Caspian Sea. No foreign powers are allowed into the region, and smaller states with access to the Sea have to acknowledge Tehran’s and Moscow’s vital energy and security interests. 

“The trio’s aspiration to sideline the West is visible in concrete initiatives. The Astana Talks are nothing but an attempt to advance an alternative vision to the Syrian problem. Similar attempts were made in the South Caucasus, when Turkey and Iran proposed and supported the idea of creating a regional pact on security and cooperation that has no place for the West. 

“Russia has long aspired to better ties with Turkey and Iran. Even in the Soviet period, Moscow periodically attempted to advance a form of cooperation with those two countries that would exclude the West. Both states gradually emerged as pillars of Russia’s post-Soviet aspirations to construct a more active foreign policy in the Middle East and remold the existing world order. . . . 

“This trend of finding common ground without formal obligations is characteristic of the post-unipolar world. Russia and China officially refuse to have an alliance—indeed, they claim an alliance would undermine their purportedly benevolent intentions toward one another. While much of this is just rhetoric to conceal the absence of any common cultural or otherwise important features necessary for a geopolitical alliance, this behavior is part of an emerging trend in which Eurasian states prefer maneuverability to the shackles of formal obligations. 

“For Russia, intensive cooperation with Turkey and Iran is beneficial inasmuch as it provides leverage over the West and allows Moscow to solve critical problems in the Black Sea, Caucasus, and Caspian regions, as well as Syria. With that said, it is doubtful how much Russia wants Turkey to completely sever its ties with NATO. In a way, Turkey’s position as a member of the alliance—one that generates continuous intra-alliance tensions—benefits Russia more than an unshackled Turkey would. The latter scenario would ease NATO’s internal problems and perhaps even diminish Turkey’s importance in Russia’s geopolitical calculus. 

“As far as Iran is concerned, Russia seeks to render the Islamic Republic dependent on its diplomatic clout. A long-term solution to Iran’s nuclear stalemate is the Kremlin’s least desired scenario. While it would allow Russian companies to penetrate Iran’s market, that market would also be opened up to more competitive Western enterprises. A closer interaction beyond the partnership is also not an option for Russia.” 

In this analysis, Ankara plays for itself and is opportunistic. Be that as it may, the analysis also acknowledged that Turkey’s ties with Russia and Iran help “sideline” NATO’s agenda. Additionally, if we think of opportunism, then what I noted earlier about Turkey’s reliance on Russian energy is valid. However you slice it, Turkey isn’t a threat to Russia. 

Indeed, since 2018, the three-way relationship has grown stronger. Even as Turkey and Iran both rise in respective power, they gravitate towards Russia, which is also reasserting itself. Like moons in the solar system, they find larger bodies to orbit. Russia doesn’t need to worry about its Turkish and Iranian borders in the slightest (as a fun side note, the Iranian Ayatollah was trained by the KGB and is little more than a Russian puppet). 

What about the Baltic states? When the Soviets faked their “collapse,” they left behind members of the nomenklatura – the Soviet elite class – to take over. Sometimes, these agents feigned to be members of opposition or nationalist parties. In all cases, however, “former” communist members of the Kremlin-beholden nomenklatura came to power in the Soviet satellites. This includes Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. 

That said, the people in these three states largely hate Russia and remember being conquered and oppressed by the Soviet regime. Estonia particularly is staunchly anti-Russia. Of the trio, Lithuania is the weakest link. Russia, in fact, operates a railway that runs through Belarus, through Lithuania’s capital Vilnius (which I visited and is a nice city), and on to Kaliningrad. Russia also holds Lithuania’s economic fate in its hands by holding the threat of banning its exports or cutting of its gas supplies if it does not comply with its policies. This is not an idle threat; it’s happened before. 

As a result of the legitimate, grassroots opposition to its schemes, Russia plans to forcibly conquer the Baltics again. In January, the Center for European Policy Analysis wrote about Russia’s hybrid-warfare campaign against Estonia: 

“Russia uses considerably different weapons in its hybrid war against Estonia than against Ukraine or Belarus. The Kremlin’s efforts against Estonia are focused primarily on the country’s less-integrated Russian speakers and Estonia’s highly digitalized society. Russia backs these up with a steady military buildup and show of force in its Western Military District, which includes the Kaliningrad exclave to the west and borders Estonia to the east. Other tactics, such as massive money laundering through Nordic banks based in Estonia, are part of a much wider Russian pattern of using the West’s weaknesses to its own advantage. Massive flows of Russian money to European and off-shore banks – most of which are likely laundered considering the obscurity of the schemes and actors – serve not only the purpose of fulfilling the financial and personal interests of Russia’s leaders and oligarchs, but also of feeding corruption and manipulating Western countries. 

“Russia’s non-conventional actions against Estonia have a long history, stretching back at least as far as a failed coup d’état attempt in Tallinn organized by the Soviet Union on December 1, 1924. Fifteen years later, the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic countries in 1939-1940 finds echoes in Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014. 

“The restoration of Estonia’s independence in August 1991 began a new battle in the Kremlin’s hybrid warfare against the country. Despite then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s generally democratic sympathies, Russia tried mightily to thwart the Baltics’ natural ambition to reunite with Europe and the trans-Atlantic community. The Kremlin repeatedly and falsely accused Estonia, since the early 1990s, on totally false grounds, of ethnic cleansing, “apartheid in white gloves” and the glorification of fascism. . . . 

“While Russia is bulking up its military muscle on all fronts, its Western Military District has once again become, as in the Cold War, a clear priority. Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave is increasingly militarized, including weapons of blackmail such as Iskander missile systems and likely tactical nuclear weapons, meant to put its unfriendly neighbors on notice. The Baltic states are virtually doubly covered by Russian A2/AD (Anti-Access and Area Denial) protective domes from Kaliningrad, as well as the Leningrad and Pskov oblasts. The Russian navy (Baltic fleet) and air force are very active in or above the Baltic Sea, often violating the maritime boundaries and air space of other countries, including Estonia, and bedeviling ships and aircraft of NATO countries. 

“Russia has recently conducted large snap exercises to gauge its combat readiness close to NATO territory. It also holds regular strategic-level exercises in its western reaches, including some with Belarus. The next large exercise will be Zapad 2021, probably in September. 

“As opposition protests continue in Belarus, formally an ally of Russia, President Aliaksandr Lukashenka may soon have no choice but to submit to certain demands from the Kremlin in order to maintain his grip on power, even including deployment of Russian forces to and use of air bases in Belarus. That would set alarm bells ringing for NATO and the Baltics, because the roughly 65-mile (105-kilometer) distance from southeastern Kaliningrad to northwestern Belarus happens to be the Lithuanian-Polish border across the Suwalki Gap. 

“With Russian troops at both ends, they would need only to cover a small stretch to meet in the middle and cut the Baltics off from their NATO and EU neighbors. Far from de-escalating, the Kremlin considers such military threats an effective political and psychological weapon against the West. The logic of a possible Russian aggression against the Baltic states is not necessarily, if at all, linked to them or the security situation in the Baltic and Nordic regions. It is about Russia willing to weaken and undermine NATO, and eventually use the opportunity to attack the weakest point in the Alliance’s posture. . . . 

“. . . Russia’s willingness to sow strife among Estonia’s ethnic and linguistic groups, helps explain the Estonian government’s decision in 2007 to move a “liberator” statue of a Red Army soldier from the city center of Tallinn to a nearby cemetery. It also helps explain the protests, riots, and Russian cyberattacks that followed the decision. 

“The events of the spring of 2007 revealed some truths about Estonian society, including that its Russian speakers were far from integrated into society, that official Russian propaganda could influence Estonia’s Russian minority, and that Russia would not hesitate to meddle in Estonia’s internal affairs given a chance. . . . 

“The result was shows of support from Estonia’s allies and the international community while Russia refused to cooperate in the investigation and denied vehemently any state-level involvement. This practice of ‘plausible deniability’ is by now very well established – Russia continues to deny its direct role in e.g. the Ukrainian Donbas. 

“The Russian government pretended that it retaliated against Estonia by severely cutting the oil and other goods it sent through Estonian ports, mainly Muuga and Tallinn, ostensibly in retaliation for moving the soldier memorial. Later, it became clear that the redirection of much of Russia’s maritime exports to the Russian ports of Ust-Luga and Primorsk, in the Gulf of Finland, was related not to the “Bronze Soldier” but to the business interests of members of President Putin’s inner circle. 

“The spring 2007 cyberattacks were a kind of turning point. Russia showed that it was willing and able to wage hybrid warfare, while Estonia became the first country to mount a successful cyber defense despite facing a massive, surprise attack and lacking much experience in the field. Estonia soon became home to NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD CoE), which had been planned before the 2007 attacks but gained some urgency because of them. . . . 

“Russia’s principal tools of hybrid warfare against Estonia are undoubtedly its state-owned and specialized propaganda and disinformation channels. These include, as in the case of most other Western countries, the RT (formerly Russia Today) TV channel and the Sputnik news agency, news website, and radio broadcast (formerly Voice of Russia and RIA Novosti). These two Kremlin “news” brands, with nearly global reach and budgets that exceed the BBC’s, are Russia’s inverted versions of CNN and Voice of America/Radio Liberty. Just as the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization pretend to be analogs of and responses to the European Union and NATO. 

“Estonia has a fairly large non-ethnic Estonian, mainly Russian-speaking minority, who make up about 27% of the population. That, together with its history and its border with Russia, makes Estonia an attractive target especially for other Russian state-owned TV channels. . . . 

“The fight against Russian hybrid warfare, including propaganda and disinformation, is inherently asymmetric because Western governments cannot adopt Russia’s behavior and tactics, and the openness of Western democratic societies makes them more hospitable to bad-faith actors and more vulnerable to misinformation than Russia’s controlled information space. Western countries have to help their citizens become more aware of Russia’s aims and hybrid tools, including its subversive propaganda and disinformation. 

“Finally, Russia’s money laundering and export of corruption undermine Western countries and societies. It makes little sense or impact to counter only Russia’s efforts in cyberspace and the media, or to try to limit European dependence on Russian energy without rooting out Russian money laundering and corruption.” 

Russia gripes about the NATO “threat” in the Baltics, yet remains silent about its own subversion operations against the Baltic states! Whenever you hear someone say that NATO’s troops in Estonia threaten Russia, ask them about Russia’s 2007 operations that precipitated Estonia begging for a NATO presence. 

Finally, I quote from a NATO document titled “Russia’s top five myths about NATO.” Number 1 on the list is the proposition that “NATO is trying to encircle Russia.” The document offers this rebuttal: 

“Fact: This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia’s land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members. 

“Claims that NATO is building bases around Russia are similarly groundless. Outside the territory of NATO nations, NATO only maintains a significant military presence in three places: Kosovo, Afghanistan, and at sea off the Horn of Africa. All three operations are carried out under United Nations mandate, and thus carry the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council members. Before Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine began, Russia provided logistical support to the Afghan mission, and cooperated directly with the counter-piracy operation, showing clearly that Russia viewed them as a benefit, not a threat. 

“NATO has partnership relationships with many countries in Europe and Asia, as can be seen from this interactive map. Such partnerships, which are requested by the partners in question, focus exclusively on issues agreed with them, such as disaster preparedness and relief, transparency, armed forces reform, and counter-terrorism. These partnerships cannot legitimately be considered a threat to Russia, or to any other country in the region, let alone an attempt at encirclement.” 

As I began, geography is important. A simple look at the map is enough to convince any right-thinking person that Moscow is lying – as usual. Even when Moscow tells the truth, it still lies, because it only tells the truth to further its agenda and harm the West. Communists are the master deceivers. Don’t buy their lie about NATO encirclement. 

3. Russia is the Aggressor in Ukraine 

In the not-too-distant past, Soviet Russia invaded and occupied Ukraine. Stalin’s henchmen later perpetrated a mass genocide against the Ukrainian people known as the Holodomor. Perhaps as many as 12 million perished due to forced famine and Satanic savagery. It was a real holocaust. 

From the days of the Soviet occupation and the Holodomor, Russia has variously waged open or covert war against Ukrainians. Contrary to polls which claim that Ukrainians love Russia, most of the Ukrainians I met when I lived in Russia (I lived with two Ukrainians for half a year during my two-year stay) and when I twice visited Ukraine, weren’t terribly fond of Russia. Of course, Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine hold a more favorable view, but Western Ukrainians are fiercely nationalistic and despise Russian aggression. 

When the Soviet Union faked its “collapse” and withdrew from Ukraine, it fully intended to reclaim the state at a future date. They left behind caches of weapons and a significant population. Russia has at times dictated Ukrainian policy by influencing its governmental leaders. In 2014, it all boiled over into the current conflict. Just what happened in 2014? 

Perhaps we’d better jump backward to 2013. In late 2013 to early 2014, Russia manipulated legitimately rising dissent among Ukrainians towards their government (I saw protestors camped in tents outside the presidential residence during my visits in 2007 and 2008). They used the situation to carry out a fake coup and install a new regime – similar to the fake “fall” of the Soviet government. Just like in the latter instance, Ukrainian security forces and intelligence services stood down and allowed the scripted event to play out on international TV. 

When this scam was underway, Alex Jones and many of the biggest names in the conspiracy world alleged, based on a fake story that was never verified on the ground, that the United States or its proxies gave $5 Billion to foment war and bring about regime change in Ukraine. It was a rumor with no legs from the beginning. Thankfully, at least a few credible researchers, such as Joel Skousen, debunked the notion. 

Credit where credit is due: Joel Skousen was one of the only analysts to correctly say at the time that Russia, not NATO, was behind the phony coup. Before Skousen published his analysis pegging Russia as the guilty party, I had been online telling folks that Russia was behind it and that Ukraine is Russia’s sphere of influence and NATO has virtually no power there. It was refreshing to be vindicated by one whose name carries some weight. Since then, I’ve had some disagreements with Mr. Skousen, but I’ll address those at a later date. 

The bottom line is that Russia manipulated genuine dissent and carried out regime change. In the confusion, Putin marched into Crimea and annexed it. In a 2020 National Security Report by Jonathan Cosgrove titled “The Russian Invasion of the Crimean Peninsula 2014-2015,” we get this excellent summary of the Crimean invasion and annexation: 

“In early 2014, the Russian Federation responded to the culminating Euromaidan movement in Ukraine by invading, occupying, and annexing Crimea. Acting without markings and accompanied by official denials from the Kremlin, Russian forces isolated and occupied Ukrainian political and military sites on the peninsula. Russia’s actions sparked a crisis much larger than that in Ukraine, with US leaders considering military responses, including “increasing military exercises, forward deploying additional military equipment and personnel, and increasing [US] naval, air, and ground presence,”1 all amid aggressive nuclear posturing from Moscow. Viewing Ukraine as a stage for its confrontation with the United States and Europe, Russia, in addition to the invasion, advanced nuclear messaging and threats meant to deter any intervention on behalf of Ukraine. . . .  

“Even before Euromaidan, the autonomous Verkhovna Rada of Crimea (Supreme Council of Crimea) expressed opposition to association with the EU, and Russian NGOs in Crimea began advocating for the peninsula to hold a revised legal status relative to Ukraine and Russia. In response to Euromaidan, the Supreme Council expressed its support for the Yanukovych government, urging him to declare a state of emergency, and pro-Russian groups staged rallies in Simferopol supporting Ukrainian entry into the Eurasian Customs Union.61 However, Crimean support for Russia was not unanimous. The Muslim Crimean Tatar population and leadership opposed Russian activities on the peninsula, favored continued unity with Ukraine and association with the EU, and persistently protested and warned that Russia would annex the region—opposition that would later see the Crimean Tatar community oppressed under Russian occupation. 

“As Euromaidan progressed, signals and measures around Crimea increased. These included public discussion of separatism and secession by local officials and Russian television broadcasts, meetings between local and Russian officials, the distribution of Russian passports, the spread of claims that a new government in Kyiv would threaten ethnic-Russian populations and restrict use of the Russian language (some Russian NGOs even citing the threat of “genocide”), the mobilization of “self-defense units” and Cossacks to patrol streets and erect checkpoints, and official deliberation and actions of local officials toward separatism and appeals to Russia. 

“Although Russia clearly made preparations for a potential invasion and annexation, its decision to invade Crimea was directly responsive to the fall of the Yanukovych government. Recounting the events in a 2015 propaganda film, Putin said that on February 23 (one day after Yanukovych was officially removed from office) he “was speaking with colleagues and said, ‘Frankly, this is our historical territory and Russian people live there, they were in danger, and we cannot abandon them.’ . . . We never thought about severing Crimea from Ukraine until the moment that these events began, the government overthrow.”64 However, the Kremlin has alternatively said that the course of action was broached in December 2013, when the head of the Supreme Council of Crimea visited Moscow and said that, should Yanukovych fall, Crimea would be prepared “to join Russia.” 

“On February 22, the same day Yanukovych was officially removed from office, Spetsnaz of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) were sent to Crimea to secure strategic Russian facilities. The next day, Russia announced new embargoes against food from Ukraine, but the military apparatus was also put in motion. Convoys of Russian military vehicles began approaching Crimea through the Russian city of Novorossiysk, the Russian 45th Airborne Special Forces and six Mi-8 helicopters were airlifted into Anapa near Crimea, and additional strategic airlift Il-76 aircraft were redeployed to the city. Russian armored personnel carriers also moved out from the base into the city, and pro-Russian protests in Sevastopol asserted that they had elected a new city leader—Russian citizen Aleksei Chaly. Russian members of parliament later arrived to offer Russian citizenship and passports, promising that should Crimea ask to join Russia, it would be addressed swiftly. On February 25, the Black Sea Fleet was put on alert, Russian troops arrived in the Crimean city of Yalta, and Gazprom announced it might increase gas prices for Ukraine. 

“On February 26, while Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated a position of “principled non-intervention” in Ukraine,67 Putin ordered snap military exercises in western Russia, and a landing ship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet arrived in Sevastopol carrying two hundred special operations forces. On February 27, the border between mainland Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula was blocked by checkpoints, and fifty Russian special operators disguised as local self-defense forces took control of the Supreme Council of Crimea and other administrative buildings in Simferopol, erecting Russian flags above the buildings. Under armed occupation, the Crimean regional government was dissolved and reformed and passed a measure approving a referendum on the status of Crimea seeking greater autonomy from Ukraine. The ports in Sevastopol were blockaded, with Ukrainian Navy and Coast Guard vessels surrounded. Russian fighter jets were put on standby. Later that night, unmarked special operators surrounded Belbek air base, and convoys of Russian transport and attack helicopters moved into Ukrainian airspace over Crimea the next morning. The new Ukrainian government officially summonsed Russia’s diplomatic representation to explain the military movements, but responses were delayed. Major troop landings and movements between Sevastopol and Simferopol continued through February 28, including the seizure of Simferopol Airport), which in turn facilitated the insertion of more Russian forces. . . . 

“On March 1, the Federal Assembly of Russia approved Putin’s request to use force in Ukraine to protect Russian interests, allowing for Russian forces to be utilized until the political situation in Ukraine normalized. That same day, Russian forces erected roadblocks and began digging trenches at the border with mainland Ukraine near Armyansk, secured control of the Kerch ferry port on the Ukrainian side of the Kerch Strait, and in Feodosiya besieged a Ukrainian base and blockaded the port with a Russian warship. On March 2, more Russian forces and vehicles traveled from Sevastopol to Simferopol, and Russian forces posted guards at the gates of a Ukrainian army base in Perevalne. Meanwhile the Federal Assembly began debating a law that would oblige the government to consider the annexation of any adjacent and predominantly Russian region that votes to join the country, and in a phone call with President Obama, Putin denied that Russia had used any force in Ukraine but said that if force were used, it would be a response to provocations by Ukraine. 

“On March 3 the blockade and besieging of Ukrainian army and naval forces on the Crimean Peninsula escalated as Russian forces presented an ultimatum: denounce the new government in Kyiv and swear allegiance to the new Crimean government or be forced to submit. Russia denied the reports, and the Russian envoy to the United Nations (UN) claimed that Yanukovych (at the time still recognized by Russia as president of Ukraine) asked Putin in writing for the use of force in Ukraine. Russian ships and flagged tugboats continued to box in Ukrainian naval forces on the peninsula, and armed Russian troops took up posts outside Ukrainian bases in Sevastopol and Simferopol. The influx of Russian military hardware into the peninsula continued with the arrival of ten combat helicopters and ten strategic lift aircraft. Meanwhile pro-Russian demonstrators in eastern mainland Ukraine began occupying government buildings in protest of the new pro-Western administration in Kyiv, and Putin announced that he had allegedly ordered Russian forces exercising near the Ukrainian border to return to base. 

“As the immobilization of Ukrainian forces continued and mobile phone service in areas of the country was disrupted, Putin denied on March 4 that the forces besieging Ukrainian troops in Crimea were Russian, instead identifying them as local self-defense forces. Russia’s ambassador to the UN displayed a photocopied letter allegedly signed by former president Yanukovych the same day, telling reporters it justified the movement of Russian forces into the peninsula. On March 6, the Supreme Council of Crimea, under new leadership, accelerated the time frame for the referendum on the status of Crimea and changed the question: rather than voting on greater autonomy from Ukraine, residents of Crimea would vote on accession to the Russian Federation, despite members of the body being barred from entering to participate in the vote. Russian lawmakers responded to the vote with promises to receive Crimea if the peninsula voted to leave in the referendum, as Russian military hardware continued to flow into the region and the first public ceremony swore in once-Ukrainian military personnel as members of the “Military Forces of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.” The sealing off of Ukrainian forces also continued, including the mixed use of soldiers and civilians armed with sticks and clubs to set up machine gun posts along a Ukrainian army landing strip in Saki, and the last military airstrip on the peninsula was under Russian control soon after, on March 9. That same day, Russian forces crossed into portions of mainland Ukraine adjacent to Crimea to set up minefields across the narrow corridor connecting the peninsula to the mainland. Ukrainian anti-aircraft forces in Yevpatoria were surrounded and ordered to surrender or face attack, and Russian troops captured a missile depot in Chornomorske. 

“The Supreme Council of Crimea declared the peninsula’s independence from Ukraine on March 11, as the Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to the secession of Kosovo from Serbia as legitimizing precedent for the impending referendum. . . . 

“The day after the referendum, Russia recognized Crimea as a sovereign state, and Crimean officials issued an appeal to be admitted into the Russian Federation with the status of a republic. An initial reunification treaty was signed the next day on March 18. Soldiers and demonstrators then stormed Ukrainian military bases across Crimea, including Ukraine’s naval headquarters in Sevastopol, killing an officer and arresting a Ukrainian admiral. Ukraine authorized soldiers to use their weapons defensively in response but later announced the withdrawal of its troops from the peninsula and the country’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Independent States.” 

When you consult these facts, you understand that Russia’s entire narrative about Ukraine is a pack of lies, distortions, and more lies. Russia initiated the conflict, plain and simple. Russian military forces entered Ukraine; Ukrainian military did not enter Russia. Ukrainian territory was stolen and gained by Russia; Ukraine took no land from its northern neighbor nor attempted to. Ukraine’s government was overthrown; Russia’s was strengthened. Ukraine was put on a defensive footing in its own nation, with hostile foreign mercenaries lurking about and snipers shooting at people; Russia doesn’t have to worry about Ukrainian troops, mercenaries, or snipers snooping around southern Russia. Some 100,000 Russian troops and hardware are amassed on the Ukrainian border; Ukraine has no predatory buildup of troops on Russia’s border. We could go on like this for a while. 

When a crisis happens, it’s good to ask “Cui bono?” or, in other words, “Who benefited?” Not always, but often, you will arrive at the proper conclusion by asking this simple question. And when we apply it to the Ukraine situation, we find only one actor that benefited – Russia. I think any intelligent person must admit that Russia began the conflict in 2013-2014 – not NATO. 

Some compare Putin’s annexation of Ukraine to Hitler’s so-called annexation of Austria or Czechoslovakia or his liberation of Danzig. There are, however, only superficial similarities. In Austria, the local government called for a national vote on joining Germany. In a legitimate vote, 98% of the Austrian people elected to do so. Nothing comparable happened in Crimea. In fact, the vaunted referendum was, as you’ve just seen described above, quite underhanded and contrived. There’s almost no comparison between Hitler’s anti-Marxist Germany and Putin’s KGB-controlled Russia. But I digress. 

What of the Minsk Accords that briefly brought about a cessation of fighting? Russia, ever pretending to be the white knight, claims that it has abided by the ceasefire (even while claiming it has no fighting men there – a clear contradiction) and that Ukraine – backed by NATO – has violated it, thus escalating the situation and portending war. Naturally, this is another Russian lie that their lapdogs in the West lap up. 

Writing for CEPA, Kurt Volker debunked Russia’s bunkum about the Minsk Accords. It’s hard not to quote the entire article, it’s so good. But here are a few paragraphs and snippets covering Voker’s nine points: 

“1. There are two Minsk Agreements, not just one. The first “Minsk Protocol” was signed on September 5, 2014. It mainly consists of a commitment to a ceasefire along the existing line of contact, which Russia never respected. By February 2015, fighting had intensified to a level that led to renewed calls for a ceasefire, and ultimately led to the second Minsk Agreement, signed on February 12, 2015. Even after this agreement, Russian-led forces kept fighting and took the town of Debaltseve six days later. The two agreements are cumulative, building on each other, rather than the second replacing the first. This is important in understanding the importance, reflected in the first agreement, of an immediate ceasefire and full monitoring by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including on the Ukraine-Russia border, as fundamental to the subsequent package of agreements. 

“2. Russia is a Party to the Minsk Agreements. The original Minsk signatories are Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Russia is a protagonist in the war in Ukraine and is fully obliged to follow the deal’s terms. Despite that, however, Russia untruthfully claims not to be a party and only a facilitator — and that the real agreements are between Ukraine and the so-called “separatists,” who call themselves the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics (LPR and DPR), but are in fact Russian supplied and directed. 

“3. The LPR and DPR are not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The signatures of the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics were added after they had already been signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. They were not among the original signatories, and indeed Ukraine would not have signed had their signatures been part of the deal. There is nothing in the content or format of the Agreement that legitimizes these entities and they should not be treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controls the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine. 

“4. Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. . . .  

“5. Russian-led forces prevent the OSCE from accomplishing its mission in Donbas as spelled out in the Minsk Agreements. It is an unstated irony in Vienna — understood by every single diplomatic mission and member of the international staff — that Russia approves the mandate of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine when it votes in Vienna, but then blocks implementation of that same mission on the ground in Ukraine. . . .  

“6. Ukraine has implemented as much of Minsk as can reasonably be done while Russia still occupies its territory . . . The Minsk Agreements do not require Ukraine to grant autonomy to Donbas, or to become a federalized state. It is Russia’s unique interpretation that the measures passed by Ukraine are somehow insufficient, even though the agreements do not specify what details should be included, and Ukraine has already complied with what is actually specified to the degree it can. 

“What is lacking in Ukraine’s passage of these political measures is not the legislation per se, but implementation — which Russia itself prevents by continuing to occupy the territory. For example, international legal norms would never recognize the results of elections held under conditions of occupation, yet that is exactly what Russia seeks by demanding local elections before it relinquishes control. . . . 

“7. Some form of neutral peacekeeping or policing force could help bridge between Russian control and Ukrainian control of the occupied territory – but Russia has rejected such proposals. Because of the impossibility of Ukraine implementing political measures while Russia still occupies its territory, the United States — as well as Ukraine, with support from others —proposed deployment of an UN-mandated peacekeeping force to Donbas, so that Russian forces could withdraw, and an UN-backed force could deploy, without an immediate hand-over to Ukrainian control . . . Russia, however, has consistently rejected such proposals, even labeling an UN-supported peacekeeping force a “military takeover” of the region, when of course it is Russia that has actually taken over the region militarily and unilaterally.  

“8. The US diplomatic role is essential. . . . 

“9. The only way to end the war is to change Russia’s calculations. Whether it is peacekeeping or police forces to provide local security; elections under international supervision; creating humanitarian corridors respected by all sides; unfettered freedom of movement for the OSCE’s SMM; or other ideas still to be explored, there is nothing preventing implementation of the Minsk Agreements other than Russia’s continued occupation. As soon as Russia chooses to end the war, the rest follows in swift order.” 

I implore you, dear reader, to stop believing Russia’s lies! As the aggressor, Russia spins everything to justify its behavior as defensive or noble or humanitarian. In fact, what they’re doing is invading and taking over a sovereign nation – a nation it has oppressed for a century. Ironically, it is Russia that most frequently brings up the Minsk Accords. I say we indulge them and take them to task about their repeated violations of the Accords. 

Furthermore, in December 2015, after the Minsk Accords were signed, Russia conducted cyberattacks against Ukraine, causing mass power outages affecting 230,0000 Ukrainians. It was the first time that cyberattacks had been used to take down a power grid – the very scenario the world Elite are currently warning about/threatening. They say it will be a cyber “pandemic” dwarfing the Coronahoax. 

An article gives us the scoop on the 2015 cyberattacks on Ukraine: 

“The attackers were especially clever and thought of everything, even launching a telephone denial-of-service attack against customer call centers to prevent customers from calling in to report the outage. 

“A cybersecurity expert from Dragos Security quoted in this 2016 Wired article, said the hack “was brilliant” and that “in terms of sophistication…what makes sophistication is logistics and planning and operations and…what’s going on during the length of it. And this was highly sophisticated.” He added: “What sophisticated actors do is they put concerted effort into even unlikely scenarios to make sure they’re covering all aspects of what could go wrong,” he says.  

“Per Kaspersky, BlackEnergy – the Trojan used in the Ukraine attack – began circulating in 2014. It was deployed specifically to conduct DDoS attacks, cyber espionage and information destruction attacks – and especially companies in the energy industry and those that use SCADA systems. 

“The attack on the Ukranian power grid is still considered one of the worst intrusions ever. And the case may not be closed just yet… 

“As stated upfront, almost immediately following the attack the Ukrainian government blamed Russia. Until very recently, no one has been officially accused. 

“On October 15, 2020, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh (PA) returned an indictment charging six hackers, all of whom were residents and nationals of the Russian Federation (Russia) and officers in Unit 74455 of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, also known as “Sandworm”.  

“The very same group may also be responsible for another massive attack, NotPetya, which caused nearly $1 billion in losses. 

“Sandworm may also be responsible for a series of cyber attacks intended to impact the now delayed 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo.” 

Russia, China, Iran, and their allies, run extensive cyberattack and cyberhacking operations against the West and against anyone who gets in their way. You can be sure that Russia and China will strike the United States before or at the outset of any future war, eviscerating our grid. In fact, Army Secretary Christine Warmouth recently warned that any war in Taiwan would lead to cyberattacks here at home that will specifically target critical infrastructure, transportation, and the power grid. 

An EMP strike would do similar damage to a massive cyberattack and would blast us back to the 1800s. The world Elite may also perpetrate a false-flag grid attack or terrorist attack, blaming it on Iran or another actor and justifying a war. Regardless, this incestuous, Satanic global cabal is the one responsible for the fractious fissures in society, is the one playing the nations off each other, and is the impetus behind the misery, wars, depressions, and plagues we’re forced to endure. 

Comparing our own fragile U.S. grid to Ukraine’s, a 2016 Wired article informed us: 

“The power wasn’t out long in Ukraine: just one to six hours for all the areas hit. But more than two months after the attack, the control centers are still not fully operational, according to a recent US report. Ukrainian and US computer security experts involved in the investigation say the attackers overwrote firmware on critical devices at 16 of the substations, leaving them unresponsive to any remote commands from operators. The power is on, but workers still have to control the breakers manually. 

“That’s actually a better outcome than what might occur in the US, experts say, since many power grid control systems here don’t have manual backup functionality, which means that if attackers were to sabotage automated systems here, it could be much harder for workers to restore power.” 

Brace yourself for a coming grid-down event. It’s coming. It’s going to be deliberate. And it’s going to rock society to its foundations. I again digress, but recommend you read two articles I’ve written on survival and preparedness, found here and here

Finally, setting aside Russia’s myriad violations of the Minsk Accords, I want to make one final point regarding Russian aggression. People are making a big hoopla about Republican Senator Roger Wicker’s comment saying a nuclear preemptive strike against Russia is on the table. Specifically, the Mississippi senator said: 

“Military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea, and we rain destruction on Russian military capability. It could mean that. It could mean that we participate, and I would not rule that out, I would not rule out American troops on the ground. We don’t rule out first use nuclear action.” 

While I admit it was a rash comment – and a strategically idiotic thing to say since no intelligent person telegraphs his plans to the enemy – this is the same exact thing Russia does constantly. Where is the ire from the pundits when Russia insanely threatens nuclear war on a routine basis? In every year of my life since I began studying communist Russia, Russia has threatened NATO or the United States with nuclear war. Russian generals, politicians both retired and current, and even KGB dictator Putin himself, have all incessantly threatened us with nuclear war. In 2015, Russia threatened little ol’ Denmark with nuclear war! Russia’s nuclear warnings are so frequent that Pentagon weapons expert Mark Schneider has said: “Threatening people with nuclear weapons is Russia’s national sport.” 

Russia isn’t the only one that dishes out nuclear threats like insults in a rap battle. China does as well. In January of 2021, China threatened Taiwan and the United States with “war” and “annihilation.” In June, Red China again threatened the U.S. Army and U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) with “total annihilation” if they dared defend Taiwan from their planned invasion. In August, China threatened “all-out war” against the United States and to “wipe out” U.S. forces if U.S. troops were confirmed to be stationed on Taiwan, which they now are in limited numbers. In September, the regime threatened Australia with nuclear war for joining the AUKUS alliance. And so on. 

The only reason most people don’t know about these maniacal threats from Russia and China is because the complicit, turncoat media doesn’t report on them. Yet, they exist and are the ultimate provocations from nations pretending to be innocent of aggression. Not two weeks ago, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned that Russia may deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Europe if NATO didn’t end its alleged eastward expansion – i.e. in Ukraine. Russia says it won’t deploy them, however, if NATO stops its so-called “aggression.” This psychotic, criminal behavior is like the mob threatening to burn down your store if you don’t pay them a percentage of your profits. They are the aggressors and no one can deny that. 

As I close this point and wrap up my article, I feel that a bleak warning from a Soviet bio-chemical weapons expert turned is in order. Igor Shaffid converted to Christianity from communism and wrote an intriguing book called Inside the Red Zone. He talked about the demonic nature of communism and how Satan is using Russia and China as weapons in his war against humanity. Heed his warning: 

“Anti-Christian regimes know that faith can protect a free will and a sound mind. That is why Lenin feared religious belief. Religion was not an opposition to his communist ideology; locking up a church door was effective enough, but faith rooted in the heart spread like wildfire, and that worried him. How could he get a society to worship him if they loved God more? This is why he called them “believers” and strove hard to stop those who preached the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Religion is never a threat, but relationship is. Lenin knew that people’s minds founded in faith and dedicated to Christ Jesus would be hard to conquer. . . . “Mind control is a great terror weapon bludgeoning today’s churches . . . Phony religious leaders use similar tactics to control assemblages within churches, as did . . . Stalin. “The worst mistake a Christian can make is in believing that all churches are safe zones. Not so. In Soviet Russia the government used churches to validate their constitution’s “freedom of religion,” using pastors hired by the KGB as a guise to fool the people. True believers were beaten and imprisoned, and few citizens were made aware of this. “The numerous false doctrines spreading across the world, and the extra-biblical, esoteric experiences that are introduced with these “new” revelations are a great preparatory tool for mass mind manipulation. This kind of seduction works well because feelings are involved. Forming an anti-christ government cannot be accomplished without mind control, and the church is the first to be targeted. . . . 

“. . . When the nations fight against the antichrist army, they won’t be reverting to outdated sabers and cannons. Nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare are the advanced weapons of this age, and it would not seem plausible that these weapons would be ignored during the great tribulation time. . . . 

“We should never become complacent. There are enough WMDs developed now to destroy this world, but Satan has not yet succeeded in his mission. There is unfinished business between him and God, and he plans on taking as many onto his side as he can. 

“How can he effectively get humankind to bow before him? Force and bullying hasn’t worked too well in the past, but he knows his most ingenious plan will work, and he has been perfecting it and bringing it to completion for hundreds of years. Deceptive love, false promises of peace, and mind control are his greatest tools in this plan. How does he accomplish this deception? By fooling people, of course, into thinking they can live in a good and peaceful world without wars or famine or terrorism. His devoted followers have pushed his deceptive agenda by participating in elite societies, clubs and orders – all of these different groups united secretly to bring about this socialistic new world order. . . . 

“When Satan’s real mask is removed at the end of time, then he will be exposed for what he is, the father of lies. Many nations will become confused and start fighting against him during the Battle of Armageddon. Satan’s evil that prompted humankind to develop the WMD will come in handy for him to destroy God’s creation. He knows that an ungodly nation that harbors nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, such as Russia, China, and North Korea, are excellent candidates for using this weaponry as a “power” to horsewhip other nations under their submission. I remember all too well in the Soviet army how I reveled in the fact that my country had so much power over all the other nations. Let us not be naïve; those thoughts are still alive in the Russian Federation. That is why the Russian military recently started refreshing its new generation of ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles), which have been lying in stockpiles for years, and have been placing them inside strategic controlled areas. Those that fight to do away with weapons of mass destruction will not succeed, because no one nation will give up its place for power – and the Day of Wrath will come, and nuclear war will be inevitable” (Igor V. Shafhid, Inside the Red Zone: Physical and Spiritual Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction, 83-85, 160-163). 

Yes, nuclear war is inevitable. I doubt it will happen as a result of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, which I believe will happen some time before the final nuclear struggle. I believe that struggle will break out in Asia, either as a result of war in Taiwan or on the Korean Peninsula. At any rate, the world is a powder keg and your insane not to quickly prepare for world war and societal collapse. It’s coming, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. 

In summation, Russia is engaged in an epic propaganda campaign to justify its hostility against Ukraine and NATO. In the first place, we must acknowledge that the “fall” of the Soviet Union was a ruse and that the communist conspiracy still rules in Moscow and throughout the world and that Russia and China will be used to expand this evil empire across the entire globe. Second, we must dismiss the lie that NATO surrounds Russia and is hemming them in, causing them to react to us. It’s the other way around – NATO’s moves are in reaction to Russian aggression and hybrid warfare against the Baltics states and Ukraine. Third, we must never lose sight of the fact that it was Russia which invaded Crimea, occupied it, and annexed it. It was Russian mercenaries who initiated war against Ukraine. And it is Russian forces which are now amassed on Ukraine’s border which have again brought Ukraine to the front of the news cycle. When war comes, it won’t be NATO’s fault – it will be KGB dictator Vladimir Putin’s fault.

Zack Strong,
December 29, 2021

Afghanistan: Cui Bono?

*This article is the featured piece in my August 29, 2021 Red Alert newsletter. If you wish to subscribe, click the link and gain access to weekly analysis on world communism and current events for $35/year. Thank you for your support on Red Alert and here on The American Citadel. Thank you to those who also support me by purchasing my books and t-shirts. God Bless and Long Live Liberty!*

In this brief newsletter, I want to talk about the fall of Afghanistan. I will highlight the predictable Russian and Chinese incursion into that beleaguered nation. And then I’ll discuss the age-old question – Cui bono? Who benefited? 

Let’s begin with some facts. Even before the United States abandoned Afghanistan, the Taliban began conquering town after town after town. In fact, right now it’s the peak Taliban campaign season. Despite the Taliban’s surge, we did nothing. 

As soon as we hastily fled Bagram Airforce base, the emboldened Taliban seized even more territory and rushed to Kabul which they are in the process of capturing. As we were leaving, the Biden regime shipped loads of military equipment to Afghanistan to augment the billions of dollars’ worth of gear already there. This conveniently found its way into the Taliban’s hands. This is being called a “conspiracy theory” and “false” by the all-knowing fact-checkers, yet it’s irrefutably true. 

Time, which is obviously not a right-wing conspiracy rag, published an article on August 17 titled “How $83 Billion Spent on the Afghan Army Ended Up Benefiting the Taliban.” It noted: 

“Built and trained at a two-decade cost of $83 billion, Afghan security forces collapsed so quickly and completely — in some cases without a shot fired — that the ultimate beneficiary of the American investment turned out to be the Taliban. They grabbed not only political power but also U.S.-supplied firepower — guns, ammunition, helicopters and more. 

“The Taliban captured an array of modern military equipment when they overran Afghan forces who failed to defend district centers. Bigger gains followed, including combat aircraft, when the Taliban rolled up provincial capitals and military bases with stunning speed, topped by capturing the biggest prize, Kabul, over the weekend. 

“A U.S. defense official on Monday confirmed the Taliban’s sudden accumulation of U.S.-supplied Afghan equipment is enormous. . . . 

“Of the approximately $145 billion the U.S. government spent trying to rebuild Afghanistan, about $83 billion went to developing and sustaining its army and police forces, according to the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, a congressionally created watchdog that has tracked the war since 2008. The $145 billion is in addition to $837 billion the United States spent fighting the war, which began with an invasion in October 2001. 

“The $83 billion invested in Afghan forces over 20 years is nearly double last year’s budget for the entire U.S. Marine Corps and is slightly more than what Washington budgeted last year for food stamp assistance for about 40 million Americans.” 

Cui bono? Not America. Not the American People. Not the U.S. military. Not our Western allies. Not the people of Afghanistan. Not Central Asia. 

Forbes article goes further in breaking down what it calls the “staggering” numbers of U.S. hardware gifted to the Taliban. A small part of the article records: 

“This month, the Taliban seized Black Hawk helicopters and A-29 Super Tucano attack aircraft. As late as last month, Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense posted photos on social media of seven newly arrived helicopters from the U.S., Reuters reported. 

“Black Hawk helicopters can cost up to $21 million. In 2013, the U.S. placed an order for 20 A-29 Super Tucano attack aircraft for $427 million – that’s $21.3 million for each plane. Other specialized helicopters can cost up to $37 million each. 

“The Afghan air force contracted for C-208 light attack airplanes in March 2018: seven planes for $84.6 million, or $12.1 million each. The airplanes are very sophisticated and carry HELLFIRE missiles, anti-tank missiles and other weaponry. 

“The PC-12 intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance airplanes use the latest in technology. Having these planes fall into Taliban control is disconcerting. Civilian models sell new for approximately $5 million each and the military planes could sell for many times that price. 

“Basic fixed-wing airplanes range in price from $3.1 million to $22 million in the DLA database. 

“Of course, helicopter prices also range widely depending on the technology, purpose, and equipment. For example, according to the DLA, general purpose helicopters range in price from $92,000 to $922,000. Observation helicopters can cost $92,000 and utility helicopters up to $922,000. 

“Even if the Taliban can’t fly our planes, the parts are very valuable. For example, just the control stick for certain military planes has an acquisition value of $17,808 and a fuel tank sells for up to $35,000.” 

Cui bono? Not the United States. Not Freedom. Not our allies. 

Perhaps more to the point, Tyler Durden wrote

“The Taliban’s latest offensives have been nothing short of impressive, acquiring 600,000 weapons, 75,000 vehicles, and 200 aircraft, transforming the terrorist group into a rogue military power overnight. One military device Taliban forces have sized is the U.S. military’s biometrics database that has sounded alarm bells with U.S. officials. 

“Called the Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment (HIIDE), it was seized last week during the Taliban’s offensive, according to The Intercept, who spoke with current and former military officials. The sensitive data, now in Taliban hands, contains a biological database on the Afghan population. Some sensitive data include thousands of Afghan civilians who worked alongside U.S. Army Special Forces as interpreters.” 

Fun, huh? The Taliban now has the most modern of military equipment at its disposal – and in large quantities. But even handier, the Taliban can now use its newly-acquired Black Hawks in conjunction with the biometric database we compiled to hunt down U.S. sympathizers. Need we even ask “cui bono?” What’s more, Biden not only handed the Taliban terrorists “a biological database on the Afghan population,” which includes “thousands of Afghan civilians who worked alongside U.S. Army Special Forces,” but the regime literally handed a kill list to the Taliban

“[D]uring this surreal press conference late on Thursday, Biden did not deny the report of U.S. handing over names of Americans to Taliban, saying ‘There may have been.’ 

““There have been occasions where our military has contacted their military counterparts in the Taliban and said this bus is coming through…made up of the following group…let it through,” the president said. “Yes, there have been occasions like that.” 

“Biden added that to his knowledge, the “bulk of that group” has been let through but can’t say with “certitude” that there was a list of names passed to the Taliban. In short, yes, the Biden admin handed “kill lists” to the Taliban. 

“A day that will live in infamy for the reeling Biden administration just got even worse, after Politico reported that Biden administration officials in Kabul gave the Taliban a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to grant entry into the militant-controlled outer perimeter of the city’s airport, a choice which according to the media outlet which was just purchased by Germany’s Axel Springer, “prompted outrage behind the scenes from lawmakers and military officials.” 

““Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list,” said one defense official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. “It’s just appalling and shocking and makes you feel unclean.”” 

Cui bono? Did America benefit? Are the hundreds of Americans stranded in Afghanistan benefiting? Did our Afghan allies benefit? Has the U.S. Constitution benefited from our military adventurism lo these many years? 

The Taliban, despite promises that they’ll be nice this time around, are already publicly burning and decapitating women to create a chilling effect among resisters. As this happens and the United States abandons its former “allies,” the Taliban proceeds to capture strategic parts of the country. They just seized the militarized portion of the Kabul Airport – using American weapons. They also took control of the largest lithium deposit on planet earth. Potentially $1-3 Trillion in value, the deposit – which includes gold, iron, and other important minerals – sits in the Wakhan Corridor which borders Red China. 

China is now preparing to swoop in to secure the crucial region. They’ll likely do it in the name of fighting terrorism. As you read the following insight from a recent article, ask yourself “cui bono?”: 

“China shares a small border with Afghanistan called the Wakhan Corridor that is just 210km long and between 20 km and 60 km wide. While the length of the border may appear insignificant, its location is what makes Wakhan crucial in geopolitics. 

“The Wakhan Corridor links China’s restive Xinjiang province with Afghanistan’s Badakshan province, with Tajikistan to the north and Pakistan’s Khyber Pakthunkhwa and Kashmir to the south. The mountainous terrain in the region had made the Wakhan Corridor a difficult place for building road networks. 

“However, its location is crucial for the security and viability of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a key part of China’s larger Belt Road Initiative (BRI). An article by Australia’s Lowy Institute explained the significance of Wakhan as “The port of Gwadar in Pakistan marks the beginning of this corridor (CPEC), and the tip of the Wakhan marks entry point for CPEC into China.” 

“The Wakhan Corridor has been a route used by Uighur militants who are opposed to Chinese rule in Xinjiang. China has previously expressed fears the Taliban-controlled territory could be used by Uighur groups such as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). In fact during his meeting with Baradar, Wang had said, “We hope the Afghan Taliban will make a clean break with all terrorist organisations including ETIM (East Turkestan Islamic Movement) and resolutely and effectively combat them to remove obstacles, play a positive role and create enabling conditions for security, stability, development and cooperation in the region.” 

“Securing the Wakhan Corridor would help China control the activity of Uighur militants, while also ensuring the security of CPEC. Multiple projects linked to CPEC have been attacked in Pakistan in recent years. The CPEC, which is a network of road and rail links, is being built at an estimated cost of $62 billion. CPEC is intended to give China land access to the Arabian Sea, boosting trade prospects to the Middle East, Africa and Europe by cutting travel time. . . . 

“Afghanistan is believed to have large deposits of gold, iron, copper, zinc, lithium and other rare earth metals, valued at over $1 trillion. “Afghanistan may hold 60 million metric tons of copper, 2.2 billion tons of iron ore, 1.4 million tons of rare earth elements (REEs) such as lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, and veins of aluminium, gold, silver, zinc, mercury…” an analysis in The Diplomat in 2020 said. 

“Various rare earth elements are used for making key components of phones, cameras, computer disks, TVs and other equipment. They also have applications in clean energy and defence industries. . . . 

“China potentially getting control of untapped deposits of lithium and rare earths in Afghanistan would prove a major advantage for Beijing in its evolving competition with the US and Europe for resources. In 2019, the US imported 80 per cent of its rare earth minerals from China, while the EU states got 98 per cent of these materials from China.” 

So, cui bono? Did we benefit? Or did our enemies? You can answer for yourself. 

On a similar note, one of the enduring myths that burns me up is that the United States invaded Iraq “for the oil.” Bunkum. China actually received most of oil that left Iraq, not the United States. In fact, Iraq’s first oil contract after the ousting of Saddam was with China. It’s the same with Afghanistan. We didn’t go in for material gain, oil, or rare earth minerals. China appears like it will be the recipient yet again. So, I ask, cui bono? 

Let’s now shift to Russia. Are you sick of me talking about Russia? Well, buckle up. Last week, in Red Alert No. 29, I shared Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov’s statement on the Taliban. He said: “They are sane people.” To an insane person, perhaps! And there are few as insane as Russia’s leadership. This statement alone should make you wonder about Russia’s true intentions. 

On July 18, in Red Alert issue No. 26, I dove more into the problem of Russian intervention in Afghanistan: 

“Last week, I reported on the fact that Russia has been intruding in Afghanistan in a major way. I noted that they’re trying to fill the power vacuum left by the United States – as they’ve done in Syria and elsewhere. Now, this week, Russia held military drills in neighboring Tajikistan ostensibly aimed at potential operations against the Taliban. This is a farce. It’s a cruel joke on humanity. Russia is arming both sides – Kabul’s security forces as well as the Taliban. They’ve been openly hosting talks with Taliban leaders in Moscow for several years. Now, suddenly, they’re so concerned about the Taliban and are seemingly gearing up their military for an entrance into Afghanistan? . . . . 

“To add to the farce that Russian is legitimately “concerned” about Afghanistan – a nation they invaded and ravished not too many years ago – is the fact that Russia has now demanded that the Kabul government cooperate and deal with the Taliban! You can’t make this up. While being so supposedly concerned about the Taliban that it has to hold military drills on Afghanistan’s border, Moscow is simultaneously shilling for the Taliban and urging others to acquiesce and treat them as legitimate partners instead of the terrorists they are. . . . 

“Lenin famously said that the best way to handle opposition was to control it. This is just another example of this tactic in action. They cause chaos, play both sides, provoke one side to fight against the other, blame others (particularly the United States) for the problems, and then jump in to mediate and “save the day.” As repulsive as it is, Putin plays the game well and has set Russia up as the dominate power in Central Asia. 

“Don’t be surprised if you see Russia launch military actions in Afghanistan like they did in Syria. Of course, these actions will be taken in the name of “fighting terrorism” or of “liberating” the poor people of the area. In the communist mind, they never launch a war of aggression. All wars are defensive. All wars are wars of “liberation.” And, as a final psy-op, they’ll convince everyone that it’s all America’s fault and we’ll receive the black eye while they take the glory. This is how communists operate.” 

One week before I wrote that piece of prophetic penmanship, I observed in Red Alert No. 25: 

“The New World Order uses the United States like a battering ram. The U.S. military is used to bust up a place and, then, when our boys withdraw and create a vacuum, overtly hostile entities or nations are brought in to reshape it in the Marxist image. Such a power vacuum has been left in Afghanistan and the 21st-Century communist bloc has decided to step in and fill the void. 

“The five nations in particular that will hold sway in Afghanistan, alongside their Taliban puppets, are Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan. Turkey – a formal ally of Russia and Iran – has said it will keep its troops in Afghanistan even after NATO withdraws. China is openly talking about developing and using Afghanistan for economic purposes. And Russia, as always, seems to be in the background pulling strings. Meetings and conferences between Taliban leaders and Russian authorities have become increasingly frequent over the past several years with Moscow usually hosting or initiating them. 

“Russia has been the string-puller throughout the Middle East for a very long time. The War on Terror – which was emphatically supported and urged on by Vladimir Putin, the first head of state to call George W. and pledge support – has been a massive windfall for Russia. Russia has benefited, picking up the pieces of the nations smashed by the U.S. military, while America has achieved nothing whatsoever except a bad rep, a Mt. Everest of war debt, and internal division. . . . 

“There’s nothing “natural” about Russia’s intervention in the Middle East and Central Asia. Russia is very successfully following the same “roadmap” drawn up by the Soviet Union. As the United States withdraws, Russia is rushing in to fill the power vacuum while posing as the white knight of salvation. With it, Russia is bringing China, Iran, and Turkey. Hostile forces such as Assad in Syria, the PLO in Palestine, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, are being propped up and bolstered by Putin. Judging by the company it keeps and the strategic moves it’s making, it’s almost as if Russia is deliberately trying to fulfill Biblical end times prophecy.” 

I don’t mean to occupy your time reading what you may have already read before, but I do so because what I predicted is already being fulfilled – and faster than I expected. Russia is unquestionably moving into Afghanistan. Russian military aircraft have been at the Kabul airport evacuating people. Putin vetoed Biden’s request to place U.S. forces in Central Asian nations. That’s an intriguing tidbit since it was Putin who practically begged Skull and Bonesman George W. Bush to use those same nations to launch a war in Afghanistan. It seems that now the United States has wasted billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives, and made fools of themselves in the eyes of the world, it’s “mission accomplished” and they can now leave and make room for Russia to exert its power. 

Along with telling the United States to leave the region, Russia is not only mobilizing its military forces there, but pushing for stronger ties among Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) states. These states are Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Armenia. Afghanistan and Serbia are Observer States. Even though it recently held military drills in nearby Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, just 12 miles from the Afghan border in fact, Russia plans to hold additional war drills in Kyrgyzstan soon. And all of it is being done in the context of the “threat of terrorism” that Russia itself is supporting. 

I now quote from the Institute on the Study of War. They wrote of Russia’s angle on Afghanistan:  

“Kremlin messaging on Afghanistan since August 15 has praised the Taliban’s claimed “peaceful” takeover of Kabul, while Russian forces in Central Asia have responded with military exercises. Zamir Kabulov, the Kremlin’s special representative on Afghanistan, stated on August 16 that the Kremlin “prepared the ground ahead of time” to work with “the new government of Afghanistan” and claimed the Taliban seized Kabul “peacefully.” The Kremlin is officially predicating official recognition of the Taliban on the Taliban’s ability to prevent jihadist attacks in Central Asia and meet unstated good governance requirements. The Kremlin has previously called on the Taliban to “prevent the spread of tensions” beyond Afghanistan’s borders during meetings in Moscow in early July. Kabulov stated that Russia does not see “a single direct threat to our allies in Central Asia” from the Taliban itself, but noted that regime change can create “a niche for other international terrorist organizations” on August 16. Russian and partner forces are additionally increasing the frequency of joint military exercises and are preparing for a Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) exercise in the coming months. Approximately 1,000 troops at Russia’s 201st Military Base in Tajikistan began snap exercises on August 17 that are ongoing as of publication.[4] The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) announced on August 16 that it will hold an exercise designated “Cobalt-2021” in Tajikistan “in the coming months” but did not specify a date or participants.  

“The Kremlin will likely officially recognize the Taliban and will expand Russian basing and military operations in Central Asia to combat potential jihadist forces. The Taliban is unlikely to completely control Afghanistan’s borders to meet Russia’s demand, and jihadist groups and criminal networks are highly likely to proliferate in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and other Central Asian states. The Kremlin will likely accept a level of insecurity in the region above what the United States and its allies would accept and recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Kremlin may additionally seek to secure economic concessions such as access to mineral resources from the Taliban in exchange for recognition. The Kremlin will additionally prioritize preventing potentially destabilizing refugee flows from Afghanistan. The Russian military has prepared for several years for the potential of a renewed jihadist threat to Central Asia following a US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Russian military deployments in Central Asia are in large part responses to this legitimate threat. However, additional Russian basing and further military cooperation with Central Asian states will support the Kremlin’s campaign to integrate the militaries of the former Soviet Union under Russian structures and improve Russian force projection capabilities in the region.” 

In other words, despite the fact that the Taliban is outlawed in Russia, Russia has been working with the Taliban. Yet, it knows that the Taliban won’t be able to sufficiently keep control of Afghanistan and welcomes the “threat” because it provides a pretext for boosting its presence and military involvement in the area. 

Russia is currently refusing Afghan refugees because, as KGB dictator Vladimir Putin said, Russia doesn’t “want militants appearing again under the guise of refugees.” He then noted: “We don’t want to repeat, even in part, something what we had in the 90s and in the mid-2000s, when there were hostilities in the North Caucasus.” If you recall from history, “Islamic militants” committed a host of terrorist attacks in Russia during the 90s and early 2000s. Or did they? 

Putin is keen on concealing the fact that his own intelligence services orchestrated a host of false-flag bombings in Russia that killed hundreds of Russians and then blamed it on Islamic and Chechen “terrorists.” Mike Eckel, writing for Radio Free Europe Radio Libertyexplained how these bombings – much like our own 9/11 false flag – gave Russia a pretext to launch their own “War on Terror” that continues to this day: 

“The predawn blast on September 9, 1999, reduced the building to a smoking pile of rubble, killing more than 100. A second building, less than 6 kilometers away, was rocked by an explosion on September 13, killing 119. 

“Days earlier, a car bomb exploded in a small town bordering the war-ravaged region of Chechnya, where reignited fighting was already spilling into neighboring regions. That blast, outside the apartment building in the town of Buynaksk, killed dozens. 

“It was followed seven days later by a truck bomb that destroyed a nine-story building in another southern city, Volgodonsk, killing 17. 

“On September 23, Putin asserted terrorists in Chechnya were to blame and ordered a massive air campaign within the North Caucasus region. When asked a day later about the campaign targeting what he called terrorists, Putin responded with the phrase that inaugurated his rise to preeminence. 

““We will pursue them everywhere,” he said, using a crude slang expression. “Excuse me for saying so: We’ll catch them in the toilet. We’ll wipe them out in the outhouse.” 

“The statement became a Putin catchphrase, and set the tone for the 20 years of rule that followed.” 

September seems to be the month of false-flag attacks by “Islamic terrorists.” You’ll notice the sarcastic quotation marks around the words “Islamic terrorists.” Do we all have collective amnesia? Have we all forgotten what was common knowledge during the Cold War; namely, that the international communist cabal was behind most terrorism in the world? This was and is established fact. Soviet Russia even trained some of the leaders that are today leading terror groups and terrorist states, from Mahmoud Abbas of the KGB-created Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to Ayatollah Khomeini, the supreme Maitreya-worshipping fanatic in charge of Iran. In fact, when you examine the worldwide terror network, you find that all roads lead to Moscow (to be honest, some lead to Tel Aviv, Washington, Tehran, and Beijing, too). 

The Soviet Union mastered false-flag attacks. In fact, Russia has been faking things dating back to at least the Potemkin villages under Tsaritsina Catherine II. The liars that they are, the communists knew how to manufacture crises to justify violence, revolution, or military action. In fact, Soviet intelligence had an entire unit devoted to producing forgeries that they distributed throughout the world to poison public opinion against the United States and her allies and to sow division and mistrust everywhere. 

Putin, a career KGB agent, is well-versed in the art of deception. As the newly-appointed head of Russia in September 1999, Putin was in the perfect position to benefit from a “terrorist” attack in Russia. But before I briefly talk about the 1999 bombings, let’s talk about the 1994 bombings. You probably aren’t aware of those false-flags in Russia, but they were used to justify a renewed cycle of military oppression against the Chechens the same as in 1999. 

In his landmark book Blowing Up Russia, which was the “crime” that got him censored in Russia and most likely led to his gruesome assassination via poison, former Russian intelligence operative Alexander Litvinenko wrote: 

“Knowing that Russian troops and the forces of the anti-Dudaev opposition might begin their storm of Grozny at any moment, on November 18, 1994, the FSK made its first recorded attempt to stir up anti-Chechen feeling by committing an act of terrorism and laying the blame on Chechen separatists: if the chauvinist sentiments of Muscovites could be inflamed, it would be easy to continue the repression of the independence movement in Chechnya. 

“It should be noted that on November 1 8 and in later instances, the supposed “Chechen terrorists” set off their explosions at the most inopportune times, and then never actually claimed responsibility (rendering the terrorist attack itself meaningless). In any case, in November 1994, public opinion in Russia and around the world was on the side of the Chechen people, so why would the Chechens have committed an act of terrorism in Moscow? It would have made far more sense to attempt to sabotage the stationing of Russian troops on Chechen territory. Russian supporters of war with Chechnya were, however, only too willing to see the hand of Chechnya in any terrorist attack, and their response on every occasion was to strike a rapid and quite disproportionately massive blow against Chechen sovereignty. The impression was naturally created that the Russian military and law enforcement agencies, while quite unprepared for the terrorist attacks, were incredibly well prepared to launch counter-measures. 

“The explosion of November 18, 1994, took place on a railroad track crossing the river Yauza in Moscow. According to experts, it was caused by two powerful charges of approximately 1 .5 kilograms of TNT. About twenty meters of the railroad bed were ripped up, and the bridge almost collapsed. It was quite clear, however, that the explosion had occurred prematurely, before the next train was due to cross the bridge. The shattered fragments of the bomber’s body were discovered about one hundred meters from the site of the explosion. He was Captain Andrei Schelenkov, an employee of the oil company Lanako. His own bomb had blown him up as he was planting it on the bridge. 

“It was only thanks to this blunder by the operative carrying out the bombing that the immediate organizers of the terrorist attack became known. Lanako’s boss, who had given his firm a name beginning with the first two letters of his own last name, was thirty-five-year-old Maxim Lazovsky, a highly valued agent of the Moscow and Moscow Region Department of the FSB, who was known in criminal circles by the nicknames of “Max” and “Cripple.” At the risk of anticipating events, we can also point out the significant fact that every single one of Lanako’s employees was a full-time or free-lance agent of the Russian counterespionage agencies. 

“On the day of the explosion on the river Yauza, November 18, 1994, an anonymous phone call to the police claimed that a truck full of explosives was standing outside the Lanako offices. As a result, the FSB department actually discovered a truck close to the firm’s offices containing three MON-50 mines, fifty charges for grenade launchers, fourteen RGD-5 grenades, ten F-I grenades, and four packs of plastic explosives, with a total weight of six kilograms. The FSB claimed, however, that it had been unable to determine who owned the truck, even though a Lanako identity card was found on Schelenkov’s remains, and the explosives used in the Yauza bombing were of the same kind as that on the truck” (Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, 4-6). 

Imagine that, Muslims being blamed for “terror attacks” which justify war. It’s almost as if the world Elites use the same script to push their agenda. . . . 

In 1999, a similar pattern to the 1994 false-flag attacks was used. In my article “How Russia Benefited from 9/11,” I summarized the situation thus: 

“At the beginning of September, 1999, a series of apartment bombs rocked Russia, killing several hundred. These were naturally blamed on Islamic Chechen terrorists. Alexander Litvinenko, and other researchers, however, have pinned the blame directly on the Moscow FSB which had so recently been headed by Vladimir Putin. In Ryazan, on September 22, light was shed on who was perpetrating the bombings. 

“On that day, a man spotted suspicious individuals carrying what appeared to be sacks of sugar or flour into the basement of a building. He called the police who arrived and found these sacks rigged with timed explosives and set near the main support columns of the building. The sacks contained hexogen, a military-grade explosive substance. Had the men not been spotted and the police not called, the bomb would have later gone off and demolished the old building. Like the other bombings, this would have been blamed on “Islamic terrorists” as part of the pretext for launching the Second Chechen War. 

 “In the immediate aftermath of the foiled bombing, Putin congratulated the public for its vigilance and the FSB feigned no knowledge of the event. Yet, two days later, after several “terrorists” had been apprehended in Ryazan by the local authorities, the Moscow FSB claimed the entire thing has been a training exercise and ordered the suspects released. Litvinenko raised obvious questions about this odd version of events. He wrote: 

““Could we possibly expect the FSB to say nothing all day long on September 23, while the whole world was buzzing with news of a failed terrorist attack? It’s impossible to imagine. Is it possible to imagine that the Prime Minister of Russia [Putin] and former director of the FSB, who, moreover, has personal links with Patrushev [then head of the FSB], was not informed about the “exercises?” . . . The fact that at seven o’clock in the evening, on September 23, 1999, Putin did not make any statement about training exercises taking place in Ryazan was the weightiest possible argument in favor of interpreting events as a failed attempt by the FSB to blow up an apartment building in Ryazan” (Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, 63).” 

I’m sure it was just an “exercise,” much the same way NORAD was holding “exercises” simulating an attack on the nation on 9/11 and just as London was undergoing bombing “exercises” when the London subway was bombed on 7/7. You have to be a firm believer in coincidence and cosmic irony to believe these flimsy narratives. 

I quote again from Mike Eckel’s previously-cited article: 

“On September 4, with fighting escalating in Daghestan and along the border with Chechnya, the first of four explosions targeting apartment buildings went off: a car bomb outside a five-story building housing relatives of Russian military personnel in Buynaksk, Daghestan. Sixty-two people died. . . . 

“Five days later, just after midnight, an explosion rocked a nine-story building located along a leafy bend in the Moscow River just a 30-minute drive from the Kremlin. More than 100 apartments were destroyed. In all, 106 people were killed. 

“Russians were stunned. Yeltsin ordered a search of thousands of apartments buildings in the city for other possible explosive devices. 

“Putin declared September 13 a day of national mourning. At around 5 a.m. that same day, another explosion went off in the basement of a brick, eight-story apartment building on Moscow’s Kashirskoye Highway, about 6 kilometers south of the previous blast. A total of 119 people were killed. 

“Three days later, a fourth apartment building was flattened when a truck bomb exploded before dawn in the southern city of Volodonsk. Seventeen people died. 

“Together, the bombings panicked the country, and added to further doubts about Yeltsin’s leadership. A growing number of Russian security officials publicly accused Chechen terrorists. 

“On September 23, during a trip to the Kazakh capital of Astana, Putin vowed to take an unflinching line against what he called “bandits” — even when they were in the toilet. 

“The day before Putin’s “outhouse” comment, on September 22, another incident occurred at an apartment building in the western city of Ryazan.  

“Putin that evening praised the work of investigators for thwarting what appeared to be another bombing attempt. 

“Two men driving a car with Moscow license plates were spotted carrying sacks into the basement of the building. Police and bomb-disposal experts swarmed the area, discovering they contained a military-grade explosive, and had a detonator and a timer set for 5:30 a.m. 

“The next day, three FSB officers were arrested by police in Ryazan and held on suspicion of planting the sacks. But Putin’s successor at the FSB, Nikolai Patrushev, declared that the Ryazan incident had, in fact, been a training exercise, and he apologized for scaring an already edgy populace. 

““It was not an explosion somebody foiled; it was a security training exercise. The sacks contained only sugar. There were no explosives inside,” Patrushev said. 

“A week later, Putin announced plans for a land invasion of Chechnya using Russian Army units.” 

As you can guess, it wasn’t really “sugar” in the bags. Patrushev and Putin were lying. Communists can’t help but lie; it’s what they do. Litvinenko shined light on the “sugar” narrative in his book: 

“The information about the explosives discovered after the terrorist attacks and the quantity discovered was not consistent. In Moscow, they found thirteen tons of explosives. There were three or four tons in the house on Borisovskie Prudy Street, even more at a cache in the district of Liublino, and four tons in a car shelter in Kapotnya. Some time later, it was discovered that six tons of heptyl (a rocket fuel of which hexogen is one of the components) had been taken from the Nevinnomyssk Chemical Combine in the Stavropol Region. Six tons of heptyl could have been used to produce ten tons of explosives. But there’s no way to process six tons of heptyl into ten tons of explosives in a kitchen, a garage or an underground laboratory. The heptyl was evidently processed at an army depot. Then the sacks had to be loaded into a vehicle and driven out under the eyes of the guards, with some kind of documents being presented. So transporting the material required drivers and trucks. Overall, an entire group of people must have been involved in the operation, and if that’s the case, information must have been received through the FSB’s secret agents and the agents of military counterintelligence. 

“The explosives were packed in sugar sacks bearing the words “Cherkessk Sugar Plant,” but no such plant exists. If “sugar” had been carried throughout the whole of Russia in sacks like that, especially with counterfeit documentation, the chances of discovery would have been too great. It would have been simpler to draw up documentation for the “sugar” from a plant that actually exists. Several conclusions can immediately be drawn from this fact, for instance, that the terrorists wanted to point the investigation in the direction of the Republic of Karachaevo-Cherkessia, since it was obvious that sooner or later, at least one sack from the “Cherkessk Sugar Plant” would fall into the hands of the investigators; also that the terrorists were not afraid of transporting sacks with a false name and documents into Moscow, since they were clearly quite certain, both they themselves and their goods were safe. Finally, it is reasonable to assume that the explosives were packed in the sacks in Moscow. 

“It would have been hard to finance the terrorist attacks without leaving any tracks. The intelligence services must have heard something, at least about a large sale of heptyl or hexogen from the depots, since no one would have given terrorists explosives for free. Only the agencies of state security or military officers could have gotten hexogen from a factory or a store without paying for it. 

“Such were precisely the conclusions reached by many reporters and specialists, trying to figure out the clever plan by which the hexogen could have been delivered to Moscow. The plan turned out to be exceedingly simple, since it had been worked out by the FSB itself.” 

He went on to explain that the Roskonversvzryvtsenr research institute opened up in Moscow 1991 to ostensibly use explosives in agricultural pursuits. In reality, it was a “front” used to sell explosives, including hexogen. Litvinenko summed up how the hexogen “sugar” got to its intended residential target: 

“Through the institute hexogen was purchased from the army and delivered to the terrorists for the bombing of buildings in Moscow and other Russian cities. These deliveries were possible only because Schukin’s scientific research institute “Roskonversvzryvtsenr” had been created by the secret services, and the terrorists who received the “TNT charges” were agents of the FSB” (Litvinenko, Blowing Up Russia, 125-126). 

It’s easy for “terrorists” to “beat the system” when those terrorists work for the system and do its bidding! These and other damning facts point to deliberate conspiracy – false-flag attacks carried out against the Russian people by the KGB-in-disguise headed by Vladimir Putin in order to help Putin consolidate power and put Russia on a permanent war footing. 

It’s my personal view that September 1994, September 1999, and September 2001 are linked. I’ve come to believe that the international cabal that runs world events carried out the 9/11 attacks, not merely dark forces within the U.S. intelligence community. Certainly, the so-called “Deep State” was involved. That’s beyond dispute. They were the ones who issued stand-down orders to our military and allowed the attacks to continue. They were the ones who cordoned off the WTC crater and hauled away, contrary to law, tons of evidence. They were the ones who “pulled” WTC 7. They were the ones, with their controlled media, who painted anyone asking questions as “unpatriotic” or “conspiracy wackos.” They were the ones who stripped Americans of many of their Liberties with the pre-written Patriot Act, introduced the TSA and Department of Homeland Security, and sent our boys to an Afghanistan war that was approved, “coincidentally,” one day before the 9/11 attacks. 

Yet, there were also dancing Israelis (i.e. Mossad agents) and other Israeli organizations who were clearly in on the plan. There’s no question that Mossad had foreknowledge. But who does Mossad serve? They don’t serve Israel, but the international conspiracy. They do their dirty work – assassinations, blackmail, terrorist attacks – everywhere. The Mossad, and Israel in general, has also been heavily infiltrated by Russian/communist operatives. This is one of the reasons I believe that there were Russian elements involved. They were perhaps the very “Mossad” agents just mentioned who were arrested on 9/11 or among the sixty “Israelis” rounded up as part of a massive spy ring operating in the United States at the time. If these Israelis weren’t involved in blowing up the actual WTC, they absolutely did know of the plot ahead of time through their espionage efforts and did nothing. 

All of this is just too convenient and too according to script. It’s a script used in Russia time and time again, including numerous times in the decade leading up to 9/11. It’s a script for chaos drawn up by Soviet special forces. Mossad has also used it. The CIA has used it, too. Truthfully, the CIA has been infiltrated from OSS times with communist agents, has been headed by communist sympathizers who have acknowledged they voted for Communist Party USA political candidates, and has ultimately served the purposes of the world conspiracy around the world – assassinations, drug-running, human trafficking, regime change, etc. The Mossad has done all of these things as well. 

Using our hindsight of twenty years, which of these groups has truly benefited from 9/11, the War on Terror, and, now, the United States’ slapdash Afghanistan withdrawal? In my view, Russia and Israel have both benefited from the past twenty years, but Russia has benefited more – especially as concerns Afghanistan. Yes, Zionists in the United States dreamed of a terror attack – a new Pearl Harbor – that would bring America into a war that would serve Israel’s interests – specifically the Oded Yinon Plan, or Greater Israel project. We can’t deny that. 

But America’s bull-in-a-China-shop approach serves equally Russia’s-China’s interests. It’s poisoned world opinion against the United States while Russia, swooping in to “save the day,” is now viewed by many as white knights. Israel’s already negative image has also been reduced greatly – again, while Russia’s has been boosted. Syria, instead of falling into Israeli or U.S. hands, is now more entrenched than ever in Russia’s camp and Russia has constructed permanent military bases mere miles from Israel. Russia has also concluded strategic pacts with Turkey and Iran. 

A quick aside about ISIS. While some ISIS factions are definitely Western-backed as Brandon Martinez shows in The ISIS Conspiracy, most ISIS fighters speak Russian, come from Russia-dominated Central Asia, and were heavily influenced by Soviet-trained leaders like the Iraqi Republican Guard. Setting that information aside, ISIS has conveniently handed Russia the excuse it needed to move into the Middle East in a major way and, now, is handing it the excuse it needs to move into Afghanistan. I like Cliff Kincaid’s analysis of the origin of ISIS: 

“Writer and researcher Christian Gomez traced the roots of ISIS to the Islamic Revival Party, created by the KGB during the final days of the old Soviet Union. 

“More recently, a defector from the KGB’s successor, the FSB, confirmed Russia’s role in creating ISIS by recruiting former members of Saddam Hussein’s security services. The former FSB officer told Ukrainian journalist Andriy Tsaplienko that “the Russian special services believed that if a terrorist organization was set up as an alternative to Al-Qaeda and it created problems for the United States as Donbas does for Ukraine now, it would be quite good.”. . . . 

“The FSB defector said that in order to create ISIS, the Russians selected former officers of the Iraqi army and members of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. All of them had graduated from Moscow-based “educational institutions”. . . . 

“. . . ISIS is a Marxist-style organization that uses religious cover” (Cliff Kincaid, Red Jihad: Moscow’s Final Solution for America and Israel, 28-29). 

Go ahead and let that sink in. I’ll wait. . . . 

Furthermore, Putin was the first world leader to call Bush and encourage him in his “War on Terror.” That’s significant. Why was he so eager to get America into a war in his backyard? It was from Russian-allied Central Eurasian states that the U.S. launched the Afghanistan invasion. And now it’s Russia which is benefiting, yet again, from America’s strategic defeat in that God-forsaken land of desolation. In fact, Afghanistan’s intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS) is now staffed with KGB holdovers. A 2020 article reports: 

“The Afghan intelligence community has undergone several phases of political transition as KhAD and NDS both fought complex wars with regional and international dimensions with two cultures of intelligence and gained significant experience. With the beginning of the global war on terrorism led by the US and its NATO allies in Afghanistan, the NDS was still learning operational tactics and intelligence collection mechanisms. A decade later, it had gained solid experience in intelligence collection, process, and countering terrorism on Afghan soil. However, it is inarguable that the intelligence agencies in Afghanistan consistently failed to obtain and gather information of significant worth that could otherwise prove to be in the best interest of its national security. The NDS’s lack of effectiveness and its poor information gathering is due to undertrained intelligence personnel with limited access to advanced technology, which led to incorrect and ill-informed conclusions by policy makers and military commanders. The NDS still lacks experienced officers, and the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is unable to train sufficient personnel to correct this deficiency. This lack of untrained and inexperienced officers forced NDS to rely on old KGB-trained personnel.” 

This brings us back to this week. On August 26, twin suicide bombings struck the Kabul airport. 13 U.S. soldiers and dozens of others were killed. The death toll is now approaching 200. This is the greatest single-day death tally of U.S. soldiers in a decade and one of the worst terrorist attacks in years. The Taliban also said that 28 of their own people were killed in the explosions. They blamed the United States, saying it was a controlled demolition of U.S. “belongings.” There was in fact a controlled demolition of a CIA outpost at the airport, Eagle Base, two days ago. The Islamic State, the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP) specifically, has apparently claimed responsibility for the attacks. Interestingly, the Taliban has actually fought the Afghanistan-Pakistan-based ISKP since its inception. 

Perhaps you can see why I spent so much time today talking about Russian false flags. My first thought about the Kabul bombings was how, as in 1994 and 1999, this gives Russia the excuse to charge in as the savior as the Americans flee in defeat. I immediately thought of Russia’s recent military exercises along the Afghanistan border. I also considered Russia’s courting of the Taliban in recent years, their heavy influence in the nation, and their proclivity to respond to anything terror-related in heavy-handed ways that ultimately benefit themselves. 

We might ask, what do these Kabul bombings benefit the United States? Some of the darker forces in the CIA and other organizations revel in these types of events and would perhaps benefit from seeing U.S. forces go back into Afghanistan, though that seems unlikely to happen at this point barring some additional event of mammoth proportions. If U.S.-backed forces did carry out the attack, they didn’t do it to benefit the United States, but, rather, to benefit international forces. 

To be clear, Russia’s TASS has been playing up the angle of U.S.-backed ISIS fighters in Afghanistan. On July 20, TASS released an article titled “Russia has evidence of foreign contingent’s cooperation with IS in Afghanistan — diplomat.” It noted: 

“Russia has received information about cooperation between the US-led foreign contingent and the Islamic State (IS) terror group (outlawed in Russia) in Afghanistan, Russian Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan and Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Second Asian Department Zamir Kabulov said. . . . 

““I am sure that there was such interaction, we started talking about it for good reason. We began to receive very specific information about such facts of cooperation,” he said. “We received it from local Afghans, including leaders at the local level, who did not understand why helicopters were supplying weapons and ammunition to the areas captured by IS units.” 

“According to Kabulov, this is not the only occurrence. He recalled a case when the Taliban group (outlawed in Russia) had blocked a large IS unit in northern Afghanistan. “Those IS fighters were transported by helicopters in an unknown direction, as it looked initially, but then to the area of Bagram Airbase, and then they disappeared somewhere. One can recall a lot of such incidents, and when you do that, the conclusion is unambiguous,” the diplomat added.” 

There’s no doubt that the West backs some ISIS units, just as there’s no doubt that others have Russian backing. But I would ask, cui bono? Does the United States benefit from supporting the Islamic State in Afghanistan? Traitors in our military and intelligence services absolutely do use U.S. resources for nefarious purposes. This may be another such instance. But who benefits? Not the United States. Russia benefits. Pakistan benefits. Local radicals benefit. 

The fact that some of the IS terrorists are backed by U.S. assets is subservient to the fact that these assets are not actually working for the United States, but instead are working as part of a worldwide network of deceit, terror, and death that involves not only the United States, but Israel, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, China, etc. This is the I’ve written about for years. And though it doesn’t work for the exclusive benefit of the United States or any one nation, its efforts are calculated to undermine the U.S. position while bolstering the communist world. 

An Indian news piece gave some enlightening details about ISKP that are relevant: 

“ISKP cadres have been carrying out attacks in Kabul with the Haqqani Network. Both outfits are closely linked with Pakistan’s notorious agency ISI. According to experts the ISI has been using the ISKP and the Haqqani network to keep a close watch on the activities of the Taliban leadership. 

“Aslam Farooqui was arrested by the Afghan security forces in April last year but when the Taliban took over Kabul on August 15, they released all the militants from Bagram prison including him. 

“While in the custody of Afghan security forces, Aslam Farooqi had confessed his ties with the ISI and that is why Pakistan was desperate for his extradition which was refused by the then Afghan government. 

“Now it is believed, the mastermind of the Kabul airport attack was Aslam Farooqi, the chief of ISKP. The Taliban claims that ISKP is its sworn enemy but interestingly the Taliban freed him from the Bagram prison.” 

The Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, is Pakistan’s intelligence network. According to this article, ISKP is working with Pakistan’s ISI. And the Taliban is assisting its operatives while also fighting them. The CIA has worked closely with the ISI in the past. So has China. So has Russia. Do you see the international nature of this terror network? 

Since its creation, Pakistan has been a target of Soviet infiltration with communists from India setting up shop there in 1948. Soviet Russia backed India in the 1971 India-Pakistan war and has accused Pakistan of fomenting Islamic terror in Chechnya! The irony is that the Soviet Union was actively committing terrorist acts in Pakistan, as reported in an old Washington Post piece: 

“Last July 14, a remote-control device triggered three car-bomb explosions in Karachi, killing 72 Pakistanis and injuring 260. Then, on September 19, a bomb exploded at a bus stop in Rawalpindi, killing five and injuring 19. 

“These brutal bombings provide just two examples of Moscow’s secret war of terror against Pakistan. The Soviet-directed campaign began in the early 1980s, in an effort to pressure Pakistan to stop providing a base of operations for the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, and it has escalated sharply during the last two years. It is a dirty war — waged mostly against innocent civilians — that has passed almost unnoticed outside Pakistan. Yet Pakistan accounted for an astonishing 45 percent of all those killed or wounded in terrorist bombing incidents last year, according to State Department statistics. 

“Why are the Soviets trying subvert Pakistan? “The Russians consider Pakistan responsible for their present predicament in Afghanistan,” explains one Pakistani intelligence official. Another official notes: “This terrorist onslaught is to agitate people that being friendly to the West is the danger.” . . . . 

“Moscow hid its role in the terror war by using Afghan cut-outs. The Pakistani report explains that the bombing campaign was “primarily planned and directed by the KGB and implemented through its subservient organizations in Afghanistan, WAD, the Afghan version of the KGB, and the Afghan Ministry of Tribes and Nationalities.” 

“The Afghan intelligence service WAD selected the individual agents for the unsavory task of planting bombs to kill Pakistani civilians, the report says. WAD (formerly known as KHAD) has about 27,000 employees and a budget of $160 million, according to the report. It also has about 1,500 Soviet advisors, according to Pakistani estimates, and it doesn’t launch any significant operations without Soviet permission. 

“High-level KGB/WAD teams “monitor, control and conduct the terrorist campaign against selected targets in Pakistan,” according to the Pakistani intelligence report. Twenty such teams went into Pakistan between March 1986 and February 1987, the report says. WAD’s agents tended to be Pakistanis, rather than Afghans. These Pakistanis receive their terrorism training either in Afghanistan or the Soviet Union. WAD assigns the targets and provides the explosives. 

“With over three million refugees in Pakistan, it is easy for the KGB or WAD to smuggle in agents and hard for the Pakistanis to detect them. “Trained agents are regularly infiltrated into the Afghan refugee camps to carry out subversive activities,” says the report. . . . 

“The Soviets have also used political subversion as part of their invisible war. Pakistan is a nation of tribes and the Soviets concentrated on two ethnic groups, the Pashtoons of the Northwest Frontier Province and the Baluchis, who inhabit an area called Baluchistan. The Soviets have attempted to revive the latent separatist feeling among these two groups. . . . 

“Meanwhile, as Gorbachev talks of peace in Afghanistan, pictures of mangled bodies from random bomb blasts in Karachi and Rawalpindi are a reminder of Moscow’s efforts to force Pakistan into submission. For any Pakistanis who didn’t understand Soviet intentions, the KGB served notice on Dec. 26, 1987 — the anniversary date of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — when a bomb exploded in the heart of Islamabad. One senior Pakistani intelligence official explains the message: “If we don’t behave, this is what’s going to happen.”” 

This is why history is so important. It teaches us patterns of conduct that we can use to analyze current events. The same tactics and events we see playing out today in Afghanistan have happened before. The Soviet script was being used then and, I believe, it’s being used now by Russia and her allies – only with a different target. 

Russia and Pakistan are much closer today than in the 1980s. But it was only partially because of Soviet-inspired bombings. Perhaps through China’s instrumentality, Pakistan has been finally swayed into the communist camp. I haven’t focused much on China today, but communist China should always be in your mind. China has an important naval base in Pakistan and has invested billions in the country. Young Pakistanis are learning Mandarin. Pakistan is a key player in China’s Belt and Road Initiative. An Atlantic article reports: 

“As part of an infrastructure development plan inked with Pakistan in 2013, China has pledged $60 billion to build what’s known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)—a network of roads, pipelines, power plants, industrial parks, and a port along the Arabian sea. Intended to increase regional connectivity and trade between the two countries, CPEC is part of Beijing’s trillion-dollar Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). BRI aims to create land and maritime trade routes integrating 70-odd countries in Asia, Africa, and Europe, including politically turbulent states like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. . . . 

“In Pakistan, CPEC has been built upon historically high levels of partnership between the two nations. Both Pakistani and Chinese officials have characterized Sino-Pakistan ties as an “all-weather friendship” that’s “higher than the Himalayas, deeper than the ocean, and sweeter than honey.” In 2014, a Pew Research Center survey found that nearly 80 percent of Pakistani respondents had a favorable view of China—the highest public opinion rating of China in the world. While cultural and linguistic exchange have not traditionally been a centerpiece of the relationship, many young Pakistanis are now increasingly looking toward China for education and employment, necessitating learning Mandarin.” 

Pakistan receives weapons, money, and infrastructure from China. China is solving the major unemployment problem in the country. Pakistan is riding China’s coattails to prominence. Of course Pakistan is in love with China! Birds of a feather, after all. And, let’s be honest, does it really matter which communist regime pulls Pakistan into its orbit? No. The point is that Pakistan is not on the U.S. team and Pakistan is a major supporter of both the Taliban and Islamist jihadis in Afghanistan, such as ISKP which just committed acts of terror in Kabul. It’s amazing how interconnected these third-world terror groups really are – and how they all have ties to communist nations. 

It’s massively convenient that a supposedly avowed enemy of the “peaceful” and “sane” Taliban committed a horrific terrorist attack when the United States was days away from departure. Russia is ramping up its war drills in the region, is warning of “Islamic extremism,” has a military presence in Kabul that is now conducting “humanitarian” work, and is shielding the Taliban from Western criticism. We will see what happens as more information rolls in, but from where I sit, I suspect the Kabul bombings were not organic ISIS bombings, but part of the larger proxy war in Central Asia that likely has Russian or Russian allies’ fingerprints all over it. 

As I finish writing this on Sunday morning, August 29, more attacks are rocking Kabul. Do you recognize in these attacks a similar pattern to the 1994 and 1999 attacks in Russia? I do. It’s just too convenient and coincidental. At any rate, Russia will be there to “mediate” with the Taliban and make sure things go the way it wants them to and the United States will retreat home with its tail between its legs. And if Russia’s power isn’t strong enough, for whatever reason, to reach its strategic objectives, it has communist China and Pakistan to back up its efforts. As we acknowledge that Afghanistan is formally a lost cause for the West, we’re forced to ask ourselves: Cui bono?

Zack Strong
August 30, 2021

Russia – Bastion of Traditionalism?

Cultural Marxism is at the root of the chaos we see in the world today. Feminism and LGBT mania, for instance, are communist front movements. The entire spectrum of anti-traditional trends has been promoted by the communist conspiracy since day one. Russia picked up the Marxist-feminist standard with the advent of Bolshevism and has carried it ever since. The purpose of today’s article is to obliterate the prevalent notion that Russia is a family-friendly “bastion of traditionalism” and share the truth that Russia is the true home of modern feminism.

feminism12

I can’t express how dismayed I am every time I see a self-proclaimed traditionalist, or a fellow Christian, refer to Russia in glowing terms. In “trad” social media groups and on traditionalist pages and websites, I routinely encounter people parroting Moscow’s propaganda about how “traditional” Russia is, how “feminine” the women are, how Russia is a “bastion of masculinity,” how there is a Christian “revival” occurring, and how wonderful Vladimir Putin is. Each and every point just mentioned flies in the face of the facts and is an inversion of reality.

I will focus primarily on the first three of the five points listed. Before discussing the first item, perhaps we should address we mean by “traditionalism.” Apart from the obvious definition that traditionalism means upholding tradition, regardless of what that tradition is, the sense in which the word is used today is defined by Google as “the theory that all moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation passed on by tradition, human reason being incapable of attaining it.”

This is an accurate enough definition, though in popular parlance it usually refers to culture and families. Traditionalism is a culture. It is a mentality and philosophy. It is a way of life. Those who live a “traditional” life are those who embrace marriage, create families, are sexually upright, reject degeneracy, and are generally conservative and modest in manners, dress, appearance, and behavior. Traditionalism is heavily linked – I would argue inexorably linked – to Christian values and Christian views on marriage, family, and morality.

With this in mind, is Russia a “bastion of traditionalism”? That is, does Russia, as a society, embrace the traditional or Christian perspective of marriage, family, sexual purity, modesty, and upright behavior? Any honest examination of the reality on the ground – and I have seen that reality firsthand as I lived in Russia for two years and spent my days talking with average folks and meeting inside their homes – must conclude that Russia is not a traditional society.

Let’s analyze a few statistics and points of history. We must remember that Russia was conquered by the alien Bolshevik forces in 1917. The first communist regime was approximately 85% Jewish. That is, it was virulently anti-Christian and devoid of morals. Christian chapels were looted and then literally demolished. Priests were shot. Nuns were raped. And Orthodox cathedrals all across Russia were converted into “Museums of Atheism,” complete with pagan statues and blatantly anti-Christ exhibits. This had the effect of hardening the people and they remain hardhearted towards religion in general to this day, only attending church on holidays to gawk and take pictures at the astonishingly fanatical and theatrical displays of Orthodox priests.

communism759

The rhyming caption reads: “Religion is Poison. Protect Children.” It shows the Christian woman as an old, oppressive hag thwarting the child’s progression and desire to go to school by trying to force an outdated religion on her.

One of the Soviets’ first orders of business was to abolish church marriage and institute in its place civil marriage. In fact, they desired to abolish marriage altogether and began by replacing religious marriages with civil unions and figured the institution would “wither away” of its own accord. Some Communist Party members even performed “red marriages” in mockery of traditional Christian marriage.

The institution of marriage was and is viewed by the Marxists as inherently oppressive. They see marriage as slavery. It was in The Communist Manifesto that these enemies of humanity had threatened the “abolition of the family” throughout the world. In harmony with this evil design, the Reds began destroying marriage in Russia. In 1925, a Soviet publication in boasted:

Already the Soviet power has freed [marriage] from any superfluous shackles, has eliminated from it all religious and ecclesiastical survivals. . . . Marriage in Soviet legislation has ceased to be a prison” (Harold J. Berman, “Soviet Family Law in the Light of Russian History and Marxist Theory,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 56, Issue 1, 36, 1946).

Indeed, the communists made marriage an irrelevant and unnecessary formality of social life. Not just marriage, but the family as a whole was also targeted. After effecting their coup, the Bolsheviks set to work rewriting the Russian Family Code. Soviet Russia became the first nation to institute no-fault divorce. Divorce became so absurdly easy that you could actually send your spouse a letter in the mail saying “we’re divorced” and it was legally binding. In this sort of culture, marriage lost its sacred stature and divorce became the norm. They legalized abortion-on-demand and even subsidized it. And they did their best to collectivize children and make sure they were raised out of the home and in public schools where they could be indoctrinated in Marxist thought.

Russia Beyond gives us a glimpse into the Soviet attack on traditionalism. In his article “How sexual revolution exploded (and imploded) across 1920s Russia,” Alexander Rodchenko wrote:

““On the abolition of marriage” and “On civil partnership, children and ownership” were among the first decrees of the Soviets in 1918. Church weddings were abolished, civil partnership introduced. Divorce was a matter of choice. Abortions were legalized. All of that implied a total liberation of family and sexual relations. This heralded the beginning of the raunchiest epoch in recent Russian history.

A relaxed attitude to nudism was a vivid sign of the times: on the bank of the Moskva river, near the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour [which Stalin later blew up and replaced with the world’s largest swimming pool], a nude beach formed, the likes of which Western Europe could not have dreamed of at the time. . . .

communism787

Rape by 1920s has become an epidemic. Quite strikingly, sexual violence towards former noble and bourgeois women was for a time even considered “class justice” among the proletarian males. Meanwhile, up to 20 percent of Russia’s male population had carried sexually-transmitted diseases . . . New laws on marriage and the overall atmosphere of breaking with the past encouraged promiscuity and casual approach to sex, unthinkable just years ago.

Soviet society was breeding a dangerous generation of homeless orphans – official reports indicate that, by 1923, half of the children born in Moscow had been conceived out of wedlock, and many of them were abandoned in infancy.”

Yes, the Marxist sexual revolution was in full swing in Russia before most in the West had even contemplated it. It make havoc of families and homes and left, as you have seen and will see, a trail of societal desolation, broken hearts, and destroyed individuals in its wake – just as it was designed to do.

One of the best analyses of the family during this dark era of history is found in Paul Kengor’s superb book Takedown. I excise several choice paragraphs and share them with you:

The disciples of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were committed to a revolution in family life, to a radical rupture in traditional relations between husband and wife and parents and children. Their first and most ardent practitioners, the Bolsheviks, followed the new faith with reckless abandon. . . .

The Russian Orthodox Church’s long-standing prohibition against divorce was lifted by the Bolsheviks, leading to an explosion in divorce rates and utter havoc upon the Russian family. The dramatic combined effect of an immediate full liberalization of divorce laws and institution of “red weddings” became especially acute with the corresponding complete legalization of abortion in 1920, which was an unprecedented action anywhere in the world at the time. With those changes and the squashing of the Russian Orthodox Church and its guidance in marriage and families and children and education and more, Lenin and his allies dealt a severe blow to marital and family life in traditionally religious Russia. Right out of the gate, within the first months and years after they seized power, the Bolsheviks had initiated these jolts to society. . . . .

In the Soviet Union and other subsequent communist countries that followed suit, the effect on marriage and the family was nothing short of catastrophic. The divorce rate skyrocketed to levels unseen inhuman history. In short order, it seemed as though everyone in Moscow had a divorce. One Russian man, painfully recalling his boyhood years from the late 1920s, stated, “The years 1929 to 1932 were the unhappiest period for my family. At that time there were many cases of divorce. Many of our acquaintances got divorced. It was like an epidemic.”

The numbers grew worse decade by decade. As one study reported in the 1960s, “it is not unusual” to meet Soviet men and women who had been married and divorced upwards of fifteen times.

The world certainly took notice of this domestic carnage. It looked to outsiders as if these communists really were looking to abolish marriage. In fact, it is instructive that the influential American magazine the Atlantic published a 1926 piece with the title “The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage.”

If divorce was an epidemic in the USSR, abortion was a black plague.

The Bolsheviks legalized abortion shortly after they seized power. Like divorce, it was a rare area where the communists allowed for individual freedom. Here they enacted full privatization. So long as the family went up in flames, it seemed, the communists would eagerly allow full and free private ownership of gasoline and matches – with no rationing. You weren’t free to own a farm or factory or business or bank account or go to church or print your own newspaper, but if you wanted a divorce or abortion, the sky was the limit in Bolshevik Russia.

Having overthrown the ship of state and murdered the entire Romanov family in July 1918 – a fitting symbol to the coming war on the family – Vladimir Lenin made good on his June 1913 promise for an “unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions.” By 1920, abortion was fully and legally available and provided free of charge to Russian women. The number of abortions skyrocketed.

communism802

By 1934 Moscow women were having three abortions for every live birth, shocking ratios that American women, in the worst, wildest throes of Roe v. Wade, never approached. The toll was so staggering that an appalled Joseph Stalin, the mass murderer, actually banned abortion in 1936, fearing a vanishing populace. . . .

. . . A more progressive Nikita Khrushchev put things back in order in 1955, reversing Stalin’s abortion ban (and ramping up religious persecution), thus allowing rates to ascend to heights heretofore unwitnessed in human history. One authoritative source from the late 1960s reported, “One can find Soviet women who have had twenty abortions.”

By the 1970s, the Soviet Union was averaging 7 to 8 million abortions per year, annihilating whole future generations of Russian children. (America, with a similar population, averaged nearer 1.5 million abortions per year after Roe was approved in 1973.)” (Paul Kengor, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, 32-35).

Let’s build on this information with a few more quotations. The next statements come from the 1926 article Kengor mentioned titled “The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage.” It informs us:

The question whether marriage as an institution should be abolished is now being debated all over Russia with a violence and depth of passion unknown since the turbulent early days of the Revolution. . . .

One must live in Russia to-day, amid the atmosphere of torment, disgust, and disillusionment that pervades sex relations, the chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that hover over the Russian family, to understand the reasons for this heated discussion, for these passionate pros and cons.

When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other ‘bourgeois’ institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. ‘To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,’ declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term ‘illegitimate children.’ This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it. . . .

At the same time a law was passed which made divorce a matter of a few minutes, to be obtained at the request of either partner in a marriage. Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.

communism799

Street children in Stalin’s USSR

Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another,’ asserted an indignant woman delegate during the sessions of the Tzik. ‘They have children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support! (There are three hundred thousand bezprizorni or shelterless children in Russia to-day, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time, because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half of them are drug addicts and sex perverts. It is claimed by many Communists that the break-up of the family is responsible for a large percentage of these children.)

The peasant villages have perhaps suffered most from this revolution in sex relations. An epidemic of marriages and divorces broke out in the country districts. Peasants with a respectable married life of forty years and more behind them suddenly decided to leave their wives and remarry. Peasant boys looked upon marriage as an exciting game and changed wives with the change of seasons. It was not an unusual occurrence for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions.”

This is only a snippet. I encourage you to read the full article at this link. I urge you to comprehend that communism brought about the destruction of the family in Russia – and that the wreckage can be seen everywhere today. And we need not try to divorce feminism from communism, for it was the Bolshevik revolutionary Inessa Armand (who also had an affair with Lenin) who proudly boasted:

If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.”

Suffice it to say that Soviet Russia obliterated the family unit and destroyed the institution of marriage. Human life was made cheap and infanticide reached mind-boggling proportions. Marriage lost its significance and divorce became something everyone did. Even homosexuality and transgenderism flourished in the early days of the Soviet Union, with one Russian writer commenting that “members of the gay community were incredibly brave – some wore women’s dresses and corsets, wore their hair long and often looked like real women.”

communism803

Those who think the West introduced feminism and LGBT madness to Russia need to get their story straight – it was the other way around. We are just starting to really deal with those problems that have plagued Russia for over a century. The Bolsheviks deliberately exported these feminist ideas everywhere they could – particularly to the West – with the deliberate intention of weakening us so that we would succumb to their world revolution. It was the Jewish-Marxist radical Willi Munzenberg, of Frankfurt School fame, who is quoted as saying: “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.” Sadly, their efforts have nearly succeeded – though thankfully our culture doesn’t yet stink as badly as Russian culture.

This is the awful legacy and crumbling foundation modern Russia is working from. While you can perhaps say today’s Russia is an improvement, the difference is negligible. Despite the carefully-concocted propaganda, Russian society has yet to break free from Soviet norms and is still further advanced down the road of cultural Marxism than the United States. Russian women still abort far more of their babies than their American counterparts and have a lower birth rate. And Russia has a staggering 60% divorce rate – the highest in the world. Russian homes are in tatters and their culture remains hostile to the traditional family. In no sense whatsoever can Russia be considered a “bastion of traditionalism.”

Let’s now move on to the second point. How feminine are Russian women? And do they really reject “Western” feminism as we so frequently hear? Sadly, the answer is no, they’re not particularly feminine and they don’t reject feminism. I’m convinced that most people believe Russian women are feminine because a good many Russian women are exceptionally attractive and, outwardly, dress in skirts and heels and always do up their face and hair. But is this what real femininity is?

Wikipedia defines femininity as “a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with women and girls.” According to this definition, you might be able to get away with calling women “feminine” if you really stretch it. But when we couch this in terms of traditionalism, the attempt falls flat. Remember, part of being traditional is being modest and moral. Russian women are not modest. Trust me on this one. Russian women are in the habit of wearing very short skirts, revealing attire, and overdoing it on makeup and accessories. They spend an exorbitant amount of their money on cosmetics, furs, and fancy clothes and shoes.

And what about behavior? Part of being feminine is to act ladylike and fulfill womanly duties like motherhood. 65% of Russian women work – a substantially higher percentage than in the United States. That’s not terribly feminine. Why aren’t these “feminine” women at home with their children? Perhaps one reason they’re in the workplace instead of in the home is that they don’t have a family. Remember, 60% of Russian marriages end in divorce. Also, the birthrate in Russia is pitifully low and even lower than the U.S. birthrate at 1.75 children per family. Again, this behavior is not very feminine.

Furthermore, Russian women are bossy – like Western feminists. They’re often shrill – again, just like Western feminists. Frankly, they push the men around and I’ve seen them be both physically and verbally abusive. They also drink, do drugs, and sleep around at a higher rate than Western women (though, fortunately, alcohol consumption is decreasing). Russia has one of the most rapidly rising AIDS/HIV epidemics in the world due in large part to the rampant sexual immorality. Can women who break the Lord’s law of chastity honestly be considered feminine?

Russia5

Russians in general engage in many behaviors that are repugnant to most Americans, such as public urination and defecation (though San Francisco, Commiefornia apparently sees nothing wrong with this). It’s a real problem. I watched mothers teaching their young boys to pee on the road and in the streets – not in emergency situations, but as a matter of course. I’ve even seen grown women squatting on the side of the road doing their business as people walked by. Fortunately, American women haven’t yet followed that trend.

Prostitution and public indecency are also massive problems in Russia. I’ve never seen so many prostitutes in one place in my life as I did in Russia. You’d see them selling their bodies on the side of the road as their handlers waited in a dirty van behind them. Then, down the road, their mafia oversees sat in cars monitoring police radios so they could warn their girls to run if the cops were on their way. I witnessed this phenomenon on more than one occasion. It’s remarkable how fast some women can run in high heels. I guess, as Vladimir Putin said, Russia has the best hookers.

As for pornography, the “new drug” that is scourging the world, I saw men and women both looking at pornographic magazines and videos while riding on trains or public transport. Billboards could also be a tad too salacious at times and you’d see far too much skin whenever you saw people sunbathing or swimming. If you visited the markets (the same ones where ripped-off American products or cheap knockoffs of everything imaginable proliferated), you had to be careful where you looked.

It’s sad that the sex-industrial complex is so well-established that we have detailed analytics on porn usage by country, region, state, gender, device type, day of the week, search category, and so forth, but we do. According to the data, Russia ranks 12th in global traffic to the world’s largest online porn site and their top search category is “Russian.” And there are a lot of Russian porn stars to search considering that Russia ranks #2 in the world (behind, tragically, our own country) in contributing female “actresses” to pornographic films (five of the top ten porn-star-contributing nations are Russia and four of its “former” Soviet satellites).

Russia9

In short, Russian women are gripped by feminism without even realizing it. No, they don’t consider themselves feminist – but neither do American women if statistics are to be believed. Yet, the feminist culture dominates. It is exhibited in habits and thought patterns. Russian women, like women in the West at the present time, are conditioned to believe that they are “liberated” by being single and sexually debauched, “free” when they murder their offspring, and “fulfilled” when they work. They are not submissive ladies and are in fact more willing to walk all over you, hit you, curse you out, cheat on you, or divorce you than American women are. Simply, don’t buy the hype about the “feminine” Russian woman.

The third and final point on our list I will cover only briefly. There is a myth circulating on the internet, perpetuated largely by Marxist-controlled Hollywood, that Russian men are masculine and strong. Sorry to burst the bubble, but this is laughably untrue. The Hollywood image of a tall, broad, muscular man with a great big beard is the polar opposite of reality in today’s Russia. Most Russian men are short, scrawny, and look as if they’ve been on a concentration camp diet. On a daily basis, I’d shake hands with people I met with on the streets. And on a daily basis Russian men audibly gasped and winced when I shook their hands. For the most part, they had a limp-wristed grip. A handshake really does tell you a lot about a person.

In 2007, I participated in a three-on-three basketball tournament in the small city of Ramenskoye to the south of Moscow. One of the opposing teams had a player from the Russian national basketball team on it. When we played them, I guarded the professional player. I held him scoreless and usually out-rebounded him even though he was one of the few Russians I ever met who was taller than me (I’m almost 6’1” and at the time I had lost thirty pounds and weighed only 160 lbs.). He was frustrated and thought I played too rough. I played against Russians in basketball, soccer, tackle football, and gatorball and in each case Russian men and boys wined about how physical Americans played (I’ve read that pro players from other countries almost universally observe the same thing when they come to America to play). In truth, they were simply unfit wimps. Physically, the average Russian man is a pitiful specimen.

Russia10

Hollywood is not reality

Naturally, there’s more to masculinity and character than physicality. A real man should be chivalrous, gentlemanly, courteous, polite, hard-working, a protector of women, have an upright character, be totally loyal to his wife and marriage covenants, and so forth. When this is applied to Russian men, however, they fail again. Russian men are, as a whole, drunkards. They also use a large amount of drugs.

In the city of Mytishchi where I lived for a time, you’d see drug needles littering the streets and our church building happened to be located in what people called “the drug area” (which was also home to numerous prostitutes and mafia groups). Russian SWAT routinely raided our neighbor’s property looking for drugs. In some cities, it was common to see Russians walking down the road with alcohol in one hand and a cigarette in the other. More times than I can count I’ve seen Russian men passed out in the street, peeing on themselves in public, convulsing from drugs in a corner alley, or dancing lewdly and making fools of themselves in front of everyone. The constant smell of cigarette smoke hanging in the air really completed the atmosphere.

Additionally, Russian men brawl and fight, curse and quarrel. It was routine to see men walking or staggering down the street covered in blood from either fighting or falling down drunk and bashing their face. The number of Russian men with missing or broken teeth was also astonishing – again, largely from brawling or drunkenness. And the number of Russian men who had been to prison – as evidenced by their tattoos – was also staggering.

As noted, Russian men get pushed around by their women (that is, when they’re not committing rape and murder at high rates). And why wouldn’t they? Russia is a feminist country – the first feminist country. It is a bastion of feminism and yet they don’t even realize it. Russian men (and, sadly, many Western men) see their raucous and dangerous behavior as some sort of masculinity. But it’s not real masculinity; it’s juvenile and crass. Drunkenness, fighting, prolific swearing (when I learned the various forms of the f-word in Russian, I was shocked at how commonplace their usage was), sexual unchastity, violent criminality, and physical unfitness do not a masculine nation make.

When you really look at the whole picture, Russia is not the “bastion of traditionalism” that propagandists and those who have been taken in by propaganda claim. I wish Russia was a bastion of Faith, Families, and Freedom. This is my wish for my own country and for every nation on earth. I yearn for the day when evil will be swept away, when the communist cancer will be eradicated, when feminism will die its natural death, when corruption and war are terminated, when sanity will prevail once more, when the Gospel of Jesus Christ sinks deep into every heart, and when Freedom will prevail.

feminism2

Sadly, we are not there yet and won’t be until the Lord returns in His glory. Until then, Russia stands as an enemy to the human race. The notion that “communism is dead” and “the USSR collapsed” is one of the most devastatingly effective ruses ever pulled on the world. The reality is that the Soviets faked their demise and communism never died. Indeed, the communist conspiracy is more powerful and prevalent than ever before. Russia, China, and their allies are in a strategically advantageous position over the West and the final clash draws closer despite Washington’s boast of strength and stability. You will live to see Russia and China strike the United States and initiate world war. Mark my words.

One final word is in order. You have doubtless noted the contempt in my tone. Let me make it clear that my contempt is for the Russian government and for the communist regime that so thoroughly demoralized and beat down the Russian people. I don’t hate the Russian people – I pity them. They are a product of communism – victims of the most wicked conspiracy ever created. I pity them and pray for them.

Here is the reality: Russia today is the America of tomorrow unless we root out the communist cancer among us. Russia is not following the West, as I so often hear, but we are following them – and to our detriment. From no-fault-divorce to civil marriages to abortion-on-demand to massive drunkenness to feminist women and emasculated men, Russia set the example and blazed the trail. And yet, still, there remain some fantastic individuals, including the most humble man I’ve ever met in my life – a spiritual giant from Ukraine who settled in Moscow who call Russia home.

I mentioned that I lived in Russia for two years. I was there as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – one of the few foreign proselytizing churches that hasn’t been banned and kicked out by Putin’s regime (though Putin recently signed laws that severely restrict our ability to do the Lord’s work). I walked the streets speaking with Russians about their core beliefs, about their aspirations, and about their families. I met with them in their homes and churches. I visited the cities and villages. These people told me their life stories. They shared their beliefs about God. And some of them became lasting friends. I was even, for a short while after I returned home, engaged to a Russian gal.

My point is that I don’t hate the Russians. I love them and spent many nights on my knees praying for them. I do, however, hate communism. I hate the Russian regime that rules in Moscow and despise the KGB conspirator named Vladimir Putin who rules in the Kremlin and pretends he’s a Christian and traditionalist, despite his well-publicized affairs and broken marriage, so that the gullible will sympathize with and support Russia as some sort of world “savior.” Don’t fall for it.

One day, I firmly believe, though it will probably come only after a day of fire and cataclysm, Russia will throw off her shackles and become the Christian nation too many people wrongly believe she is now. The blood of Israel runs in their veins, as it does in the veins of most Caucasian peoples, and they have a glorious future. They will be gathered in by the Lord, but the time is not yet. At present, a communist pseudo-tsar rules in Moscow. Russia’s unparalleled stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons stands ready to be used to bring about the one-world order and one-world religion dreamed of by the global Elite. If we continue to allow the cultural Marxism imported into our nation by the Bolsheviks to infect us, we will be weak enough for the Elite to carry out their pre-planned strike.

It was this article’s purpose to wave the smelling salts under your nose to awaken you from the mental fantasy that Russia is a “bastion of traditionalism” and the hope of the world. Russia is, in truth, the home of feminism and the world leader in cultural degradation. The West is the way it is because we have followed Russia’s example. If we seek to reverse the trends, we need to stop listening to Russian propaganda and those who buy into it and instead cling to the traditions, values, and institutions that made Western Christian civilization great.

communism247

As Americans, we must rush forward to defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom against Marxist machinations whether promoted by Washington, Moscow, Tel Aviv, London, or Beijing. Our only hope is in turning to the Lord Jesus Christ and in rejecting all anti-Christ philosophies. If we seek traditionalism, we must look for it here at home – not on the Red steppes of Russia.

Zack Strong,

January 16, 2020

How Russia Benefited from 9/11

“Russia is pulling the strings in the Middle East.” Mark Hitchcock, Russia Rising: Tracking the Bear in Bible Prophecy, 5.

While the 9/11 attacks were a great tragedy for our nation, they were a tremendous windfall for our enemies. In particular, Russia benefited massively from our loss – and from our subsequent War on Terror. From day one, Russia has urged the United States to involve herself in the Middle East quagmire. This article will give the bullet points of why Russia and the communist world benefit from America’s disastrous War on Terror.

911#1

Hours after the 9/11 attacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin was the first head of state to call President George W. Bush and offer his condolences. He also became the first foreign supporter of America’s War on Terror. Russia has continuously prodded the United States to bat the Arab hornets nest. Our initial attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was launched largely from Russia-dominated Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and other bases in the region and with the help of intelligence from Russian sources.

In a 2016 article in The Washington Post, we read:

“Several former U.S. officials I spoke with acknowledged the crucial Russian contributions immediately after 9/11 to support the Northern Alliance and provide logistical support and share intelligence to U.S.-led coalition efforts to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. As one official remarked, “Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in 2001 marked the closest alignment of U.S. and Russian interests, and Russian support was as important as that of any NATO ally.”

“Some former Russian officials I interviewed recalled the hope in 2001 that Russia, the U.S. and other partners could establish an anti-terrorist coalition, much like the anti-Hitler coalition in World War II. Vladimir Putin proposed this concept again last September at the United Nations.”

It was “former” KGB agent Vladimir Putin who was so eager to get America into war in the Middle East that he provided “logistical support,” shared intelligence, and allowed the United States to use bases in the Russian sphere of influence. In the September United Nations speech referenced, Putin spoke of the dastardly Yalta Conference where Stalin persuaded his comrade FDR to allow the Soviet Union to take over Eastern Europe and have influence in China, which directly led to China being conquered by the Reds. Putin said that it was at Yalta that the current “world order” had been arranged and that its principles should be maintained today.

I remind the reader that the Yalta Conference, held in the Soviet Union and hosted by mass murderer Joseph Stalin, was nothing but a sell-out of the world to the Soviets. It is fitting, then, that Putin – a man who has publicly lamented the so-called “fall” of the USSR – would appeal to Yalta in connection with the War on Terror. Our costly war has benefited Russia and her allies immensely. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that the War on Terror has been almost as big a boon for Putin as the Yalta Conference was for Stalin.

The ironically-named Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an internationalist-controlled organization, lauded the “qualitatively new level of military cooperation” between the United States and Russia and even recommended Congress fork out “increased funds for Russian democracy.” This should not be surprising. After all, the CEIP was once headed by the Soviet spy Alger Hiss. It was also proved by the Reece Committee that, at least in 1910, the foundation had conspired to get the United States involved in international wars in order to fundamentally transform society domestically during the turmoil. It was another tax-exempt foundation, the Ford Foundation, which told Chairman Carroll Reece:

“The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union” (Robert Henry Goldsborough, Lines of Credit: Ropes of Bondage: The Story of the Financiers, Their Fellow Conspirators, and the Plot to Destroy Western Christian Civilization, 32).

After his investigations into these same foundations which today support the War on Terror and encourage us to work with Russia, Carroll Reece concluded:

“Here lies the story of how communism and socialism are financed in the United States, where they get their money. It is the story of who pays the bill.

“There is evidence to show there is a diabolical conspiracy back of all this. Its aim is the furtherance of socialism in the United States. . . .

“The method by which this is done seems fantastic to reasonable men, for these Communists and Socialists seize control of fortunes left behind by Capitalists when they die, and turn these fortunes around to finance the destruction of capitalism” (Robert Henry Goldsborough, Lines of Credit: Ropes of Bondage: The Story of the Financiers, Their Fellow Conspirators, and the Plot to Destroy Western Christian Civilization, 27).

I digress and leave you to research this dark aspect of the story for yourself. We return now to Russia’s giddy support of America’s War on Terror. The Brookings Institute, another elitist think tank, described the situation in mid-2002:

“When Russian President Vladimir Putin picked up the phone to express his sympathy to President Bush in the aftermath of September 11 and then followed up by providing concrete assistance to the campaign in Afghanistan and quickly acquiescing to U.S. plans to establish bases in central Asia, Washington policymakers and analysts concluded Putin had made a strategic, even historic, choice to align Russia’s foreign policy with that of the United States. It was a reasonable conclusion to make.

“From the beginning of his presidency in January 2000, Putin pushed the idea of a concerted campaign against terrorism with American and European leaders. He was one of the first to raise the alarm about terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and to warn of linkages between these camps, well-financed terrorist networks, and Islamic militant groups operating in Europe and Eurasia. Russia also actively supported the Northern Alliance in its struggle with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In December 2000, Moscow joined Washington in supporting United Nations sanctions against the Taliban and later appealed for sanctions against Pakistan for aiding the Taliban. After the attacks on the United States, Putin went so far as to suggest he had been expecting a massive terrorist strike—it had only been a matter of time.”

Not only did Putin “expect” a terrorist strike, he claimed Russia warned the United States at least two days prior that an attack was imminent. I have no doubt Putin had foreknowledge, for reasons which we will discuss later.

With all of this in mind, we are forced to ask yet again why Putin – a man who spent his earlier life as a KGB agent committed to destroying the “main enemy,” the United States – was so eager to get America embroiled in the Middle East after 9/11? Was it, as he and his apologists claim, because he is truly concerned about the threat of terrorism and wants to help the West? Rubbish!

We must remember how Vladimir Putin came to power. Putin spent his early service in the KGB. The KGB later renamed itself the FSK and later the FSB. In 1998, Russian dictator Boris Yeltsin appointed Putin as its head. Putin then, with the help of Russian billionaire oligarchs (who were often former Russian intelligence figures invested with Communist Party funds), got himself appointed president of Russia in the wake of Yeltsin’s sudden resignation in December 1999. Yeltsin’s resignation was precipitated by a tragedy that struck Russia that same year.

Before we discuss the tragedy that led to what we call the Second Chechen War, however, let’s discuss how and why the First Chechen War began. Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian intelligence agent who was assassinated by Russia, spent the last years of his life exposing Putin’s criminality and the fact that the FSB (i.e. KGB) ruled Russia. In his book Blowing Up Russia, Litvinenko wrote of how the First Chechen War in 1994 came about:

Putin7

“a total madman”

“No one but a total madman could have wished to drag Russia into any kind of war, let alone a war in the North Caucasus . . . This war resulted in the isolation of the Russian state from the community of civilized nations, since the rest of the world did not support it and could not understand it. A previously popular, well-beloved president [Yeltsin], therefore, sacrificed the support of both his own public and the international community. Once he had fallen into the trap, he was left with no option but to resign before the end of his term, and hand over power to the FSB in return for a guarantee of immunity for himself and his family. We known who it was that benefited from all of this – the people to whom Yeltsin handed over power. We know how the result was achieved – by means of the war in Chechnya. . . .

“. . . The “party of war,” based on the military and law enforcement ministries, believe that they could afford [to start a war with Chechnya], as long as the public was prepared for it, and it would be easy enough to influence public opinion, if the Chechens were seen to resort to terrorist tactics in their struggle for independence. All that was needed was to arrange terrorist attacks in Moscow and leave a trail leading back to Chechnya.

“. . . on November 18, 1994, the FSK made its first recorded attempt to stir up anti-Chechen feeling by committing an act of terrorism and laying the blame on Chechen separatists. . . .

“It should be noted that on November 18 and in later instances, the supposed “Chechen terrorists” set off their explosions at the most inopportune times, and then never actually claimed responsibility (rendering the terrorist attack itself meaningless). In any case, in November 1994, public opinion in Russia and around the world was on the side of the Chechen people, so why would the Chechens have committed an act of terrorism in Moscow? . . . Russian supporters of war with Chechnya were, however, only too willing to see the hand of Chechnya in any terrorist attack, and their response on every occasion was to strike a rapid and quite disproportionately massive blow against Chechen sovereignty” (Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, 3-5).

Litvinenko explained that the railroad bombing of November 18, 1994, was traced back to an employee, Captain Andrei Schelenkov, of the oil company Lanako. He wrote:

“Lanako’s boss . . . was thirty-five-year-old Maxim Lazovsky, a highly valued agent of the Moscow and Moscow Region Department of the FSB . . . we can also point out the significant fact that every single one of Lanako’s employees was a full-time or free-lance agent of the Russian counterespionage agencies” (Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, 6-7).

The 1994 incident, then, was a false-flag bombing perpetrated by Russian intelligence. This event paved the way for the First Chechen War. That war came to a stalemate in 1996 with Russia promising to grant Chechnya eventual sovereignty. It was another series of false-flag bombings in 1999, however, that justified the Second Chechen War and allowed the FSB to put Vladimir Putin into power as president of the Russian Federation.

At the beginning of September, 1999, a series of apartment bombs rocked Russia, killing several hundred. These were naturally blamed on Islamic Chechen terrorists. Alexander Litvinenko, and other researchers, however, have pinned the blame directly on the Moscow FSB which had so recently been headed by Vladimir Putin. In Ryazan, on September 22, light was shed on who was perpetrating the bombings.

On that day, a man spotted suspicious individuals carrying what appeared to be sacks of sugar or flour into the basement of a building. He called the police who arrived and found these sacks rigged with timed explosives and set near the main support columns of the building. The sacks contained hexogen, a military-grade explosive substance. Had the men not been spotted and the police not called, the bomb would have later gone off and demolished the old building. Like the other bombings, this would have been blamed on “Islamic terrorists” as part of the pretext for launching the Second Chechen War.

In the immediate aftermath of the foiled bombing, Putin congratulated the public for its vigilance and the FSB feigned no knowledge of the event. Yet, two days later, after several “terrorists” had been apprehended in Ryazan by the local authorities, the Moscow FSB claimed the entire thing has been a training exercise and ordered the suspects released. Litvinenko raised obvious questions about this odd version of events. He wrote:

“Could we possibly expect the FSB to say nothing all day long on September 23, while the whole world was buzzing with news of a failed terrorist attack? It’s impossible to imagine. Is it possible to imagine that the Prime Minister of Russia [Putin] and former director of the FSB, who, moreover, has personal links with Patrushev [then head of the FSB], was not informed about the “exercises?” . . . The fact that at seven o’clock in the evening, on September 23, 1999, Putin did not make any statement about training exercises taking place in Ryazan was the weightiest possible argument in favor of interpreting events as a failed attempt by the FSB to blow up an apartment building in Ryazan” (Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, 63).

Litvinenko also observed:

“The FSB department for the Ryazan Region was also not informed about the “exercises.” Bludov stated that “the FSB was not informed in advance that exercises were being conducted in the city.” The head of the Ryazan FSB, Major-General A.V. Sergeiev at first stated in an interview with the local television company Oka that he knew nothing about any “exercises” being held. . . .

“The Ryazan FSB realized that the people of Ryazan had been “set up” and that the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Russia and the public might accuse the Ryazan FSB of planning the explosion. Shaken by the treachery of their Moscow colleagues, the Ryazan FSB decided to provide themselves with an alibi and announced to the world that the Ryazan operation had been planned in Moscow. There could be no other explanation for the statement from the Ryazan Region FSB, which appeared shortly after Patrushev’s interview about “exercises” in Ryazan. We give the text of the statement in full.

“”It has become known that the planning on September 22, 1999 of a dummy explosive device was part of an ongoing interregional exercise. This announcement came as a surprise to us and appeared at a moment when the department of the FSB had identified the residences in Ryazan of those involved in planting the explosive device and was preparing to detain them. This had been made possible due to the vigilance and assistance of many of the residents of the city of Ryazan, collaboration with the agencies of the Ministry of the Interior, and the professionalism of our own staff. . . .”

“This unique document provides us with answers to the most important of our questions. Firstly, the Ryazan FSB had nothing to do with the operation to blow up the building in Ryazan. Secondly, at least two terrorists were discovered in Ryazan. Thirdly, the terrorists lived in Ryazan, if only temporarily, and evidently a network of at least two secret safe apartments were uncovered. Fourthly, just at the moment when arrangements were in hand to arrest the terrorists, the order came from Moscow not to arrest them, because the terrorist attack in Ryazan was only an FSB “exercise”” (Alexander Litvinenko and Yuri Felshtinsky, Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror, 71-72).

Litvinenko recounted that the Ryazan authorities arrested the suspected terrorists anyhow. These men were later released by an intelligence officer from Moscow and taken back with him. The case was sealed and classified after that, and the FSB confiscated Ryazan FSB’s evidence when the latter attempted to conduct their own investigation. In the Ryazan incident we have Vladimir Putin publicly lying, the Moscow FSB changing their statements and claiming the entire thing was an “exercise,” the Ryazan FSB attempting an independent investigation and getting blocked by Moscow higher ups, and evidence being concealed and confiscated. It was a complete cover up. And where there’s a cover up, there’s a conspiracy.

Numerous sources back up Litvinenko’s testimony and it is well known that Russia has always supported, trained, armed, and used Islamic terrorists to do her dirty work. Indeed, Russia invented modern terrorism! The KGB and GRU, more than any other organizations, have fostered the rise of so-called “Islamic extremism” and “Islamic terrorism.” An article by Marius Laurinavičius explained how Russia was behind the rise of radical Wahhabism and even how it managed Chechen terrorism – the very same terrorists alleged to be behind the apartment bombings in 1999:

“In general, the links between Chechen terrorist and Russian secret services cannot be denied even by those Western experts and commentators who tend to call these links a conspiracy theory.

“The fact that the famous Shamil Basayev, Ruslan Gelayev and some others Chechen terrorist commanders began their career not only fighting on the Russian side during the Georgian-Abkhaz war, but were directly trained by the special forces of Russian military intelligence (GRU), was basically never even denied in Russia. The traces of GRU agents were not a secret as well. . . .

“Whether we read Litvinenko’s and Felshtisnkys book ‘FSB blowing up Russia’, David Satter’s ‘Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State’, John Dunlop’s ‘The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin’s Rule’, or the especially popular investigation carried out by Karen Dawisha, professor at the Miami University, called ‘Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?’, it is difficult to deny the tons of odd coincidences and inexplicable actions of Russian government. In the meantime, Putin’s regime closed all doors to any kind of investigations, and many people, who were trying to shed some light on these allegations, were murdered or died under very strange circumstances. . . .

“Russian journalist Sanobar Shermatova, who died in 2011, was considered not only a journalist, but also one of the best Russian experts of Middle Asia and Caucasus. After the events in Chechnya and Dagestan in summer 1999 she wrote a serious analytic piece called ‘The so-called Wahhabis’. . . .

“After emphasising that this Islamic party was merely a ‘branch of USSR Islamic Revival party’, Shermatova continued: ‘Islamic activists played a pretty important role in the opposition. I mean those who were called ‘Wahhabis’ in KGB chronicles. At the time this term was not widely known, and not entirely understood even by those who were called this name. USSR had banned the Islamic literature, and only those few who went to study in Arab countries, had knowledge about Islam history, movements and streams. But these people, as usual, were inspected for their loyalty to KGB, and then included into ‘religious nomenclature’ while constantly being controlled by the special services. Ordinary Muslims were not familiar with Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhabi’s doctrine.’ In Shermatova’s research and in further investigation of Uzbekistan’s and Kirghizia’s ‘Wahhabis’, KGB traces stretch along the story.”

communism513

One of the great anti-communist researchers working today, Cliff Kincaid, also explained what is really behind “Islamic” terrorism:

“Islam as a whole is not the enemy. Islam is an “enemy” only in the sense that it has been hijacked by communists, mostly of the Soviet/Russian variety, to use against the United States. . . .

“. . . we find many people on the political scene today who want to take on “global Islam” without understanding that the Jihadists have been co-opted as cannon fodder in the world revolution. . . .

“. . . International Marxism has hijacked much of global Islam. . . .

“. . . Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky spoke at this [“Lenin and Sharia”] conference and contributed a major report on how the Communists have always exploited Muslims for communist purposes. His report was titled, “Made in Moscow Terrorism. Communists and Muslims: The Hidden Hand of the KGB.” One of the best known examples of this tendency is Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist who converted to Islam.

“”Long before Islamic terrorism became a global threat, the KGB had used terrorism to facilitate the victory of world communism,” he said. He told ASIA [America’s Survival Inc.] that Islamic Terrorism is a “child” of the old Soviet-sponsored terror networks and that Russian involvement must be addressed by the U.S. . . .

“. . . Marius Laurinavicius, Senior Policy Analyst in the Policy Analysis and Research Division of the Eastern Europe Studies Center, argued in his paper, “Do traces of KGB, FSB and GRU lead to Islamic State?,” that it is impossible to understand the rise of the Islamic State without paying attention to the links between Russian secret services and Arab/Muslim terrorists, including in the Russian region of Chechnya.

“Writer and researcher Christian Gomez traced the roots of ISIS to the Islamic Revival Party, created by the KGB. . . .

“The FSB defector said that in order to create ISIS, the Russians selected former officers of the Iraqi army and members of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. All of them had graduated from Moscow-based “educational institutions” (Cliff Kincaid, Red Jihad: Moscow’s Final Solution for America and Israel, 24-25, 27-28).

As a capstone to this section of the article, we quote again from Cliff Kincaid. He had this to say:

“Islamic terrorism in Russia has sometimes been the work of the FSB. This means that the prospect of more terrorist incidents cannot be assumed to be the work of Islamist groups, and may actually be the work of provocateurs connected to the Russian regime. One purpose of such “false flag” terrorism was to frighten the public into believing that Putin and the “new Russia” are opposed to terrorism, and to solidify Putin’s control over the levers of state power” (Cliff Kincaid, Back from the Dead: The Return of the Evil Empire, 41).

All of this might seem tangential. However, it is fundamental to understanding of Putin’s motives. He is not a man motivated by real anti-terrorist feelings. Russia is not fighting in the Middle East to stop terrorism or to help the United States stop Islamic extremism. Russia perpetuates terrorism and actively fosters extremism, war, and chaos all over the globe!

It’s a classic communist tactic to create a crisis and then rush in to pose as the savior. They’ve done this since the beginning. The Russian Alexander Markovsky explained what he was taught about this process during his Soviet indoctrination:

“Indeed, if you want to change a society, here is Lenin’s script: cause the problem. Spread the misery. Send a cadre of professional community organizers to unite all of the angry and disinherited spirits to fuel an organized revolt. Entice chaos and violence. Exploit chaos for larger political objectives. Blame your political opponents, demonize and criminalize them” (Cliff Kincaid, The Sword of Revolution and the Communist Apocalypse, 41).

An anonymous intelligence operative explained the same principle to researcher Cliff Kincaid. He said:

“Great disorder means great reorganization. The greater the upheaval or the greater the disorder and the greater the opportunity for reorganization. If things seem to be sort of becoming unglued in places, keep in mind that somebody is going to glue it together. . . .

“. . . In other words, you want to create disorder because you want to be able to reorganize. So the more disorder you can create within the framework of society the more opportunity you have to intervene and create that. Passivity doesn’t get you very far because everything remains the same . . . [disorder] gives an opportunity for people who are well-organized, who are leading the disorder, to get involved and to recreate the society in a way in which they want it. . . .

“. . . the idea of creating disorder is an opportunity for the intervention of the Communist Party and for communists to get involved” (Cliff Kincaid, The Sword of Revolution and the Communist Apocalypse, 93-95).

Let’s stop being theoretical and list some specific examples of Russia’s use of terrorism, apart from the FSB bombings inside Russia. In his excellent book The Secret Offensive, Chapman Pincher wrote:

“The continuing firm support of international terrorism by the Politburo is inevitable because of the very nature of Soviet Communism which regards terrorism – outside the confines of the Soviet Bloc – as just another aspect of the political war against societies which need to be ‘smashed’ and because of the success it has enjoyed through terrorising its own people. Through the International Department and the KGB, the Politburo has maintained close links with terrorist organizations like the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the IRA, the Rhodesian ZAPU, the Egyptian Fundamentalists and many others which are all projected as ‘freedom fighters'” (Chapman Pincher, The Secret Offensive: The Soviet Challenge to Western Freedom, 287).

It is well established that the Soviet Union trained and armed the majority of terrorists throughout the world – particularly Middle Eastern terrorists. The leadership of ISIS, for instance, were former Iraqi Republican Guardsmen who had been trained in the Soviet Union. One of Al Qaeda’s prominent leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was trained by Soviet intelligence. The various heads of the KGB-created Palestinian state – men like Yasser Arafat and the current puppet Mahmoud Abbas – were trained in Russia. The Iranian Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, was also trained by the KGB at the Patrice Lumumba University. Egypt, Syria, Iran, and a host of nations have received military weapons and sophisticated weapons systems from the Russians (as well as from the Red Chinese in more recent years). The Weathermen terrorists in the United States were supported by Soviet allies (who themselves were trained and funded by the Soviets). Aum Shinrykyo, the Japanese terrorist murderer, was KGB-trained. The Red Army factions, so-called, in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere, are supported by Russia. And on and on.

Chapman Pincher noted the Soviets’ obsession with using others to do their dirty work. He wrote:

“The Soviet authorities are ingenious in distancing themselves from the terrorism they exploit, so that in the event of exposure their involvement can be denied. This has been confirmed by an extensive study undertaken by the CIA which showed that while there are many camps inside the Soviet Union for the training of terrorists, Soviet citizens are not involved in their operations abroad and so can never be caught with a ‘smoking gun'” (Chapman Pincher, The Secret Offensive: The Soviet Challenge to Western Freedom, 288).

I cannot stress to heavily that the communists invented terrorism! Terrorism was a major tactic employed by the Bolsheviks in gaining and maintaining power in Russia. Lenin openly encouraged his comrades to use terrorism and often chided them for not being cruel enough. In a 2017 Forbes article, Victor Rud wrote:

“The U.S.S.R. was established as the quintessential terrorist state, never merely a “state sponsor” of terrorism. Its terror was organized, methodical and above all hyperbolic, eclipsing anything that ISIS can engineer. The very reason for it all was to establish the structure that would destroy the West, more specifically the greatest Satan of them all (as it is for ISIS), the United States.”

Rud also informed us of Russia’s long-standing incestuous relationship with Islamic terrorists and how Russia benefits from continued terrorism:

“Moscow’s Patrice Lumumba Friendship University seconded foreigners to embed Moscow’s agenda in their own countries. Yassar Arafat was one, the KGB’s makeover receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomenei was another. There were thousands. Home-grown, non-Arab terrorists were even better: Venezuelan Carlos the Jackal, Germans Ulrike Meinhoff, French terrorist Regis Debray and former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi. All were either direct KGB agents or KGB-financed.

“Moscow never renounced its imperatives in birthing and sustaining Islamic terrorism, Putin declaring at the 2003 conference of the Islamic Conference Organization that Russia was Islam’s historical defender. Alexander Litvinenko was the ex-KGB officer who defected and who in 2005 was assassinated by Moscow in London using Polonium 210—nuclear warfare in Magna Carta’s front yard. He had revealed that Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of al-Qaeda, had been trained by the KGB in Dagestan, a region currently controlled by Russia and that was tied to the two Boston Marathon bombers. We know that Al-Zawahiri planned 9/11 with Osama bin Laden. More recently, the KGB has supplied recruits for ISIS from its North Caucasus and Central Asia regions.

“”Radical Islamic terror” serves Russia’s purpose perfectly. Why should Putin refuse its benefit? The smoke had not cleared from the Boston Common before Putin called President Obama to intone his sympathy. Particularly for Americans (and, importantly, as much viscerally as cerebrally), the bombing by two Chechen brothers rebranded Putin’s genocidal war against Chechnya as a campaign against “Islamic terrorism” (Chechens are conveniently Muslim). This, in turn, neutralized Litvinenko’s revelation that the Russian apartment bombings (which were Putin’s pretext for that genocide) had been the work of Putin himself. We were thereby relieved of any moral tug that we may have had over Moscow’s assassination of Litvinenko. At the end, we were presented with seeming proof of Russia’s common cause with America in fighting “Islamic terror.” With preceding circumstances, motive, opportunity and benefit established, history will show the Kremlin’s advance knowledge of the two Tsarnaev brothers’ intentions, and that it could have prevented the Boston horror. It willfully did not. If a dirty bomb explodes in Friendship, Maine, or thousands in Topeka simultaneously die from “natural causes,” the last cry heard may be, “Allah Akbar.” We should then well ponder if that’s as far as it goes.”

As we have seen, terrorism is not merely an old Soviet strategy, but a tactic used today by Vladimir Putin and the FSB-controlled Russian government. Not only is terrorism used in Russia by the communist regime, but they continue to export it abroad or train those who do. It is claimed, for instance, that Iran is the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism. Yet, who sponsors and props up Iran? Russia and China. They supply every major dispenser of terrorism. Without Russia and Putin’s personal approval, global terrorism would decrease to a mere trickle.

We must understand that the false-flag bombings in 1994 and 1999 were not organic terrorist acts. Rather, they were merely blamed on Islamic terrorists and used to justify a “war on terror” in Chechnya. They were also used by Putin to solidify his control – on behalf of the FSB, Russian intelligence, and hidden benefactors – of the Russian government. It should strike the observer as eerie how closely Putin’s “war on terror” mirrors our own. To wit, each was precipitated by an act of terrorism blamed on Islamic fundamentalists, used to justify war and intervention in the Middle East and Central Asia, and cast as a pretext to expand government control domestically.

communism502

Fighting a war on terrorism is a useful tool in the hands of the Elite for many reasons, not least of which it offers the prospect of endless war and conflict which help transform the global chess board and ramp up profits. Let’s focus on what Russia immediately gained by supporting the United States in 2001. Instantaneously Russia’s actions against “Islamic terrorism” in Chechnya became legitimized by her cooperation with the the U.S. “War on Terror.” Instantaneously all attention shifted from Russia’s brutal war to America’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Instantaneously Russia was a strategic “partner” against so-called terrorists and was considered by many as a friend. And that is just for starters.

More importantly, Russia’s strategic position has been amplified in immeasurable ways. Remember that Russia is our enemy. The communist world considers war against the United States as inevitable and they’ve been arming for this struggle at a pace never seen before. The Middle East is strategically important for numerous reasons – oil, shipping routes, Jerusalem, the convergence of major world religions, etc. Inasmuch as the communist goal is global domination, and the Middle East is part of the globe, it makes sense that the Russians would take every opportunity to weasel their way in.

Before the War on Terror, the Middle East was already dominated by socialist states giving obeisance to Russia – Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. However, as the American wrecking ball tore through Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria, it left a void of power that Russia could more easily exploit. And exploit it they have!

It seems clear to my mind that Russia used the United States to soften up countries which they have since come in and won over. We were their bull in the Middle Eastern china shop that caused enough chaos that the Russian “white knight” could ride in and save the day. Russia is now fully entrenched in Syria and has moved into Iraq and Afghanistan in a major way while vastly improving relations with Saudi Arabia and other nations. They have also shored up their long-standing relationship with Iran and concluded an important three-way Russia-Turkey-Iran alliance. China has also used the turbulence to expand their presence in Pakistan, Iran, and Israel, to name only three. None of this would have been easily doable without the War on Terror and America’s blundering ineptness (or, some might say, criminal complicity).

Mark Hitchcock has observed:

“Russia, Iran, and Turkey inhabit the same neighborhood and share many common interests, yet the Syrian conflict that began in 2011 has pulled them closer than ever. At the same time that Turkey is becoming more distanced from the West and Iran’s alienation has pushed them further into the Russian orbit, the Syrian civil war is a driving force in uniting these nations. Russia and Iran both support the brutal regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad against the US-supported rebels.

communism554

“Russia, Iran, and Turkey are getting closer to one another in Syria and very close to Israel’s northern border. The framework for ending the Syria conflict, known as “the Moscow Declaration,” was accepted by Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Christian Caryl of the Washington Post writes, “While Moscow, Ankara and Tehran plot their own ‘peace process’ for the Syrian civil war, the United States is conspicuous in its absence.” Washington’s reticence has created a vacuum, and these powers are all too willing to fill it. . . .

“The Russian bear has roared out of hibernation suddenly and dramatically and dominates world headlines every day. The Bear’s footprints continue to leave their mark all over the world. . . .

“. . . Iran’s Mahdi mentality fuels its expansionist ambitions as it works to hasten the coming of its messiah.

“Turkey is descending into a dictatorship led by an Islamist and is cozying up to Russia and Iran. President Erdogan’s rhetoric against Israel is heating up. Four of the ancient allies named in Ezekiel 38 are located in modern Turkey.

“. . . Syria is a flashpoint that is aligning Russia, Iran, and Turkey into a fearsome triumvirate. Russia and Iran have seized the chaos in Syria as an opportunity to bring in troops and air power, putting them just north of Israel.

“Libya and Sudan are radical Islamic nations with deep animus toward Israel. The deepening turmoil and instability in these nations has provided an opening for greater Russian influence” (Mark Hitchcock, Russia Rising: Tracking the Bear in Bible Prophecy, 74, 142-143).

Author S. Douglas Woodward similarly explained how Russia took full advantage of American incompetence/complicity in the Middle East to occupy the dominant position in the region:

“Russia intends to dominate the Middle East and push the U.S. out of the premier geopolitical position, especially in the so-called “fertile crescent” which begins in Syria, crosses the northern parts of Iraq, and includes much of Iran. As virtually everyone knows, because of the oil-rich lands spread across virtually the entire Middle East, this area comprises one of the most important expanses impacting the entire global economy. Combined with the recent nuclear technology deal made between Iran and five other nations in which Russia played a key part, Mr. Putin now stands tall throughout this region. . . .

“Russia involvement in the region and its overall strategy appears clear to European experts familiar with Moscow. The former head of Estonian Intelligence and a member of Estonia’s parliament, Eerik-Niiles Kross, points out that Russia has a grand plan involving its efforts in both Ukraine and Syria.

“”Experts from the left and right alike warn that cooperation with Russia on Syria can have potentially disastrous consequences for the U.S., but too many Americans still don’t understand how closely linked these two headline conflicts are, and American policy has yet to confront the reality that Syria and Ukraine are part of the same mission for Russia – the destruction of the post-WWII architecture for the West. To achieve this goal, Russia has pursued a clear policy of disruption, chaos and destabilization – in Ukraine and the Middle East – in order to force the West to have to partner with Russia to “resolve” the crises it has created. . . The Kremlin has been opportunistic and decisive in grabbing a position of strength – in the Middle East and in Europe – while U.S. attention has waned and retracted.”

“What Russia has really been up to, has escaped Western pundits. On the surface, Russia worked cooperatively with Western states to conclude the pact with Iran. Unlike other Western nations that celebrate the agreement, Russia like Iran, emerged from the negotiation in a much stronger position. Now Russia eagerly sells military weapons to Iran, (including the anti-aircraft missile system, the S-300) and shows itself a friend to the Shia in Iran, Iraq, and Syria. As Russia exercises its military muscle, the rest of the region has awakened to the fact that the U.S. is not the quintessential player it once was. Mr. Putin will now be calling the shots” (S. Douglas Woodward, The Next Great War in the Middle East: Russia Prepares to Fulfill the Prophecy of Gog and Magog, 116-118).

Truly, Russia is emerging as the dominant player in the Middle East. Everything is shifting in Russia’s favor while a distinctly anti-American sentiment is growing. American weariness for war is only surpassed by Russia’s eagerness to take up the reins. Two additional authors have observed that Russia is actively moving to fill the void left by the U.S. scale-back in the region:

“Not since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1970s and early 1980s have the Russians shown such penetrating interest and military involvement in the Middle East. . . .

“. . . Russia is back in the news, sending troops into Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad. Though paying lip service to the aim of halting the advance of ISIS forces in the region, these troops were really sent to help Assad fight off rebel forces attempting to topple his cruel and corrupt regime. . . .

“. . . Russia sees an opportunity to expand its influence in the Middle East. As the United States pulls back from its historic role as the leader in the Middle East, Russia appears willing to invest its resources in the region – to become the new power in the deadly game of thrones unfolding there.

“The rapidly shifting landscape of alliances and allies have upended a hundred years of assumed reality across the Middle East. Furthermore, Russia appears eager to shape this new reality to suit its own ends” (Charles Dyer and Mark Tobey, Clash of Kingdoms: What the Bible Says About Russia, ISIS, Iran, and the End Times, 14-16).

Yes, Russia has altered the reality in the Middle East and now has the upper hand. Anyone who thinks the United States dominates the Middle East needs to wake up and take an honest look. We have more or less withdrawn troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are openly gravitating toward Russia. The Saudi leadership is becoming friendly with Russia. Turkey, Iran, and Russia have a new alliance. Syria is now an open Russian base of operations. Iran has become emboldened and is sporting new Russian weapons systems. China is butting in where it doesn’t belong and now has a large presence in places like Pakistan. And so forth.

communism585

Earlier this year Putin began claiming that there are thousands upon thousands of ISIS fighters in Afghanistan – particularly Northern Afghanistan near the borders of his allies. Where do you think Russia is sticking its nose now? Afghanistan. As Radio Free Europe put it:

“Security experts have said that Russia has exaggerated the number of militants in order to justify its outreach to the Afghan Taliban and to suggest to Central Asian governments that they need support from Russia to defend themselves.”

Everywhere they claim to find terrorists, Russia interferes and eventually gains power through the chaos of war – and all because of the “War on Terror” excuse that President Bush handed them on a silver platter. It is a blanket excuse that seems to cover any act of aggression, tyranny, and savagery these days.

In a 2011 article “How the War on Terrorism Did Putin a Favor,” Time magazine noted Putin’s exploitation of the War on Terror for his own ends and explained how the “War on Terror” guise is used by Russia:

“Countries around the world realized the practical appeal of a war on terrorism. Over the past ten years, it has become a seemingly permanent call to arms, a kind of incantation used to dodge questions, build alliances and justify the use of force. No one, not even Bush, grasped this as quickly as Putin.

“Even before Putin became Russia’s President in early 2000, and long before the Twin Towers fell, he had invoked the idea of a war against global terrorism to justify Russia’s war in Chechnya. . . .

“There was scant evidence, however, that the Chechen rebels were part of some global Islamist terrorist network, as Putin and his government repeatedly claimed. The leader of the separatists at the time was Aslan Maskhadov, a former Red Army colonel who was closer to communism than Islamism. . . .

“In late 1999, when Bush was campaigning for the presidency, he vowed to start urging an end to the war. “Even as we support Russian reforms, we cannot support Russian brutality,” he said during a speech at the Reagan Library in California. . . .

“But when Bush announced his own war on terrorism, all this rhetoric quickly evaporated. Putin, who had been the first to call Bush with his sympathy after learning of the 9/11 attacks, graciously offered to help with the invasion of Afghanistan. He let the U.S. ship supplies through Russian territory and did not object to the U.S. setting up bases in Central Asia, where the local despots quickly caught on to the opportunity. Uzbek President Islam Karimov, for instance, allowed the U.S. to build a permanent base, perhaps hoping that his new alliance with the war on terrorism would help reduce U.S. scrutiny of alleged human-rights abuses in Uzbekistan. “It all flowed naturally into the picture of a global war on terror,” says Kasyanov, who by that time had been promoted to serve as Putin’s Prime Minister. “There was no more criticism . . . It just ceased to be a thorny issue.”

“. . . the idea of a global war on terrorism remains one of Putin’s key political narratives. It is trotted out to this day after every terrorist attack in the Russian heartland and during most discussions with Western leaders.”

To everyone who is privy to international affairs, Russia’s moves in the Middle East and Central Asia ought to be disturbing. Russian and Iranian troops just miles from Israel’s border should be alarming to everyone who loves peace. The fact that China will soon assume ownership of Israel’s largest port ought to raise some eyebrows, too. The brazenness with which Iran is hijacking foreign ships and targeting foreign drones and aircraft should likewise be concerning. Christians also should immediately recognize the alliance that is prophesied to lead the charge in the future Battle of Armageddon forming right before their eyes.

The entire Middle East has been flipped upside down by the War on Terror, and Russia is one of the only nations to have benefited. Her strategic position in the region is stronger than it ever has been. Meanwhile, the U.S. position is far weaker and Israel, love her or hate her, is in a compromising situation that sets up a future invasion by Anti-Christ forces.

Six years before the September 11, 2001 attacks, Jay Adams foresaw how Russia would attempt to entangle us in wars against Russia’s allies, thus giving Russia a pretext to simultaneously involve itself and demonize the United States. He predicted:

“Moscow plans to shift blame for global war onto the West by underhandedly provoking the U.S. and its allies into taking military action against Russian allies-of-old. With the collapse of communism, the U.S. has taken on the role of “world policeman.” This has provided Moscow an opportunity to lure the U.S. and its military allies into a trap, particularly by using the United Nations” (David N. Balmforth, America’s Coming Crisis: Prophetic Warnings, Divine Destiny, 153).

communism586

This game plan has come to fruition. The communists have managed to rope the United States into endless wars in the Middle East – wars that have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, sewn discord at home, soiled our reputation abroad, and weakened our international position very noticeably. And out of the fog of war, the Russians have emerged on the high ground militarily and, they would like us to believe, morally. We now turn briefly to the event that made it all possible – the cowardly 9/11 attacks.

Who perpetrated 9/11? This has been one of the enduring questions of our age. I don’t know the exact answer and I believe anyone who claims they know precisely who ordered and carried out the attacks is lying or deluded. However, we know that the official narrative is bogus and filled with more holes than Swiss cheese. We also definitively know some of the individuals and entities involved in either carrying out the attacks, assisting in the operation, obstructing justice, or in the subsequent cover up.

We know, for instance, that five Israelis – several of them Mossad agents – were arrested in New York on 9/11 cheering and celebrating while watching the Twin Towers burn. And they just happened to be working for a Mossad front company and carrying plane tickets for flights leaving the country almost immediately from various airports. They later said on Israeli TV that they had been sent to film the event. Immediately after 9/11, we also uncovered the largest ever spy ring in U.S. history operating domestically. Whose spy ring was it? It was Israeli. In total, just preceding and just after 9/11, 200 Israeli spies were arrested. And we know that Israeli spies have a habit of filtering stolen intelligence to Russia and China. Search the Jonathan Pollard case for one of the most infamous cases of Israeli spying and transfer of state secrets to our enemies via Israel.

We also know that demolition charges were used to bring down not only the Twin Towers, but WTC Building 7 which was not hit by a plane and only had minimal fires before it disintegrated and collapsed neatly and quickly into its own footprint. Numerous eyewitnesses heard and even saw explosions not related to the planes hitting the buildings (and at least one that went off in the basement before the first plane struck), and there was extensive damage on the lower floors of the towers. Some of the eyewitnesses have since died mysterious deaths. The owner of WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, also admitted – in a clip which you can find on YouTube – that he agreed to demolish the building hours after the other towers, which he also owned and had recently insured against terrorist attacks, had already fallen.

We know that Vice President Dick Cheney was actively monitoring the situation and gave stand-down orders to the military around D.C. This was attested to by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta who witnessed Cheney confirm stand-down orders to an aide. NORAD was also running a drill that same day which simulated an attack on the United States – yet these prepared and ready military units were ordered away from the real-world events taking place in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.

We know that there was massive insider trading happening just before and during the attacks, proving foreknowledge of the event. The occurrence was so serious that numerous nations around the world initiated investigations into it. Some have even called the extent of the insider trading “unprecedented.” And don’t forget the $2.3 Trillion that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10th, 2001, could not be accounted for. It’s probably a coincidence that the “plane” that struck the Pentagon on September 11th hit precisely in the accounting offices where the investigation into missing $2.3 Trillion was taking place. And speaking of foreknowledge, Willie Brown, the mayor of San Francisco, publicly said that he was warned not to fly on September 11th. Other big-name figures received similar warnings not to be in D.C. or New York, or not to travel, on that fateful day.

We know because of the scholarly research of Dr. Steven Jones, among others, that thermite or thermate was used to weaken the support columns inside the WTC buildings. The molten pools of steel caused by this hot-burning substance have been attested to by numerous credible eyewitnesses including firefighters and first responders (and, indeed, was captured on video footage), yet which has been conveniently denied by our government.

We know that the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and other government organizations have concealed, covered up, and lied about information relative to the investigation. For instance, they lied about the U.S. government and Pentagon never having envisioned terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, and therefore were unprepared. That is pure fiction. Our military prepared for exactly such a scenario on multiple occasions. Indeed, in the 60s, our Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed Operation Northwoods to President Kennedy. It involved hijacking planes and perpetrating bombings on U.S. soil so they could blame it all on terrorists as a pretext for war with Cuba. President Kennedy rejected the vile plan. Additionally, government officers violated the law and shipped out the WTC evidence (i.e. the rubble) on ships headed for Red China. In nearly every way possible, the government violated its own protocols, lied to the public, covered up information, botched the investigation, failed to answer the numerous questions raised by the families of the victims and research entities like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and have concealed the truth at every turn. Like I said in Russia’s case, where there’s smoke there’s fire – where there’s a cover up, there’s a conspiracy.

These are mere bullet points. Entire books can and have been written documenting the inconsistencies in the official story – books such as Jim Marrs’ The Terror Conspiracy. And numerous researchers like James Corbett and Alex Jones have put out documentaries investigating the conspiracy. The focus of this article, however, is not who brought down the Twin Towers or how it was done. Rather, the focus is on how Russia benefited from the attacks. We should also discuss the possibility that Russian agents, or American agents working for the worldwide Satanic communist conspiracy, were directly involved.

From what was detailed earlier, we know that a common communist tactic is to commit false-flag terror attacks and blame it on Muslim terrorists as a pretext for foreign war. This is precisely what happened on 9/11. We know that there was a cover up by intelligence organizations – organizations which have long been compromised by communist agents. Indeed, John Brennan was the CIA’s deputy executive director at the time of the attacks. Brennan was an admitted communist in the past and has been one of the chief false accusers that Donald Trump is a Russian agent. The head of the FBI during the September 11th attacks was also none other that Robert Mueller – the failed and fraudulent lead investigator into the phony Trump-Russia collusion hoax. President George W. Bush was also a member of Skull and Bones, an elite secret society at Yale that is thought to be an off-shoot chapter of the Order of Illuminati. The lead positions in the U.S. government and intelligence community at the time of the attacks were filled with traitors and conspirators.

But before we discuss communist infiltration of the U.S. system, let’s briefly speak about the Israeli Mossad. This elite intelligence/assassination outfit has been blamed by many people, including numerous U.S. military officers, as the guilty party on 9/11. Mossad seems a plausible perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, or at least an ally of the CIA or other shadowy U.S. intelligence cliques. Yet, we need to recognize that the Russians have compromised Israel as well! Indeed, the Russian mafia – which is nothing but the Russian intelligence services with a new name – has taken over large chunks of Israel. Author Robert Friedman wrote:

“Of all the nations where the Russian mob has established a presence, none has been more deeply compromised than the State of Israel, America’s staunchest ally in the volatile Middle East. More than 800,000 Russian Jews have mad aliyah or settled in Israel since the first massive wave of immigration in the 1970s. The Russians took advantage of Israel’s most sacred law – the Right of Return, which guarantees Jews the right to return to their ancestral homeland, where they would receive citizenship and live as free men and women outside the odious yoke of anti-Semitism. ” . . .

communism596

“But just as in Brighton Beach, Russian immigration to Israel has brought a more unwelcome element – the vor v zakonye and their criminal minions. Ten percent of Israel’s five million Jews are now Russian, and 10 percent of the Russian population “is criminal,” according to NYPD notes of a briefing in Manhattan by Israeli police intelligence official Brigadier General Dan Ohad.

“”There is not a major Russian organized crime figure who we are tracking who does not also carry an Israeli passport,” says senior State Department official Jonathan Winer. . . .

“Russia’s criminal aristocracy covets Israeli citizenship “because they know Israel is a safe haven for them,” said Leder. “We do not extradite citizens.”

“”The Russians then use the safe haven to travel around the world and rape and pillage,” added Moody.

“Israeli police officials estimate that Russian mobsters have poured more than $4 billion of dirty money into Israel’s economy, though some estimates range as high as $20 billion. They have purchased factories, insurance companies, and a bank . . . One of Leder’s greatest fears is that the Russians will compromise Israel’s security by buying companies that work for the military-industrial complex. The mobsters, in fact, attempted to purchase a gas and oil company that maintains strategic reserves for Israel’s military. “They could go to the stock market and buy a company that’s running communications in the military sector,” he complained. . . .

“With two decades of unimpeded growth, the Russian Mafiya has succeeded in turning Israel into its very own “mini-state,” in which it operates with virtual impunity. Although many in international law enforcement believe that Israel is by now so compromised that its future as a nation is imperiled, its government, inexplicably, has done almost nothing to combat the problem. . . .

“”Israel is going to have to do something,” says James Moody. “They could lose their whole country. The mob is a bigger threat than the Arabs”” (Robert Friedman, Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America,” 276-282).

The Russian mafia, controlled by the KGB, GRU, SVR, and other Russian intelligence services, has massive influence in Israel. But has Russian intelligence/mafia infiltrated the Israeli government and intelligence services? Some sources say that direct Russian penetration into the Mossad has not been nearly as successful as in other nations. However, other sources disagree. The Jerusalem Post, for instance, ran an article stating:

“The depth of the penetration by the Soviet Union’s KGB and GRU (military intelligence), or of the intelligence services of communist satellite states, has been testified to by a long line of agents who were convicted in Israel from the 1950s through to the 1990s. It is a long and impressive list of “moles,” quality agents that penetrated every important department in Israel.”

The article listed numerous individuals who have been detected as Soviet spies, such as Colonel Shimon Levison, Abraham Marcus Klingsberg and his wife, Zeev Avni, and others. It then went on to say:

“These are the serious and important spies that caused the most damage to the Israeli defense and intelligence establishment. Of course, there were many additional spies, at varying levels of importance, who were discovered and arrested, including Shabtai Kalmanovich, Gregory Londin and Efraim Samuel (who spied for Romania).

“There were those who were discovered, but who did not have their identities published or stand trial due to a lack of evidence or out of other considerations. One such person was an employee of Israel Aerospace Industries who was acquainted with the Lavi fighter jet program in the 1980s and was fired because of the suspicions against him, but was not put on trial.

“It is very likely that there were those who penetrated, spied and were never caught. The Soviet intelligence method was “quantity that becomes quality.” They recruited and ran hundreds, if not thousands, of agents in the hope that a few of them, or at least one of them, would ascend to the elite and become a quality agent. In this way the KGB tried to infiltrate agents into Israel during the waves of aliya from the Soviet Union, which began with a trickle in the 1960s and 1970s and became a heavy flow in the 1980s.”

Yes, Israel has been a particular target for communist machinations, if for no other reason than the extraordinary number of Jews who immigrated to Israel from the Soviet Union. Both the Russian mob and communist intelligence (an oxymoron) have had noticeable success in infiltrating Israel. And while Mossad might not be as compromised as perhaps the CIA, it is verifiably true that the Russians and Chinese have had no problem getting Israeli spies to give or sell them U.S. military secrets and technology. Jonathan Pollard, who was recently released from prison, was an American Jew convicted of spying for Israel. His information, sold by Israel to the USSR, gave the Evil Empire classified information about America’s nuclear deterrent to the Soviets.

How is this despicable traitor viewed in Israel, ostensibly America’s greatest ally? In Israel, Pollard has been crowned a national hero and even had a street named after him! According to Israeli news, Israel’s warmongering leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently under investigation for bribery and fraud, petitions for Pollard’s extradition to Israel every time he meets with U.S. politicians. Perhaps, then, it should not be surprising to know that the two largest spy rings uncovered on U.S. soil have been Israeli and communist. And who is to say that elements within these two nefarious groups did not team up to perpetrate an event that would lure the United States into a Middle Eastern conflict? Or who is to say that Mossad agents secretly beholden to Moscow were not the ones arrested in New York? It is not as cut and dry as some anti-Israel fanatics have asserted.

Now let’s discuss the CIA. From the very beginning, the CIA has been little more than a communist front. From OSS days to the present, the CIA has harbored and recruited communists. Numerous Soviet spies working for the CIA have been uncovered. Multiple CIA heads have even admitted holding “former” communist ideologies or voting for CPUSA candidates. Soviet defector Ladislav Bittman wrote a book titled The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An Insider’s View. In it, he spoke of how the CIA was targeted and thoroughly sideswiped by the communists. He wrote:

“The decade of the 1970s was a period of continuing crisis for the Central Intelligence Agency. The once highly secret agency was plagued by serious internal problems and unparalleled public attacks. Investigations by the House and Senate and disclosures of the agency’s previous attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, spy on Americans, and engage in other questionable activities shook the agency to its foundations . . . These developments left American intelligence operations in demoralized disarray and the intelligence community divided and confused.

“Was the decline a natural and spontaneous event? Evidence presented by the American mass media points in that direction, but it leaves some disturbing questions. After all, one of the major objectives of the KGB is to confuse and demoralize its American counterpart. . . .

“The CIA staff was reduced by several thousand officers during the 1970s . . . The situation provided an extraordinary opportunity for the KGB to recruit several CIA employees as Soviet agents. . . .

“. . . Thirteen individuals were charged with espionage in the United States from 1975-1980, ten of them on behalf of the Soviet Union, and six of the defendants were formerly affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency or one of its contractors. The security system designed by the agency to weed out moles and enemy agents was an obvious failure” (Ladislav Bittman, The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An Insider’s View, 183-185).

CIA3

KGB infiltration of the CIA didn’t start in the 1970s. Before the CIA was the OSS. This organization was totally swamped with communists. M. Stanton Evans wrote:

“[C]lose students of such matters have long regarded OSS as the most heavily infiltrated of the wartime units, with estimates of the number of Communists ranging as high as a hundred staffers. . . .

“Though its posthumous reputation as a den of Communists and Soviet agents would exceed that of OWI, less was known about the OSS back in the 1940s. The secret nature of the service allowed its employees to roam about the globe at will, engaging in all sorts of actions concealed from Congress and the public” (M. Stanton Evans, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies, 92).

Anatoliy Golitsyn, one of the most credible of all Soviet defectors and one of the chief figures to warn that the Soviet Union’s “collapse” was a fraud designed to deceive the West, also testified that the communists had infiltrated the CIA:

“The Central Intelligence Agency was already penetrated in 1958 – by both the KGB and Chinese intelligence. In 1958, the Agency lost its most important source, Colonel Popov of Soviet Military Intelligence [GRU], who could have provided strategic information had he not been compromised by KGB penetration, arrested by the KGB, and burned alive in the GRU’s crematorium furnace” (Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception, 207).

The CIA was so thoroughly saturated with communists that when Golitsyn defected, he was met by CIA traitors working for Moscow. Cliff Kincaid wrote:

“A former government official told me what happened when Golitsyn defected and was brought into a room to be debriefed. He looked around and realized that half the CIA operatives in front of him were KGB double agents whose reports he had read on the other side.

“This has been the problem all along – our intelligence agencies have been heavily penetrated by enemy agents and we have not been prepared for what’s coming” (Cliff Kincaid, Back from the Dead: The Return of the Evil Empire, 35).

As quoted earlier, the communists have an obsession with using others to do their dirty work while they govern or assist from the shadows. CIA agents must be high up on their list of assets to acquire. Imagine carrying out a terrorist operation against a nation using their own intelligence services! If and when the evidence started to come out, it would lead directly back to the government which would only serve to further demoralize a population, fracture the government, and create fear, mistrust, and resentment – a perfect divide and conquer operation. Soviet defector Colonel Stanislav Lunev spoke of this exact point:

“Although most Westerners don’t realize it, the GRU is one of the primary instructors of terrorists worldwide. The Communist Party Central Committee specifically authorized the GRU to train terrorists in order to further the USSR’s political goals and support its allies. After all, what could be better than to have other people commit terrorist actions that further your own goals?

“There was also the GRU Special Center for the training of terrorists at GRU headquarters. The KGB provided financial and communications support to terrorists, but the operational training and support was reserved for the GRU. The GRU has trained terrorists from almost every country in the world, including Iraq, Libya, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Italy, Germany, Spain, Turkey, and Latin America. Where no terrorist groups existed in countries inimical to the USSR, the GRU would help to form them, and then provide them the necessary training, funding, and organizational support. So, for example, while the terrorists involved in the World Trade Center bombing [of 1993] may never have attended GRU training, the GRU was responsible for the formation of the terrorist group that they belonged to” (Stanislav Lunev, Through the Eyes of the Enemy, 80-81).

Konstantin Preobrazhensky, a KGB defector, made this interesting observation after 9/11. He stated:

“A key distinction between Russian and American attitudes towards Islamic terrorism is that while for America terrorism is largely seen as an exterior menace, Russia uses terrorism as an object as a tool of the state for manipulation in and outside the home country. Islamic terrorism is only part of the world of terrorism. Long before Islamic terrorism became a global threat, the KGB had used terrorism to facilitate the victory of world Communism.

“This leads to the logical connection between Russian and Islamic terrorism. The late Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned in London in November, 2006, told me that his former FSB colleagues had trained famous Al-Qaeda terrorists Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Juma Namangoniy during the 1980s and 1990s. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, has been responsible for the murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States. Before his death, Juma Namangoniy (Jumabai Hojiyev), a native of Soviet Uzbekistan, was a right-hand man of Osama bin Laden in charge of the Taliban’s northern front in Afghanistan. . . .

“Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic, five months before the attack. But Iraqi intelligence was just a client of Russia’s intelligence service. It brings a new understanding to the fact that President Putin was the first foreign President to call President Bush on 9/11. One may conjecture that he knew in advance what was to happen” (Konstantin Preobrazhensky, “Russia and Islam are not Separate: Why Russia backs Al-Qaeda“).

Due to some interesting research by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I’m skeptical whether the planes that took off from the airports that fateful morning were the same which hit the targets. That being said, Mohammed Atta or other Arab terrorists may have still been involved. And if they were, it is certain they received at least part of their training from Soviet-sponsored entities. A number of the alleged hijackers were also trained by U.S. intelligence services.

Though communists love to recruit others – especially native citizens of their target country – they are also prepared with literal armies of men spread throughout the world to commit terrorism, sabotage, assassination, and so forth when the order comes. I again quote from Colonel Lunev regarding these specialized forces spread throughout our nation and the free world and the type of operations they’re prepared and trained to carry out. Plug this information into our present context and ask whether it is plausible that communist agents either carried out or assisted native-born American traitors, or even Mossad agents on their payroll, in carrying out the horrid attacks on September 11, 2001. In 1998, Lunev testified:

“Though most Americans don’t realize it, America is already penetrated by Russian military intelligence to the extent that arms caches lie in wait for use by Russian special forces – or Spetznatz.

“As a GRU officer, my main mission was to prepare for war. I can tell you that for the Soviet Union and for the Russian Federation, America was and is the main expected wartime adversary. Other countries count only as a means to attack America.

“Russia remains terrified of the power of America, and Russian military intelligence does everything it can to prepare for a war that it considers inevitable. Let me be very clear about this. The GRU is still recruiting agents and is still preparing for war with the United States as we approach the supposedly peaceful, post-Cold War millennium. . . .

communism480

“These elite special forces are under the control of my former employer, the GRU . . . They penetrate countries shortly before a war and perform military sabotage that Americans would call terrorism. Some Spetznatz groups perform as assassination squads. These soldiers are familiar with all types of weapons, explosives, and mines; and they are experts at killing quickly without weapons as well. They are also trained to drive all types of military vehicles, including helicopters and small airplanes. They must be fluent in at least two foreign languages. English is the language of choice.

“During wartime, they would try to assassinate as many American leaders as possible, as well as their families. They would also blow up power stations, telephone switching systems, dams, and any strategic targets that cannot be taken out with long range weapons . . . In Soviet and Russian military doctrine, nuclear weapons are not merely for deterrence; they are to be used, and Spetznatz has them available.

Spetznatz troops are currently training inside the United States. They regularly enter the country as foreign tourists, using fake passports and their knowledge of foreign languages to pass as Germans or Eastern Europeans.

“They are the best supplied troops in the Russian military. One of the GRU’s major tasks is to find drop sites for their supplies of clothes, cash, and special equipment – including even small nuclear devices, the so-called “suitcase bombs.” . . .

“It is surprisingly easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the United States. . . .

“In wartime, many GRU officers – all of whom are men – would go undercover to directly aid the Spetznatz forces.

“These wartime plans were fully in place during the Caribbean Crisis – or Cuban Missile Crisis, as Americans refer to it – and remain fully in place today. In 1962, Spetznatz forces were deployed all over the free world, ready to commit acts of sabotage. When no orders came to “go into action,” they destroyed all evidence of their presence and went home. They were undetected and operated freely during the hottest period of the Cold War. Now, when America is less alert to the danger, think of what Spetznatz could do” (Stanislav Lunev, Through the Eyes of the Enemy, 22-28).

Indeed, think of what militarily-trained secret enemy agents operating among us could do. Could they rig a building to blow in a controlled demolition? Could they support native American traitors in carrying out a coordinated attack against their own country? Could they, in conjunction with traitors in our intelligence services or the intelligence services of hostile nations, perpetrate a “terrorist” attack and melt away into the background while the controlled press blames it on Muslims? A better question is: Is there anything the communists wouldn’t do to take down their “main enemy” in what they consider an active war to the death?

The highly credible intelligence defector Viktor Suvorov, whose books Chief Culprit and Icebreaker should be on every bookshelf, presented a potential scenario of Spetznatz agents using small planes to bomb targets in Washington, D.C. during either peacetime or the first days of a future world war. He began:

I do not know how or when World War Three will start. I do not know exactly how the Soviet high command plans to make use of spetsnaz in that war: the first world war in which spetsnaz will be a major contributor. I do not wish to predict the future. In this chapter I shall describe how spetsnaz will be used at the beginning of that war as I imagine it. It is not my task to describe what will happen. But I can describe what might happen.”

Then Suvorov described a long list of potential terrorist attacks that Spetznatz would commit. He remarked: “The terror is carried out in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of fictitious organisations.” He then mentioned one method of Spetznatz-inspired terrorist attack that is particularly interesting considering what happened on 9/11:

Three men open the doors of the van, roll out the fuselage of a light aircraft and attach its wings. A minute later its motor bursts into life. The plane takes off and disappears into the sky. It has no pilot. It is controlled by radio with the aid of very simple instruments, only slightly more complicated than those used by model aircraft enthusiasts. The plane climbs to about 200 metres and immediately begins to descend in the direction of the White House. A minute later a mighty explosion shakes the capital of the United States. . . .

Three minutes later a second plane sweeps across the centre of the city and there is a second explosion in the place where the White House once stood. The second plane has taken off from a section of highway under construction, and has a quite different control system. Two cars with radio beacons in them have been left earlier in the middle of the city. The beacons have switched on automatically a few seconds before the plane’s take-off. The automatic pilot is guided by the two beacons and starts to descend according to a previously worked-out trajectory. The second plane has been sent off by a second group operating independently of the first one.

It was a simple plan: if the first plane did not destroy the White House the second would. If the first plane did destroy the White House then a few minutes later all the heads of the Washington police would be near where the explosion had taken place. The second plane would kill many of them” (Viktor Suvorov, Spetsnatz: The Story Behind the Soviet SAS, see chapter 15).

While Suvorov stated that his hypothetical scenarios are just that, what we saw on 9/11 was eerily similar. Nothing should be out of the realm of possibility when dealing with communists – the greatest mass-murderers the world has ever known.

Not many conspiracy researchers have looked into the potential connection between Russia/communism and 9/11, yet I believe the connection is strong. It deserves to be explored in all seriousness. While it seems painfully evident that some American higher-ups in government and intelligence were involved with the attacks, could these evildoers have actually been communist agents?

In addition to former-KGB agent Konstantin Preobrazhensky cited earlier, another Soviet intelligence asset, the former head of Romanian intelligence Ion Mihai Pacepca, has claimed that 9/11 came about because of Soviet propagandizing and radicalizing in the Middle East. I don’t find Pacepa to be the most credible of defectors, particularly on the topic of the Middle East, yet his statement is worth sharing. In a March 1, 2004 Front Page Mag article titled From Russia With Terror, that I can no longer find online except in excerpt form, he alleged:

“September 11, 2001 was directly rooted in a joint Soviet/Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operation conceived in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. The object of this joint operation was to repair Moscow’s prestige by turning the Islamic world against Israel and by creating a rabid and violent hatred for its main supporter, the United States. The strategy was to portray the US, this land of freedom, as a Nazi-style “imperial-Zionist country” financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion” (the Kremlin’s epithet for the US Congress), the aim of which was allegedly to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. In other words, the heart of the joint plan was to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States. We threw many millions of dollars at this gigantic task, which involved whole armies of intelligence officers.”

I do not believe that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11, though their hatred of the United States and Israel is genuine. They may have assisted or been the front men for the operation, and certainly they were made into the scapegoat, but there was a greater power at work – the invisible hand that guides the nations. This hand, ideologically, is Red. And frequently it extends from the Soviet Empire to strike others around the globe.

I believe it is extremely plausible that communist agents in high places in the U.S. intelligence community and government, assisted by secret military operatives or foreign assets, acted on orders from abroad to create a pretext to get the United States into an endless cycle of Middle Eastern war that would weaken us in preparation for the communist world’s planned final blow against what little remains of the free world. And that pretext was 9/11 and the unconscionable slaughter of 3,000 Americans. They were sacrificed on the altar of the Satanic Elite in their bid to establish communistic totalitarianism over the entire earth.

Perhaps communist infiltrators or agents had nothing directly to do with 9/11 and it really was a home-grown inside job. Be that as it may, the communists have certainly supported and gained from our War on Terror! In fact, I dare say that Russia and the communist world have gained more than anyone else. Communism is more powerful and prevalent now than it was in 2001. The U.S. government has been plunged even deeper into the socialistic abyss. Russia’s position in the Middle East is now far stronger than any other nation’s. The War on Terror has propelled Russia to the forefront of world politics, made her a seemingly “respectable” mediator in world events, and turned KGB agent and mass murderer Vladimir Putin into something of a hero in the eyes of millions. And meanwhile, the United States is severely depleted militarily, grossly in debt, torn into factions, and viewed as a pariah, as a bully, and as an unhinged superpower that likes to prey on smaller nations and which needs punished by an international coalition (led, of course, by Russia and China).

Sept 11 Attacks Secret Files

As I recognize all that Russia has gained and the United States has lost through our nightmarish War on Terror, and every time I look at a gut-wrenching picture of the World Trade Centers in flames, I’m forced to ask the eternal question that so often leads to the true perpetrator of a crime: Cui bono? Who benefited?

Zack Strong,

September 10, 2019

Updated September 12 and 14, 2019

The Communist Plot Against Donald Trump

“Psychopolitics: The art and science of convincing half of the country that President Trump colluded with the Russians and the other half that he is draining the swamp.” – David Risselada, Psychopolitics in America, 3.

Last week, disgraced FBI investigator Robert Mueller testified to Congress relative to his recent report exonerating Donald Trump of collusion with Russia in the 2016 election. In the midst of his shockingly incoherent, uncoordinated, and bumbling testimony, Mueller did make at least one accurate statement. He said that Russian interference in American politics is one of the most serious threats to our Republic. In this he was correct. However, he lied about whose side the Russians are backing.

For two and a half years, the controlled Establishment media has been peddling the lie that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election and subvert America. The reality is that this insidious myth was concocted in Moscow. Those who believe the Trump-Russia collusion tall tale are actually believing good old-fashioned Russian lies.

In 2016, Fusion GPS – a private intelligence firm run by defunct British spy Christopher Steele – was hired to look into presidential candidate Donald Trump. Before long, the contract was dropped and then later picked up by the Democratic National Committee. Steele wrote a series of memoranda which came to be known as the Steele Dossier. Steele himself admitted that he could not verify many of the allegations of Trump-Russia collusion made in his own report! Yet, made them he did. And the Obama Administration, the FBI, the Democratic Party, and the Establishment media ran with the lie and have tried to drum it into the American consciousness in a vain attempt to make it stick.

It should make the discerning person pause to know that Christopher Steele’s sources are Russian. The entire Steele Dossier – upon which the Trump-Russia collusion lie was based – was concocted from anonymous Russian sources! If this doesn’t raise red flags – no pun intended – I don’t know what does.

communism232

Not only does the spurious information about Donald Trump come from anonymous sources in Putin’s Russia, but the primary American accusers are known communists! James Comey, Obama-appointed head of the FBI from 2013-2017 who presided over the beginning phases of the Trump-Russia collusion hysteria, has admitted that he was once a communist. John Brennan, Obama-appointed head of the CIA from 2013-2017, was also a communist who admitted that he voted for Gus Hall, the Communist Party USA presidential candidate. These two communist traitors helped breathe life – false life – into the Trump-Russia myth. Yet, otherwise good people believe the lies spun by these traitors!

Numerous so-called “experts” have written books detailing the alleged (and fake) collusion. This inglorious list includes avowed leftists such as Malcolm Nance, Michael Isikoff, Michael Wolff, Michael Hayden, and Jim Acosta. Other leftists in the intelligence community such as Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Robert Mueller, and James Clapper aided in these efforts by illegally spying on Donald Trump and using their positions of influence to demonize an innocent man. Still other leftists in government like Adam Schiff, Rod Rosenstein, and Jerry Nadler have used the flawed allegations put forward by the Malcolm Nances and Christopher Steeles of the world to continue the charade despite President Trump being exonerated by the Mueller probe – an exhaustive investigation initiated on fraudulently-obtained FISA warrants and false allegations from Russian sources that cost the American public many millions of dollars.

The Communist Party USA has also weighed in on Donald Trump. Before we cite what the CPUSA has said about the president, let’s recall the words of communist defector Louis Francis Budenz about the Communist Party. In his excellent exposé Men Without Faces: The Communist Conspiracy in the U.S.A., Budenz warned about this radical organization. Said he: “[A] group of people so completely under foreign-dictatorship control is not a legitimate political party. It is an arm of the conspiracy directed by that foreign power; in other words, an alien fifth column” (Budenz, Men Without Faces, 34).

This fifth column will go to great lengths to smear enemies of the communist world revolution. Budenz explained:

“The Reds are organized experts in lying – but the lies in which the Red engages are those that will aid the cause and the party. In such circumstances, according to the peculiar ethics of the Communist, it is right, not wrong, to lie. The Communist will not hesitate to spread scandalous falsehoods about a man or woman who has been declared to be an enemy of the party. He will do all in his power to get non-Communists to accept and spread the same malicious slanders. On the witness stand, he will resort to perjury, if necessary, to protect the interest of his party. But this is done under party orders and for party purposes, and is regarded as a cardinal feature of Communist morality” (Budenz, Men Without Faces, 31).

In adherence to their perverse version of morality, American communists have come out in droves to lambast Donald Trump and smear him with false collusion claims, erroneous allegations of mental illness, assertions that he is unstable and dangerous, lies that he’s racist and bigoted, claims that he is a “Nazi” and a “fascist,” and so forth. The “Nazi” allegation is one that the communists particularly love to use against Constitutionalists, conservatives, and anyone who opposes the insidious spread of communism. And because we have been so propagandized regarding the truth about Hitler and World War II, we fall for this Red hysteria. Don’t fall for it.

Trump44

Since 2016, the Communist Party has kept up a running smear campaign aimed at Donald Trump – hardly something they would do if Trump was on their side! On October 16, 2016 – at the height of the presidential election – the CPUSA portrayed Donald Trump as a conspiracy theorist and attacked him as a “fascist” whose campaign presented “new dangers to democracy.”  They said that a Hillary Clinton victory would help them derail “the growing fascist threat that Trump and his supporters are promoting.” If you were not aware, the Communist Party USA openly promoted Hillary Clinton in 2016.

In an October 25, 2016 article, the Communist Party hosted the Cuban communist Ricardo Alarcon who declared that “the only way to defeat [Donald Trump] is Hillary Clinton.” He referred to “Trumpism,” calling it “a disease that corrodes US society and threatens humanity.” The CPUSA was fully behind Clinton’s campaign in 2016 – not Donald Trump’s. Yet people have the audacity to claim Russia helped Trump cheat Clinton out of a win!

The communists’ attacks have been relentless since Donald Trump upset their hopes in 2016. For example, on October 20, 2018, the CPUSA made an extensive case for why they believe Donald Trump is a fascist. They cited the “classic definition” of fascism thus: “Fascism is the open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary sections of finance capital.” They then said: “Both Trump’s campaign and administration have direct ties to reactionary sections of finance capital.” In other words, the communists equate President Trump’s administration with fascism and “terroristic dictatorship.” More overtly, the article compared Trump’s administration to Mussolini’s government, Hitler’s Third Reich, and “the dictatorships in Europe and Latin America [that] were fueled by racism, anti-Semitism and last, but not least, anti-communism.” Yet we are to believe that Donald Trump is on the communist payroll? Laughable! People who believe this need to take a serious gut check and wake up to reality.

In recent months, the Communist Party has been on a roll accusing the president and his supporters of “Red-baiting.” They love to raise the specter of McCarthyism despite the fact that Senator McCarthy was not only correct in his assertion that communists had infiltrated our government, but fell far short in the scope of his accusations.

In a commentary on President Trump’s 2019 State of the Union remarks, the current chairman of the CPUSA, John Bachtell, lamented that the president’s “demagogic and fear mongering remarks were laced with anti-communism and anti-socialism. This served two purposes. First, to paint all Democrats as dangerous radicals and socialists, who pose a domestic threat to American values and then to drive that wedge in the anti-extreme right electoral alliance.” To translate a bit, the communists see themselves as an “anti-extreme right” group. That is, “anti-fascist” or “anti-Nazi” a la Antifa. They see all their enemies as “fascists” and “Nazis” and “right-wing extremists.” When you hear this propaganda line repeated by the mainstream press, Hollywood, academia, etc., know that it is the Communist Party line.

Earlier this summer, John Bachtell continued his attacks by calling President Trump “a gangster masquerading as president.” He then declared the current communist objective in these words:

“The aim is to oust Trump and the Republican Senate majority, defend the Democratic House majority, and break the GOP domination of governorships and state legislatures, which includes supporting candidates from their ranks, including communists.”

In order to “oust Trump” and thwart anyone like him getting into office, the Communist Party USA has for several years now openly allied itself with the Democratic Party (which is itself controlled by closet communists). This alliance will only grow stronger as Democrats burn their bridges and openly embrace Bernie Sanders-style Democratic Socialism and then, eventually, full-fledged communism. The Communist Party-Democratic alliance has highlighted one fact: Donald Trump, and that which he represents, is in the crosshairs of the enemy.

communism184

If President Trump is working with Russia or for the communists, why do they hate him so much and spend so much time tarnishing his reputation and undermining his administration? The Lord taught us that if Satan’s kingdom is divided against itself cannot stand, therefore it will not be divided against itself (Matthew 12:24-26). With this in mind, I say that every honest and discerning individual must realize that the entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative is phony. The truth is that it was concocted in Moscow and is promoted by communists and leftists in America. That the mainstream media – which is Marxist in nature and outlook – has backed this fable should make rational people wary of believing it. Why would the Marxists abroad, in media, in intelligence organizations, in government, in academia, etc., oppose Donald Trump if he was on their payroll or working for them? It is illogical in the extreme to believe this.

Some people have ignored these basic logical inferences and have pointed to the sad fact that President Trump has made some very stupid decisions as president as “proof” that he is in bed with the enemy. That he has made some absurd decisions is without question. The he has the political acumen of a gnat is also without question. And the record of his life of immorality is likewise beyond dispute. Yet, does this mean he is part of the conspiracy or secretly on the communist payroll? No.

Newt Gingrich once said that the reason Donald Trump is so hated is that he does not belong to the secret cabal that rules in Washington and the various power centers of the globe. He noted: “[H]e’s an outsider. He’s not them. He’s not part of the club. He’s uncontrollable . . . he hasn’t been through the initiation rites. He didn’t belong to the secret society.” And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the core of the issue: For as idiotic and immoral as Trump often is, he is not a formal member of the Luciferian cult that hijacked the world. Trump does not promote Satanic communism and, thus, is at odds with the ruling core of the conspiracy – all of his very real flaws notwithstanding.

Let’s remember who Donald Trump is. He is a businessman and sees everything through this lens. Since he looks at politics as a businessman, President Trump thinks any “deals” are progress, no matter how many principles and promises must be compromised to make them. He is willing to rub shoulders with shady folks like communist dictators in order to “make a deal.” He, as well as most folks, thinks “getting things done” is a good thing. Personally, I want to see less action; far, far less. Yet, “action” is seen as the hallmark of success these days, so President Trump does everything he can, and meets with whomever he can, in order to “make deals.”

Some of the deals the president has made are horrendous while others have been beneficial. Though I did not vote for him and will not be voting for him in 2020, President Trump is the best president in my lifetime and we can thank his administration for getting us out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Paris Climate Accords, putting a spotlight on the invasion we know as illegal immigration, arresting thousands of human traffickers, standing up in at least a small way to the United Nations, cutting a certain number of federal regulations, and so forth. Yet, President Trump is flawed and has allowed himself to be manipulated, talked down from his tough stances, etc.

For instance, the president’s brokering of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is a prime example of his constitutional illiteracy and lack of political sense. President Trump sees the USMCA as a “win” because it is a “deal” – a “deal” he brokered! Yet, the USMCA is essentially NAFTA 2.0 and would be a blow to our sovereignty. The New American observed:

“The USMCA is being championed as a “better deal” by President Trump, and if Americans don’t show their disapproval, the Deep State may ride the Trump train to congressional approval for the USMCA and derail American sovereignty in the process. Both President Trump and USTR Robert Lighthizer (shown), a veteran CFR member, have touted the USMCA as a model of all future trade agreements, underscoring its importance. . . .

“After less than two years of negotiations, the USMCA was released early on October 1, 2018 on the USTR website for the public to read. It runs for 1,809 pages — 1,572 pages for the treaty chapters, 214 pages for additional annexes, and 23 pages of side letters. Obviously, the mammoth size of the agreement should set off alarm bells that much more is involved than “free trade,” which should mean the absence of government intervention.

“Of course, President Trump does not see it that way — at least not yet. “This is a terrific deal, for all of us,” he announced later that morning from the Rose Garden. “Once approved by Congress, this new deal will be the most modern, up-to-date, and balanced trade agreement in the history of our country, with the most advanced protections for workers ever developed.” Taking the president’s words at face value, one might think that NAFTA is dead and that the USMCA is a huge win for America that will safeguard its national sovereignty. Unfortunately, his rhetoric belies the reality. The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward.”

I recommend reading the full article, as well as this one, to learn more about why Trump’s USMCA is dangerous.

Additionally, President Trump’s meetings with North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong-un have done nothing but buy time for the Koreans to continue their preparations for war and legitimize the brutal regime in the eyes of the downtrodden Korean people. Urging détente and “peace” talks is a common communist tactic. These times of peace are always used to gain an advantage over the gullible West. We should have learned from experience decades ago that communists do not make deals with anyone unless those deals benefit them and promote their Satanic criminal conspiracy. President Trump, lacking any real understanding of the workings of the internationalist conspiracy, plays into their hands by delaying tough actions in favor of “peace” talks and diplomacy.

A third example of the president’s ability to be hoodwinked and swayed by his duplicitous advisers is the 2nd Amendment issue. President Trump is weak on our right to keep and bear arms. Last year I penned an article on the president’s knee-jerk response to the suspicious Las Vegas shooting. President Trump succumbed to the loud voices of the minority who called for “action” on guns. To appease the crowd, he made a “deal.” He overstepped his authority and violated the Constitution by banning bump stocks – a constitutionally-protected gun accessory that increases the rate of fire of a weapon. It was yet another episode that demonstrated President Trump’s unfitness for office.

Again, President Trump has done numerous good things despite occasionally falling victim to the voices enticing him to promote the Establishment’s agenda. The fact that he has been so castigated and hated by the Establishment press, the other branches of government, academia, Hollywood, both major political parties, and international governments and organizations is evidence that he is not all bad and that, at least on some issues, he has struck a nerve with the conspiracy.

More than anything, the war on President Trump is a war on perception. President Trump is perceived by a large swath of the population as an America-first political outsider who wants to “drain the swamp,” stop the invasion of illegal aliens, boost the economy, fight political correctness, and make our nation great again. It doesn’t matter whether this is true or not – what matters is that people think it is. And it is that perception that is dangerous to the Establishment. Optimism is contagious. If the “common people” come to believe that they actually have the power to change how Washington operates and that they can once again reclaim their country and be proud to be Americans, that emboldens them to speak out and stand up against the tyranny. When the American People do this, the hostile Elite that have hijacked our nation begin to lose power.

communism204

A moment in the movie A Bug’s Life illustrates this principle. You’ll recall that the antagonist, Hopper, is a surly grasshopper who oppresses the ants and extracts tribute from them in the form of food. Hopper is worried because an ant stood up to him. His henchmen laugh and shrug it off. After all, it was only one lone ant. What could he do? Seeing the bigger picture, Hopper warned his comrades: “If you let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up. Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life. It’s not about food; it’s about keeping those ants in line.”

President Trump is just one man; a very flawed man who in and of himself poses no real threat to the Marxist Establishment and often unwittingly promotes their agenda. However, because he is perceived by the majority of the American People as a symbol of resistance to the “Deep State” or “swamp,” he is dangerous. Again, this is a perception war – and the Trump-Russia collusion myth manufactured in Russia was an attempt to poison the public’s minds against what they thought Trump stood for.

More than perhaps any other thing, President Trump has forced people to show their true colors – either for or against Americanism. The radicals have become even more radicalized, violent, and volatile while the humble American patriots have become emboldened and more nationalistic and zealous for Freedom. The anti-Americans among us are finally tearing off their masks and admitting that they’re communists who hate the Constitution and oppose the Christian and moral principles our Republic was founded upon. We cannot allow them to extinguish the flame of Freedom beginning to grow in the hearts of many Americans who have been asleep or apathetic for far too long.

I believe that those who promote the debunked and fraudulent Trump-Russia collusion myth do great harm to America. Congressman Devin Nunes concurred and wrote a recent article about the absurdity of the Trump-Russia “collusion” sideshow and how damaging it has been to our Republic:

“As the Russia collusion hoax hurtles toward its demise, it’s important to consider how this destructive information operation rampaged through vital American institutions for more than two years, and what can be done to stop such a damaging episode from recurring.

“While the hoax was fueled by a wide array of false accusations, misleading leaks of ostensibly classified information, and bad-faith investigative actions by government officials, one vital element was indispensable to the overall operation: the Steele dossier.

“Funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee, which hid their payments from disclosure by funneling them through the law firm Perkins Coie, the dossier was a collection of false and often absurd accusations of collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials. These allegations, which relied heavily on Russian sources cultivated by Christopher Steele, were spoon-fed to Trump opponents in the U.S. government, including officials in law enforcement and intelligence. . . .

“It is astonishing that intelligence leaders did not immediately recognize they were being manipulated in an information operation or understand the danger that the dossier could contain deliberate disinformation from Steele’s Russian sources. In fact, it is impossible to believe in light of everything we now know about the FBI’s conduct of this investigation, including the astounding level of anti-Trump animus shown by high-level FBI figures like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, as well as the inspector general’s discovery of a shocking number of leaks by FBI officials.

“It’s now clear that top intelligence officials were perfectly well aware of the dubiousness of the dossier, but they embraced it anyway because it justified actions they wanted to take — turning the full force of our intelligence agencies first against a political candidate and then against a sitting president.

“The hoax itself was a gift to our nation’s adversaries, most notably Russia. The abuse of intelligence for political purposes is insidious in any democracy. It undermines trust in democratic institutions, and it damages the reputation of the brave men and women who are working to keep us safe. This unethical conduct has had major repercussions on America’s body politic, creating a yearslong political crisis whose full effects remain to be seen.”

communism235

Yes, the false Trump-Russia “collusion” narrative has been a great boon to the communists and has done much to undermine and weaken our Republic! Unfortunately, many otherwise good folks have fallen for the ruse. Some decent individuals have become so carried away with their hatred of Donald Trump that they see in him nothing but evil and refuse to even acknowledge when he does something good such as end our involvement with the TPP or the U.N. Human Rights Council. Some, because they know of the machinations of the Reds and rightly see communism as an all-pervasive cancer that affects all branches of government and contaminates all facets of society, wrongly believe that every member of the government is involved or on their payroll. I caution against this sort of faulty logic.

As noted, President Trump does not help his case by occasionally following the international Marxist agenda and legitimizing communist dictators by dealing with them. The president does not understand the conspiracy aimed at taking down America. Oh, to be sure, he has vowed that “America will never be a socialist country.” Yet, he doesn’t recognize that many of his own hand-selected advisers are members of that vicious cabal and are attempting to undermine him at every step. And President Trump’s character flaws also allow him to be swayed by flattery or popular clamoring.

The plot to undermine President Trump’s administration was hatched abroad in Moscow. Indeed, the plan to undermine every president who even thinks about opposing any portion of communism or who thinks he can rally the nation behind Americanist principles was concocted decades ago by the Bolsheviks. Because of what he symbolizes, President Trump has been the target of a well-coordinated and venomous smear campaign and psyop perhaps unrivaled in our nation’s history.

In his phenomenal book Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest, which I cannot recommend too highly, David Risselada explained the communist tactic of employing psychological tactics to manipulate and destroy their enemies. The communists have devoted much effort to convince Americans that they are mentally unstable, that their leaders are literally insane, and that the only cure is to abandon traditional Americanism and embrace the Marxist worldview. Risselada wrote:

“Psychopolitics is a method of mind control that employs the use of fear, torture, psychotropic drugs and blackmail and which seeks to turn a person from his previous loyalties towards Communism . . . the United States is a nation marked for conquest, and most of what we see occurring around us is carefully contrived propaganda designed to give the illusion that the country we live in is sick, and we would be better served if we as Americans abandoned our outdated ideas about individual liberty and surrendered our authority to a world Communist body” (Risselada, Psychopolitics in America, 8).

Risselada then pinpointed several specific cases in which the enemy is attempting to paint the president – and anyone who shares these views – as crazy, irrational, or dangerous. The president’s stance on stopping the invasion of illegal immigrants is one example. Resselada wrote:

“The Left is using the issue of illegal immigration to push for open borders and the elimination of America’s national identity. They are also using it to discredit Donald Trump, as he is being portrayed as a heartless dictator who is locking up poor children seeking asylum in the United States. . . .

“What President Trump is currently dealing with is an overwhelming problem of illegal immigrants crossing our border because the Left has virtually made it legal to do so. The Hegelian Dialectic is in play here, as this issue has been allowed to grow out of control for several decades to create a public demand for a solution, and that solution is being presented as amnesty. . . .

“The Left is now using this issue to present Trump’s actions as morally reprehensible so they can get their voting base worked up and mobilized. While doing so, they have once again shown the world just how low they are willing to go to present something as a crisis which must immediately be solved” (Risselada, Psychopolitics in America, 225, 227).

Furthermore, Risselada weighed in on the Trump-Russia collusion myth, writing:

“The idea that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians is laughable, at best. The Russian influence in our country is certainly real; however, the Russians would be more interested in seeing a far-left party come to power, as left-wing ideology is more in line with Communist objectives. . . .

“The most outrageous aspect of this fake investigation is the fact that despite no evidence, it continues, in spite of actual evidence of crimes committed by Hillary Clinton, the primary one being the Uranium One scandal that allowed Russia to control a huge portion of America’s uranium reserves while enriching the Clintons through donations in the millions to their Clinton Foundation. Furthermore, to add to the outrage, Robert Mueller was head of the FBI while all of this occurred. It could reasonably be concluded that the attempts to pin Russian meddling in the election on Donald Trump are nothing more than an effort to distract the public from the fact that the Clintons profited greatly by actually doing so!

“It is also becoming clear that the real collusion took place between the Russians and the Clinton campaign. This makes more sense, as Putin, a former KGB agent who most likely aligns himself with Communist ideals, is going to want a US president who seeks to weaken America on the world stage, not one that seeks to “make her great again.” One of the goals of the Communist Party has always been to create the illusion in the mind of Americans that disarming our military and nuclear arsenal is a sign of moral strength” (Risselada, Psychopolitics in America, 263, 266-267).

Trump35

Yes, the real colluding culprits are the ones pointing the finger and Donald Trump. Those who scream the loudest about “collusion!” are merely projecting their own sins on the president. Projection is a common communist tactic. From the beginning, communists have blamed their opposition for things they themselves were guilty of. For instance, it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest during World War II, yet the Soviet propagandists yelled so loud and so long that the “Nazis” did it, that the lie stuck. Only recently has it become generally accepted that the Soviets lied and that Germany was innocent of this massacre.  And when a Dutch communist burned down the German Reichstag in 1933 as part of a larger campaign of Bolshevik violence and terrorism against Hitler’s avowedly anti-communist government, the propagandists spun the event to frame the National Socialists for the tragedy – a lie repeated to this day. The same thing happens today in politics.

Indeed, not only do communists project problems, they create them out of thin air in order to exploit them to their advantage. The Russian Alexander Markovsky explained the communist penchant for conflict creation. He said:

“[I]f you want to change a society, here is Lenin’s script: cause the problem. Spread the misery. Send a cadre of professional community organizers to unite all of the angry and disinherited spirits to fuel an organized revolt. Entice chaos and violence. Exploit chaos for larger political objectives. Blame your political opponents, demonize and criminalize them” (in Cliff Kincaid, The Sword of Revolution and the Communist Apocalypse, 41).

Markovsky was exactly correct. Problem. Reaction. Solution. The communists create a problem and fan the flames into an inferno that people cannot ignore; they channel the organic public outrage toward the object – whether person, idea, or institution – targeted for destruction; and, once the old system is burned down, they provide a “solution” that people will readily accept as long it promises to end the chaos and reestablish order.

Creating the Trump collusion myth was a stroke of genius that has certainly sparked a blaze of chaos, confusion, bitterness, resentment, and hatred. People are so blinded by propaganda that they have become violent and vengeful. The communist terrorist group Antifa has taken to the streets and routinely attacks people and property. They are now arming themselves and have been threatening to overthrow the government. But even people less inclined to riot in the streets have become radicalized. This radicalization has poisoned their relationships and made them bitter and cynical.

The communists are masters at tapping into this hatred, cynicism, and bitterness and channeling it into radicalism. They radicalize and mobilize women by telling them they are victims of some “oppressive patriarchy.” They radicalize and mobilize blacks and minorities by making them out to be victims of alleged “racism” by whites. They radicalize and mobilize people suffering from homosexuality and transgenderism by making them feel victimized by “heterosexual bigots.” And on and on.

The same tactics are being used to galvanize and radicalize anti-Trump fanatics. Often, these radicals have been duped into believing that Donald Trump symbolizes the rise of an “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “racist,” “homophobic,” “white supremacist,” “Nazi,” “nationalist,” “Christian” theocracy that will trample their rights. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read this sentiment online. People are so out of touch that they believe that Christian America is on the rise and that we are a threat to the Liberty of the nation. In truth, Wicca is the fastest growing religion in America, Satanism is becoming popularized, New Age practices are found everywhere, and people are openly marching with hammer and sickle flags and assaulting American patriots with impunity.

So much of the recent violence and radicalization of this sort is attributable to the lie that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to swindle the election and screw the American People. Again I repeat that those who promote this myth are endangering the nation. They are adding fuel to the inferno of hatred and bitterness. They are encouraging those who, suffering an acute form of mental derangement produced by the avalanche of malicious lies, need a major dose of truth to recover. Please stop and think about what you’re contributing to when you repeat the Russian-born, communist-promoted lie that Donald Trump is on the communist payroll.

communism177

America is at war. The Satanic communist conspiracy seeks to overthrow our God-inspired Constitution, thrash our noble traditions, crucify Christianity, split apart families, destroy our Freedom, and devour our People. When we allow their myths to spread and gain a place in our hearts, we are promoting their world revolution. Please, wake up to the awful reality that you are under attack and that this war is primarily ideological and psychological. We must develop a high sense of discernment if we are to survive this struggle.

I end this article with an old, yet eerily timely, statement by the venerable Ezra Taft Benson regarding the struggle we find ourselves in. Ponder it. Take it to heart. And act to preserve our Faith, Families, and Freedom before it is everlastingly too late.

“Let’s get one thing straight at the very beginning. International communism is the self-avowed enemy of every loyal American. It has declared war against us and fully intends to win. The war in which we are engaged is total. Although its main battlefields are psychological, political and economic, it also encompasses revolution, violence, terror and limited military skirmishes. If we should lose this war, the conquering enemy’s wrath against our people and our institutions will result in one of the greatest blood-baths of all history. Call it a “cold war” if it makes you feel better, but our freedom and our very lives are the stakes of this contest” (Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 165).

Zack Strong,

July 30, 2019.

If you want to support my work and learn more about the occult origins, bloody legacy, and dire threat of communism, I invite you to purchase one of my books on communism:

A Century of Red

Red Gadiantons: What the Prophets Have Taught about the Communist Secret Combination that Threatens Mankind

Also, if you want to sport an original anti-communist t-shirt I designed, you can purchase a copy here:

Hemisphere of Freedom

In 1823, President James Monroe formalized a latent national policy of protecting the Western Hemisphere from the tyrannical encroachments of outside influence. This noble policy came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine. Today, the Monroe Doctrine is often viewed as a relic of the past – an outdated, or even imperialistic, policy. President Obama’s anti-American regime in fact announced that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” This article is a brief defense of the Monroe Doctrine and the United States’ role in preserving the Western Hemisphere as one of Freedom.

Monroe5

Before delivering his hallmark speech to Congress formally announcing the policy, President James Monroe wrote to Thomas Jefferson for advice. The Sage of Monticello responded with a letter that confirmed Monroe’s convictions and gave him some of the iconic phraseology he would later use. Jefferson wrote of President Monroe’s proposed doctrine:

“The question presented by the letters you have sent me is the most momentous which has ever been offered to my contemplation since that of independance that made us a nation; this sets our compass, and points the course which we are to steer thro’ the ocean of time opening on our view. And never could we embark on it under circumstances more auspicious. Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; our 2d never to suffer Europe to intermeddle in Cis-Atlantic affairs. America, North & South, has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her own. She should therefore have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While the last is laboring to become the domicil of despotism, our endeavor should surely be to make our hemisphere that of freedom.”

The great Thomas Jefferson was thrilled at the prospect of making ours a “hemisphere . . . of freedom.” The principle of intervening in foreign affairs when those affairs negatively impacted or directly threatened a nation’s legitimate interests or their national well being was internationally recognized and remains legitimate to this day. As president, Jefferson had in fact sent the newly-minted U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to fight “state-sponsored maritime marauders” in the Mediterranean.  Yet, the policy had never been publicly articulated by an American administration in the way President Monroe was proposing.

A1S7_1_201705161616056090

The bold idea that President Monroe and Thomas Jefferson shared was that the Western Hemisphere, being distinct from Europe and having an inherently different set of interests and values, should never be meddled with by European (or any foreign) powers. They knew that as a nation we could not afford to allow hostile powers to turn our hemisphere into an abode for tyranny like they had done to the rest of the world. Rather, the United States should use her influence to maintain the Independence of her fellow American states – both to protect their integrity and to strengthen the borderlands of our own Republic.

In his monumental message to Congress on December 2, 1823, President Monroe described what America’s new policy would entail and the reasons for its implementation. He said in part:

“The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do.

Picture2_-_Brian_Hook__03507.1514580093

“It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers.

“The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted.

“We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere, but with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.”

A1S7_1_201705161583237157

The “allied powers” to which President Monroe referred were Russia, Austria, and Prussia, with occasional French involvement. This Russian-led, Russian-instigated, Russian-dominated combination was known as the Holy Alliance. Its purpose was to crush popular Liberty movements worldwide and retain so-called “Christian” monarchies in power. Indeed, the Russian tsar was convinced that Providence had called him to uphold and extend the monarchical system. The reality, of course, was that God moved upon the American patriots of 1776 and 1787 to break away from the rotten monarchical apparatus and establish a limited constitutionalist system of individual Liberty and personal accountability.

The Monroe Doctrine must be seen within the context of the movements and plans of the misguided Holy Alliance. During the first two decades of the nineteenth century, uprisings gripped Latin America as nations threw off the shackles of Spanish power and created independent states – Mexico, Panama, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and so forth. An online piece describes the Holy Alliance’s reaction to these Independence movements and the American response to said reaction:

“At just this point, Russia, Prussia and Austria formed an association called the Holy Alliance to protect themselves against revolution. By intervening in countries where popular movements threatened monarchies, the Alliance — joined at times by France — hoped to prevent the spread of revolution into its dominions. This policy was the antithesis of the American principle of self-determination.

“As long as the Holy Alliance confined its activities to the Old World, it aroused no anxiety in the United States. But when the Alliance announced its intention of restoring its former colonies to Spain, Americans became very concerned. For its part, Britain resolved to prevent Spain from restoring its empire because trade with Latin America was too important to British commercial interests. London urged the extension of Anglo-American guarantees to Latin America, but Secretary of State John Quincy Adams convinced Monroe to act unilaterally: “It would be more candid, as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cock-boat in the wake of the British man-of-war.””

images-duckduckgo-com5

The Holy Alliance, by its very nature, could not be contained to the “Old World.” The text itself stated that the monarchs were bound to support each other “on all occasions and in all places.” On October 17, 1823, President James Monroe wrote to Thomas Jefferson informing him that he had received letters from George Canning, a prominent British politician of the era, “suggesting designs of the holy alliance, against the Independance of So America, & proposing a cooperation, between G. Britain & the UStates, in support of it, against the members of that alliance.” With the threat of Russian interference in the Americas looming nearer, James Monroe consulted Thomas Jefferson and crafted the Monroe Doctrine.

One of the exemplary patriots of our time, Ezra Taft Benson, gave us poignant insight into the purpose and necessity of the Monroe Doctrine. He affirmed:

“The purpose was to maintain the current balance of power so that we would not become the targets of future aggressive designs of European nation with massive strongholds on or near our borders. It was felt that the maintenance of an ocean between ourselves and European powers would safeguard us from becoming reluctantly entwined in the perennial intrigues and wars of the Continent.

1915_The_Great_Wall-Carey_Orr-Nashville_Tennessean

“Whenever the physical security of the United States is directly threatened, as it was in the Cuban crisis, we must not hesitate to uphold the traditional meaning of the Monroe Doctrine: our unilateral opposition to outside intervention in the Western Hemisphere. This Doctrine laid down as a broad principle of action and applied to world communism enjoys strong public support for foreign policy decisions. . . .

“The Monroe Doctrine is based upon the principle, long recognized in international law journals, that a nation has a right to interfere in the affairs of another nation if such interference is with in the framework of self-defense. In other words, if the establishment by a foreign power of unusually heavy military installations is observed on a nation’s frontier, and if that nation has good reason to believe that those installations eventually are going to be used as part of an offensive attack against it, then it is justified in taking the initiative in destroying those installations, without waiting for the actual attack. Such action, although aggressive by itself, is viewed as part of a generally defensive maneuver.

“. . . the Monroe Doctrine neither added nor detracted one iota from what the United States had a right to do. All it accomplished was to inform other nations what conditions the United States would consider a sufficient threat to its long-range security to justify involving, if need be, the sovereign right of preventative self-protection. If other nations wished to test our resolve or our strength in these matters, that was up to them, but at least we went on record and laid our cards on the table so that no one could say they didn’t know.

“The important point, however, is that, even if the Monroe Doctrine had never been enunciated, the United States – or any nation for that matter – would still be justified in attempting to prevent an upset on the stable balance of power among its friendly bordering neighbors if it were convinced that such a shift in power eventually would result in a threat to its own security. That principle, which is at the heart of a nation’s right to self-preservation, is just as valid today as ever before – and especially so for the United States.

“. . . The Monroe Doctrine is right, it just needs to be applied.

fidel-castro-nikita-khrushchev-united-nations-1960

A bearded gravedigger and his Soviet overlord

“There is no doubt in my mind that the American people would be angry if they fully realized the extent to which our leaders have abandoned the vital principle of preventative self-defense on behalf of our nation. If a man says he is going to shoot you, and then points a gun in your direction, you don’t have to wait until he pulls the trigger before you take action to overpower him. When the communists say they are going to bury us and then move a bearded gravedigger right next door, we should grab him by the hair of his chin and throw him out! And we don’t have to apologize to anyone for our action.

“What we need is a new application of the Monroe Doctrine – a declaration to the nations of the world to inform them that no longer are we going to tolerate communist or other hostile regimes on or near our borders” (see Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This“).

What a powerful statement of reality! As a nation, we have abandoned our prerogative to defend ourselves against the threats and encroachments of hostile communist regimes in our hemisphere. We have betrayed the Monroe Doctrine! We have sold out our security in order to appease the socialistic “international community” and communist-controlled organizations like the United Nations. We have not cared enough that our nation has been made extremely vulnerable by the communist infestation south of our border.

ac4139c716636aea0d8971cd8be558ed

It is not inconsequential that the Monroe Doctrine was established to thwart Russian meddling in the Americas when we consider that today Russian/Chinese communist meddling is the gravest threat in our hemisphere. The Twentieth Century saw the tragic planting of the Red flag throughout the world. In few places was communist intervention so overt and successful as in Latin America.

JFK’s campaign advisor, Adolf Berle, said that Latin America was “an active Cold War theatre of attack upon the United States.” He further stated that, specifically, it was “Russian and Chinese stimulation and arming of local political movements to [the] point where they can be converted into civil wars and used to seize and set up governments which will be hostile to the United States” that was the foremost threat (Stephen G Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World: John F. Kennedy Confronts Communist Revolution in Latin America, 22). It was so in the 60s and it is so today in 2019.

306ef3e89dc69e9a75067e81e931e2c6

Cristeros executed during the communist revolution in Mexico

Most people do not comprehend the menacing leviathan that sits camouflaged and ready to strike from Latin America. Americans do not realize, for instance, that Mexico has been a communist stronghold for nearly a century. Tens of thousnds of Christian Freedom fighters, Cristeros, were murdered as the Masonic communists conquered the nation. Under this pernicious influence, Mexico was the first nation in the world to recognize the illegitimate Soviet regime in Russia. It was the land Trotsky called home when Stalin exiled him from the Soviet Union. For decades, Red Mexico has covertly waged war against us via illicit drugs, illegal immigration, etc. And the rest of Latin America has fared nearly as poorly under the advances of global communism.

I currently sit writing this article in Panama City, Panama. The Chinese influence in some places here is almost in-your-face obvious. The fact that the U.S. government gave away the critically-important Panama Canal, and that it has fallen into Chinese hands, is equally obvious. It was always one of the communist goals to wrest control of the Canal from us, and they have succeeded. What’s more, Panama’s outgoing president cozied up with Red China during his unpopular term, signing numerous major economic and construction deals that greatly benefit China and give that aggressive communist nation major leverage in Panamanian affairs. Chinese influence is growing so profoundly here that Huawei recently began installing an invasive facial recognition system similar to the one the Reds installed in their own enslaved nation.

Malas-interpretaciones-hacia-China

Unfortunately, the United States has fiddled while the Americas have burned. That is, communist-sponsored regimes have been installed throughout Central and South America while we have ignored the crisis – indeed, while certain traitors in our government tied our hands and facilitated the conflagration. To be sure, we have fought back in a limited way. Operation Just Cause in Panama, for instance, was carried out to remove the Marxist dictator Manuel Noriega from power. Noriega had recently declared war on the United States and entered into dangerous agreements with Soviet client states. Caches of Soviet weapons were discovered everywhere by our military personnel during the operation. Despite the success of Operation Just Cause – an operation cheered by the Panamanian people at the time, though considered unjust American “imperialism” now after a generation of brainwashing – Panama has once more been roped into the communist orbit, as noted.

Brazil is one nation in our hemisphere that is currently fighting back against communism. Brazil is the B in the acronym BRICS, which is a new international communist bloc headed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. However, late last year, Jair Bolsonaro was elected president of Brazil. Bolsonaro ran on a blatantly anti-communist platform. In his acceptance speech, he said: “We cannot continue flirting with socialism, communism, populism and left-wing extremism.” If only we, too, recognized the dire threat communism poses to our Hemisphere, we could move to stop it. Though I think the victories are short-lived, I pray God helps Brazil succeed in cleansing their nation.

45299015_1884732028309595_3037439470602289152_n

One of the most glaring cases of communist intervention in the Americas is Venezuela. Venezuela was once a prosperous nation before the communists took over. Today, however, socialist policies have turned Venezuela into a third-world trash heap where people are literally starving and Nicolas Maduro runs the county like a classic Marxist dictator. Russia and China, of course, have been behind the tragic destruction. President Trump has recently turned his sights on Venezuela and has threatened military action (though his threat to intervene is likely as hollow as his promise to put U.S. troops on our Southern border). In response, Russia rushed in to safeguard its stronghold. In December, Russian nuclear bombers landed in Venezuela and in March Russian troops arrived. If Russian nuclear bombers three hours from our border do not spur us to invoke the Monroe Doctrine to protect our nation’s flanks, what will?

Will the United States act to cut out the communist tumor or will Venezuela remain a Cuba-like GULAG for decades more? And what of Nicaragua, Uruguay, and the other states in our backyard that we have allowed to be seized by the communists? What will we do? Will we step aside and allow Russia and China to fully take over? Will we further allow ourselves to be surrounded and isolated in a hemisphere we once swore to preserve in Freedom? It seems obvious to me that the only thing that can save the Latin American states from communist aggression is American intervention – yes, even military intervention where necessary.

If you care about the welfare, preservation, and self-defense of our great Republic, you must support the Monroe Doctrine. As Ezra Taft Benson stated, the Monroe Doctrine is correct but needs to be applied. Will we finally take the initiative to free Latin America from communist strangulation and remove the grave threat to our south? Truthfully, the threat is not far away; it touches us every day via illegal immigration and the mass smuggling of narcotics into our land. It is not merely a border crisis that afflicts us – it is a crisis engulfing the whole of our hemisphere.

10kMiles-790x400

The situation in the Americas is extremely critical. To invoke or not to invoke the Monroe Doctrine is one of the most pressing questions facing us. As for me, I will denounce communist aggression wherever it festers. And I openly throw my support in with those past American patriots who wanted the Western Hemisphere to be a Hemisphere of Freedom.

Zack Strong,

April 9, 2019.

Manipulation, NOT Collusion

For more than two years, we have been inundated with a non-stop flood of lies, libel, and slander regarding alleged “collusion” between President Donald Trump and Russia. The so-called Trump-Russia “collusion” amounts to one of the most egregious media hoaxes of all time. Without one iota of doubt, Russia is knee-deep in intelligence operations aimed at the United States and her agents of subversion are working around the clock to manipulate events inside the Trump administration and, truthfully, throughout the whole of our society. Yet, this fact notwithstanding, no credible evidence has come forth implicating Donald J. Trump as a knowing, witting agent of the Russian regime or any of its intelligence services.

Before I proceed, I want to make one thing plainly clear. I am the first to point out the grave threat of the communist conspiracy which still controls Russia and China and has its tentacles wrapped around the globe. In fact, nothing is more dangerous and imminently threatening to the world than communism. Communism is a ruthless cabal which never died, never weakened, and has never been in a more strategically advantageous position than it is today. I authored two books exposing this demonic conspiracy and its front groups and fifth columnists which operate in our nation and throughout the West. You can read more about my books here and here. And please listen to this episode of my Liberty Wolf podcast where I discuss the communist conspiracy.

communism43

That noted, to date there has been no credible evidence implicating Donald Trump as a knowing agent of Russian subversion efforts in the United States. I emphasize the words credible and knowing. To be sure, there has been a host of flimsy evidence, absurd allegations, weak inferences, lying testimony, and dubious intelligence reports. Yet, none of this links the man Donald Trump to foreign intelligence in any official capacity. And the meager evidence that does exist does not imply that President Trump is a witting accomplice in Russian subversion.

Also, please note that I am referring exclusively to Donald Trump and not to any of the individuals who worked on his election campaign or have served as his advisors. The media has made this about Donald J. Trump personally, and in President Trump the investigation into “collusion” must center. Therefore, this article is about President Trump and the suspicious characters who have lied about him.

In 2016, I wrote a number of articles for the Independent American Party criticizing Donald Trump for his serial adultery, constitutional illiteracy, and intellectual bankruptcy. I pointed out his profound lack of understanding of conspiracy and of the Constitution. President Trump has some business sense, but he has no political sense and zero grasp on who really runs this country and the methods they use to subvert elected representatives. He has bought into the false narrative that “communism is dead.”

Needless to say, I did not vote for President Trump. Never have I supported or voted for the Republican Party, to say nothing of the Democratic Party. Both Republicans and Democrats have worked in tandem for generations to undermine our Republic, destroy the Constitution, and subvert our culture. Yet, I feel duty-bound to speak out against the crusade to destroy President Trump on spurious grounds. A man should rise or fall based on his own actions and not because of false charges.

cartoons2

When the allegations first began to fly in late 2016, I kept an open mind. In fact, I have remained nearly silent on this issue for two years. The reason is that I have been reading and researching the arguments of both sides as I’ve made up my mind. To date, a list of the books I’ve read or perused alleging Trump-Russia “collusion” includes:

Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win by Luke Harding

The Plot to Hack America: How Putin’s Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election by Malcolm Nance

Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump by Michael Isikoff

Kompromat: How Russia Undermined American Democracy by Jeff Pegues

Trump/Russia: A Definitive History by Seth Hettena

Dirty Rubles: An Introduction to Trump/Russia by Greg Olear

The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies by Michael V. Hayden

House of Trump House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia by Craig Unger

Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff

In not one of these shoddy books have I found a coherent, fact-based, evidence-driven narrative. Each and every one drips with bias and blatant hatred for Donald Trump, conservatives, America, traditionalism, and the U.S. Constitution. Each bases its fables upon weak sources and impossible-to verify intelligence reports. And each admits the doubtful nature of the sources it cites, yet promotes the narrative all the same.

Russiagate11

For instance, Malcolm Nance, author of The Plot to Hack America, frequently appears as a contributor on the socialist news network MSNBC. He attempts to hide his painfully obvious activism behind his military and intelligence career. Yet, his conclusions are about as credible as MSNBC’s usual drivel. An example of Nance’s unbridled bias and blatantly Marxist worldview is found in the foreword of his book. In fact, it is in the first sentence of his book. He said:

“The 2016 presidential election was already surreal – a former real-estate TV host fueled by white backlash and had completed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party – before the bears emerged.”

Did you catch the two lies? First, Nance, a black man, betrays his clear Marxist perspective of race relations in America when he said it was a “white backlash” that brought President Trump to the forefront. This is a dishonest mantra repeated over and over and over by the controlled press. It is part of the carefully-concocted communist charade to foment discord between blacks and whites and portray conservative America as racist and bigoted. But it is all a lie – just like the notion that the “Civil Rights movement” was anything other than a communist front designed to incite civil war.

Next, it is a ludicrous idea that President Trump took over the Republican Party – an organization which has attempted to undermine his presidency at every turn. The GOP is a thorn in President Trump’s side and has not cooperated with him in the slightest. It was largely due to the Republican Party – the party that controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency during 2016-2018 – that the president finds himself in a quagmire of chaos in Washington. President Trump is not an outsider, but he is certainly not a lock-step Republican who now dominates the party.

Nance’s entire book is littered with the same lies, misrepresentations, and corrupt conclusions that disfigure his very first sentence. For example, before Nance even finished his preface, he had again race-baited and raised the specter of Nazism and white supremacy when he wrote that Russians “may or may not be disseminating Black propaganda” and then claimed Russia Today (RT) “has been used to co-opt the extreme wings of the American political parties including tacit and open support for neo-Nazis, anti-government extremist libertarians, conspiracy theorists, and the marginalized left such as the Green Party.” This is a thinly-veiled accusation that white, conservative Americans are nothing but racists, Nazis, and tin-foil-hat-wearing “conspiracy theorists.”

RT is indeed a disreputable source, but it is far from being a “neo-Nazi” organization. Rather, it is openly controlled by the very communistic Russian state. Neither RT nor the communist state apparatus are courting “Nazis” and spouting anti-black propaganda. Rather, communist agents, the controlled press, and provocateurs like Nance spew anti-white propaganda, equate whites with Nazism or white supremacy, and constantly engage in identity politics. It is the Marxist blueprint at play before our very eyes.

communism154

What’s more, Nance devoted a portion of the first page of chapter one of his book to take another swipe at “conspiracy theorists” He referred to “quack theories that usually involve the DNC and the Bilderbergs, [and] the faking of the 9/11 attacks.” This statement yet again betrays either Nance’s utter lack of understanding of reality or his utter lack of honesty. He dismisses legitimate conspiracies yet believes there is a Republican/Trump/Russian/Nazi (all synonyms in Nance’s vocabulary) conspiracy to discredit the poor, innocent Democrats. These libels continue throughout the book, such as when Nance claimed President Trump tweets “neo-Nazi and white supremacist comments” (13), that he routinely talks about “blunt, racially tinged conspiracy theories” (7), and that President Trump’s election “would spell the rise of fascism and end the two-century-long run of American democratic governance” (147). What total hokum!

One of the more hilarious statements in Nance’s book is found on page three:

“The Republican Party has shown an uncanny proclivity for taking an innocuous subject and by dint of repetition, inference, and outright false accusation making a seemingly innocent remark turn into years of acrimonious investigations.”

This, friends, is precisely what Democrats have done to President Trump for more than two years! This is a tactic called projection. It has been perfected by communists over many decades and is routinely employed by dupes like Nance. They project their own sins and crimes onto other people and, “by dint of repetition” through controlled press organs like CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, muddy the political waters and demonize innocent people.

Finally, if it weren’t already obvious, Nance’s bias is stunning. He hates President Trump but clearly loves Hillary Clinton. On page fourteen, he made the outlandishly false claim that there is “no evidence of corruption or complicity in criminality” on part of the Clintons. Really? How can an “unbiased” commentator like Nance make such patently absurd statements? The Clintons are one of the most corrupt couples in American history. Their laundry list of crimes includes murder, perjury, theft and destruction of classified documents – to name just four. But of course, Nance calls this a “Republican-manufactured conspiracy theory” (14).

How can anyone trust the conclusions of a biased political activist like Malcolm Nance? How can anyone read the drivel Nance writes in his books and listen to what he spews on MSNBC and think he is credible? Yet many do – even some so-called constitutionalists and conservatives who are desperate for any “evidence” that shows President Trump in a bad light. They hold up a political hack like Nance as an “objective” witness and swallow his toxic testimony whole. If you believe what Nance is peddling, you’ve been duped by a smooth snake oil salesman.

Malcolm Nance is not the only liar to write a book using phony evidence to claim Trump-Russia “collusion.” Luke Harding’s book Collusion is another masterpiece of disinformation and defamation. Character assassination is a useful tool in the hands of activists like Nance and Harding. While Nance compared President Trump and his supporters to Nazis, Harding used a long list of pejoratives to describe him. For instance, note this sentence on page 8:

“Putin was practically the only person on the planet to escape Trump’s sweeping invective, delivered in semiliterate exclamatory style via Twitter, at a time when most sane people were in bed.”

Let’s look at this sentence. First, we must note that Harding, in classic communist fashion, has attempted to label his opposition as “insane.” To him, President Trump is insane. Not figuratively, but literally, clinically insane. And “semiliterate,” to boot!

This has been a major thrust of the enemy in recent years. They have sought control over the psychiatric and psychology fields so that they can sit in judgement of who is “sane” and who is “insane.” They have pulled out all the stops to make traditional, Christian, constitutionalist America seem “insane,” “crazy,” and “out-of-control.” This is a coordinated attempt to discredit us and the Americanist way of life we support. To learn more about the enemy’s attempt to herd us into a veritable mind GULAG, read David Risselada’s phenomenal book Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest. Or, to get the information directly from the horse’s mouth, read the Soviets’ vile Manual of Psychopolitics.

communism174

An applicable quote on the process of communist propagandizing in America is drawn from Risselada’s incredible book:

“[NKVD chief Lavrenti] Beria writes in the Manual of Psychopolitics that Russian psychiatrists fully understood than an acute sense of fear can create a hypnotic state of mind. He also says that this acute state of fear can be caused by “shock of an emotional nature” and the use of drugs. Is it possible that television, along with the high rate of psychotropic drug us, is causing Americans to live in a constant state of fear? A state of fear so emotionally overwhelming that it prompts them to simply go along and surrender their liberties willingly? . . . .

“There is also a concerted effort in the media to portray the American Right as right-wing extremists who pose just as much, if not a greater, threat to the nation as Islamic terrorism. This is done through a technique known as “Associationism.” Through the non-stop barrage of images involving terrorism and violence, the media slowly starts associating these images with the principles of conservatism until the mere mention of the word terrorist conjures up images of Americans decked out in para-military gear toting semi-automatic rifles. Right-wing groups, since the election of Donald Trump, have taken the blame for riots across the country even though they have been started by the Left to protest free speech on campus. . . .

“How much control the media can cast over the public’s perception is anybody’s guess. There is a mass movement on the political Right to expose fake news for what this chapter suggests it is, a propaganda campaign. Since the election of Donald Trump in November of 2016 the media has been in overdrive mode trying to confuse the public over allegations that President Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election. Most of the country probably pays no attention; however, the politically polarized are trapped in a debate as to whether this really happened. There is no evidence whatsoever after the investigation of an appointed special counsel, but the media is still insisting something is going to come up. If anything, this keeps the people paying attention trapped in an ideological war and unable to identify what the truth is. The biased left-wing media continues to report unprovable allegations based on fallacious dossiers, and the ever-shrinking right-wing media responds and goes on the defensive. This is how we are controlled” (Risselada, Psychopolitics in America, 110-111, 113-114).

Russiagate14

The war on President Trump is, chiefly, a war on perception. Even though Donald Trump is not a true Christian and not a true constitutionalist, the Marxist media portrays him as such because they hate Christian constitutionalism. They hate America and resent the notion that a leader has rallied people to “make America great again.” They hate the fact that President Trump has emboldened a large segment of the more conservative base in America. They do not want the peasants to get the idea that they can rise up and fight back against the Establishment. Therefore, they must assassinate President Trump’s character and discredit him in the eyes of the nation in order to thwart the percolating uprising of traditionalist America – the heirs of the Sons of Liberty.

To spin their yarn about Trump-Russia “collusion,” the press latched onto a particular narrative which began with a particular dossier. Luke Harding, for instance, talks much about the Christopher Steele dossier. Steele is a former British intelligence officer who runs a private intelligence gathering business called Fusion GPS. In 2016, The Washington Free Beacon – a terrific news source that frequently exposes communism – hired Fusion to investigate Trump. The way Harding describes it, they:

“dropped out after Trump became the presumptive nominee. Senior Democrats seeking to elect Hillary took over the Trump contract. The new client was the Democratic National Committee. A lawyer for Hillary’s campaign, Marc E. Elias, retained Fusion and received its reports. . . .

“. . . From April, Steele investigated Trump on behalf of the DNC, Fusion’s anonymous client” (Collusion, 26-27).

Interesting, is it not, that the infamous Steele dossier which is held up as the smoking gun in this bogus “collusion” narrative was paid for by the Democratic National Committee? Is this not a conflict of interest? Is this not the epitome of bias? Even Harding admits the purpose of the contract was “to elect Hillary.” From nearly the beginning, Steele’s work was tainted with bias and cannot be considered the objective analysis of a neutral observer.

Furthermore, Harding explains that Steele’s investigation was hampered by the fact that he is officially banned from entering Russia. Consequently, he had to rely upon third parties for everything. Steele therefore admitted that even he could not rely upon or trust all the information in his own dossier! Harding gave us this gem on page 32 of his book:

“Steele recognized that no piece of intelligence was 100 percent right. According to friends, he assessed his work on the Trump dossier was 70 to 90 percent accurate” (32).

Would this hold up in court? In court you raise your right arm and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. You do not swear to tell “70-90% of the truth.” That would be preposterous. Yet, we are asked to take at face value the conclusions of a dossier in which the author admits only 70-90% is accurate!

Russiagate10

I suppose we should not expect anything else from biased activists such as these. Harding, for instance, takes every chance he can to praise President Obama, pretending that Obama was tough on Russia. Tough on Russia? Obama? Hardly! Perhaps Harding forgot that little slip of the tongue when Obama, believing the microphones were off, told Russian President Medvedev that after his election he would have more flexibility to cooperate with them. The evidence is overwhelming that Barack Hussein Obama was groomed from a young age to be a Marxist mole.

I highly recommend Cliff Kincaid’s book Comrade Obama Unmasked: Marxist Mole in the White House for evidence of direct Russian control of the White House through Obama. Obama’s administration was the epitome of true collusion, yet the biased social activists like Malcolm Nance and Luke Harding have nothing but praise for Obama and Clinton! This shows how worthless their analysis is and how gullible those who believe their testimony about Trump “collusion” really are. If you believe their nonsense, shame on you. It’s time to see the light.

Another common thread in the anti-Trump books cited is the use of words such as “appears,” “seems,” and “may.” The evidence supporting their claims is so slight and so flimsy that they cannot positively assert anything. Instead, they use doubt-inducing words like “appears” and “may have.” They expect us to lap up their lies like mindless dogs. As just noted, even Christopher Steele admitted that his dossier might be 30% false! Which 30%? Which statements are lies and which are allegedly true? If the author does not even know, how can the reader place one ounce of faith in his work?

It is impossible to know what is fact and what is fiction since Steele’s Russian sources are anonymous and he refuses to talk. Yes, that’s correct, his sources are Russian! The leftists and “conservatives” who lap up this propaganda are, in essence, putting their faith in a defunct British intelligence agent’s 70% accurate dossier compiled from information gathered from anonymous Russian sources living in Putin’s Russia! And we’re supposed to believe it! What a joke!

One of the ultimate tests of accuracy of any information is whether conclusions are given in a fair manner. If there is Russian interference in our political system, which there absolutely is, then report it fairly without regard to political party affiliation. Yet, the authors cited above have chosen to completely ignore Hillary Clinton’s verifiable collusion with communists, just like they ignored Bill Clinton receiving millions of dollars in funds from Red China, Obama’s buddy-buddy relationship with Russian leaders and convicted domestic terrorists, and so forth. Instead, they only focus on President Trump. If they were serious and honest, they would equally condemn Hillary Clinton and call for her prosecution. But the Malcolm Nance’s of the world are not honest. And people who believe them are deceived dupes.

Russiagate3

The collusion “investigations” – perhaps inquisitions is a better term – are tainted by openly biased individuals like Robert Mueller and Peter Strzok. If you have paid attention for more than five minutes, you know how unbelievably biased and thoroughly untrustworthy the rubbish these men produce really is. You know that they are Democratic Party operatives at best and Marxist provocateurs at worst. CIA officer John Kirkiakou recently made this comment:

“I know Robert Mueller and I know John Brennan, and this is what they do. They set out to ruin people. Russiagate . . . has nothing whatsoever to do with Russia, by the way. And none of these indictments have anything to do with anything. They’re what we call throwaway indictments. So, what you have is a man, Robert Mueller, who chooses a person, and then looks for a crime to hang on the person rather than discovering a crime and then investigating to see who committed the crime.”

Strzok1

Peter Strzok lying to Congress

Fired FBI agent Strzok, who served with Robert Mueller to investigate Trump’s phantom “collusion,” is another case in point. He was caught lying to Congress and attempting to cover up his tampering in the Hillary Clinton email investigation scandal. Texts from Strzok and fellow FBI stooge Lisa Page (with whom he was having an affair) during the 2016 election have come to light showing the extreme anti-Trump bias that has contaminated the Establishment’s inquisitions from the beginning. Page texted Strzok: “He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” To which Strzok replied, “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Mueller helped cover up Strzok’s duplicity by destroying pertinent emails and texts that expose his bias.

Curious, is it not, that one of the main investigators into Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump so clearly loved Clinton and hated Trump and was determined to use his position in the FBI to thwart Trump’s campaign and exonerate Hillary for her crimes? Isn’t it also curious that this same turncoat, after President Trump won the election, then used his influence along with traitors like Mueller to allege Trump-Russia “collusion”? And isn’t it further interesting that the biased, lying conclusions of this man who was fired and removed from his position for his seething bias are still repeated by the mainstream media and duped anti-Trumpers everywhere?

In his abhorrent and ironically-titled book The Assault on Intelligence, the Bill-Clinton-appointed spook Michael Hayden holds up John Brennan, Jim Clapper, and James Comey, among others, as defenders of truth and whistleblowers in the Trump-Russia “collusion” myth. He praises Obama, bashes President Trump, assaults the memory of true patriots like Andrew Jackson, denies the proven fact that the Obama administration wiretapped Donald Trump, and generally displays ignorance and pro-Establishment bias throughout his entire book. In short, Michael V. Hayden is an extreme liar – perhaps a trait he learned from the men he holds up as role models.

Russiagate5

One of those men was James Comey, the former Obama-appointed head of the FBI fired by President Trump for his underhanded machinations and attempts to prevent justice relative to the Clintons. Comey is in many ways the epicenter of the entire Trump-Russia lie. Comey, we should note, is a communist. At least, he admitted he “was” a communist. What are the odds that this corrupt individual who lied to save Hillary Clinton from prosecution and implicate Trump in false schemes, both concealed and leaked evidence, and obfuscated official investigations into real corruption does not still harbor his communist views? He is not the only “former” communist lurking in government who alleges that President Trump colluded with Russia.

Russiagate12.jpg

John Brennan, head of the CIA from 2013-2017 when the Trump-Russia “collusion” fairy tale emerged, admitted that he voted for Communist Party candidate Gus Hall in 1976! Brennan is another man who is guilty of legitimate collusion with foreign entities. For instance, an April 19, 2017 article in The American Spectator titled “Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump” is very interesting. The article states that “John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election – Hillary’s.”

Russiagate13

Recall that Brennan is a communist who, at the height of the Cold War, voted for Communist Party head Gus Hall! Bolshevik Brennan, then, is one of the chief originators of the Trump-Russia “collusion” myth. Yet, even so-called “conservatives” eagerly take his narrative and run with it.

And what of the people Robert Mueller, lead inquisitor in this anti-Trump hysteria, has arrested in connection with his Trump-Russia probe? People like Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Jerome Corsi, and Roger Stone. Interestingly, none of them have been charged with anything dealing with Russia, so-called “collusion”, or President Trump. Instead, the charges range from tax evasion to lying to Congress – a far cry from the smoking gun on “collusion” we’ve all been waiting for. Furthermore, Mueller’s inquisition is becoming a KGB-style sting operation, as the recent CNN-broadcasted arrest of Roger Stone attests. It is sheer intimidation from a group of liars that have no evidentiary leg to stand on.

Russiagate1

What’s more, a recent BuzzFeed article reported a story which was picked up by national media outlets as “fact.” They reported a bombshell – Donald Trump told Michael Cohen to lie to Congress! The only problem with this story is that it is not true. Even Robert Mueller was forced to come out and publicly denounce the story as a lie, a fable, a fraud. Or, as Mueller’s office said: “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.” Ergo, BuzzFeed, just like every other media outlet that reports Trump-Russia “collusion” as fact, lied.

Remember what I said earlier about projection? This is projection. The false reports of lying, election tampering, and “collusion” on part of President Trump and his team are lies. There is, however, overwhelming evidence that Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and Obama-appointed spooks and agents did knowingly collude with Russia, British intelligence, and other entities foreign and domestic to change public opinion, steal votes, cover up evidence, plant false evidence, and further undermine our nation. When known communists, communist sympathizers, and communist dupes spew the propaganda about Trump-Russia “collusion,” they are merely projecting their own duplicity onto the president.

Russiagate9

This is what it boils down to: Do you trust communists to tell you the truth? You are trusting in the word and testimony of communists like Brennan and Comey, and pro-Hillary, pro-Obama activists like Strzok, Mueller, and Nance, when you buy into the lie that Donald J. Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election and sell out our Republic. To believe this borderlines on delusional.

We must ask another question: Cui bono? Who benefited? Who benefited, or benefits, from this anti-Trump crusade? Who benefits from the false claims of Trump-Russia “collusion”? Oddly enough, Russia and her domestic allies are the primary beneficiaries of this propaganda. Let me explain.

The communists already know that they have Democrats, liberals, progressives, and Democratic Socialists in their corner. They were won over long ago. They are not a concern nor do they pose a threat to communist political hegemony in the United States. Therefore, constitutionalists, conservatives, and some Republicans are the only ones still resisting a full communist takeover. What better way to win over this segment of the population than by concocting an obviously false story about Trump-Russia “collusion”?

The idea is to make it so blatantly fraudulent that it discredits the notion of Russian interference and subversion altogether. It is a bait and switch – a Red herring designed to deflect blame away from the true source of chaos and conspiracy. Evidently, the ruse has worked. I have witnessed as the number of pro-Putin, pro-Russia “conservatives” has skyrocketed since 2016. Not only is the “Left” in Russia’s pocket, but now a large portion of “Republicans” dismiss Russia as a threat.

communism158

We must ponder another question: How would it benefit the Marxists to use their own controlled media outlets to expose the “truth” that would shut down and derail their own man? If Donald J. Trump was really, truly on their payroll, they would not use their media power to paint him as a tool of Russia. That is not how the communists work. It is illogical in the extreme to believe they would do this. Yes, communists are often found on both sides of the same question in order to foment chaos, but this is not the case here. No one is on President Trump’s side. Enemy agents have done nothing but attack the president, undermine his policies, manipulate his administration, arrest his friends, and rake him over the coals in public view for over two years. This is not the behavior of men who put Trump where he is.

My conclusion is that at this stage in the game you are at least partially delusional if you believe President Trump colluded with Russia. But what’s worse, you are dangerous. You are dangerous because by promoting this false narrative – a narrative invented and advanced by Marxists seeking to destroy this nation – you are promoting the dissolution of our government, the further undermining of law, order, justice, and due process, and are fomenting the hatred and discord that will lead to bloodshed and civil war in this nation. This is what the communists want! Chaos and infighting is what they need in order to conquer our nation once and for all. When you aid their efforts, you are aiding the downfall of your own nation.

Please, stand up against the communist conspiracy. Expose the evil agenda of the Marxists among us. Root them out and drag them into the light. Crush their movement into dust. But be very careful not to implicate people in this conspiracy who have taken no knowing role in promoting it.

Red Gadiantons cover second 2

The back cover art of my book “Red Gadiantons: What the Prophets Have Taught about the Communist Secret Combination that Threatens Mankind”

President Trump is the best president in my life time, yet he has been only mediocre. He has done some things well such as arresting a high volume of sex traffickers, ending TPP, withdrawing the United States from the bogus INF missile treaty, ending American involvement in the Paris Climate Accords, withdrawing our nation from UNESCO, slashing numerous bureaucratic statutes, trying to curb the invasion we call “illegal immigration,” etc. By contrast, he has continued the unconstitutional War on Terror (though he is finally withdrawing troops to a degree, which I applaud), been duped by the flattery and false promises of world despots like Kim Jong-un, reneged on several of his promises such as his vow to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her laundry list of crimes, unabashedly supports the despotic state of Israel, has been convinced to ban certain gun accessories, appointed Establishment insider Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, etc.

Most of his compromises and political mistakes are directly attributable to the fact that President Trump, lacking understanding of the cabal that rules behind the scenes, has unknowingly surrounded himself with members of that cabal! For instance, President Trump has appointed more members of the America-hating, foreign-originated, Fabian-Socialist-controlled Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to his cabinet in the past two years than Obama did in eight. This is not, however, proof of conspiracy – it is proof of ignorance.

President Trump knows that he knows nothing about politics, which is why he surrounds himself with what he calls the “best” people. Unfortunately, the “best” people in Washington – those with the “best” credentials – are members of the conspiracy to destroy this nation. The president, not grasping this fact, continues to hire from this same elitist group. After realizing they are no good, he fires them and then chooses from the same pool of duplicitous candidates. It has happened so frequently that his cabinet is like a game of musical chairs. President Trump simply doesn’t understand the nature of the Marxist infiltration of Washington, so he continues to be manipulated by those he surrounds himself with and places his trust in.

For all his major character flaws and some of his political bungles, I have yet to see hard evidence that President Trump is a malicious individual. Misguided, immoral, and lacking in judgement? Yes. Conspiratorial, nefarious, and willfully evil? No. In Soviet terminology, President Donald Trump would be considered a dupe because he is fairly easily manipulated and doesn’t understand who his enemy is. He has unwittingly followed elements of the communist plan for the takeover of America. However, he has also delivered several setbacks to portions of that same plan.

conspiracy4

President Trump is being manipulated by those who surround him. He is isolated from sane voices and bombarded with constant propaganda and disinformation from his cabinet, from Congress, from his lawyers, and from the media. Because he has no moral compass, he lacks spiritual discernment. He knows there are problems, but he lacks comprehension of the enemy and the enemy’s tactics. He therefore allows himself to walk into their traps. Sometimes, however, he makes the right calls and defies his cabinet and thwarts elements of the communist plan. We ought to support him each time he does so.

In 2016, I described Donald Trump as a “puppet who doesn’t know he is a puppet.” In 2019, I believe the description is even more apt. President Trump is a stubborn marionette who has broken some of his strings, yet remains partially attached. Though he has maintained partial independence, he is still manipulated from above by what he would call “the swamp” or “the deep state.”

In truth, it is the communists in government that pull the strings – the “men without faces” that communist defector Louis Francis Budenz warned about in his superb book by the same title. They are livid that they do not control President Trump to the same degree they have controlled past presidents like Obama and Bush. As insider Newt Gingrich said, President Trump is hated because: “[H]e’s an outsider. He’s not them. He’s not part of the club. He’s uncontrollable . . . he hasn’t been through the initiation rites. He didn’t belong to the secret society.”

communism159

Donald Trump is certainly not an outsider. He has rubbed shoulders, as most big businessmen do these days, with shady characters – yes, even with Russian mafia in New York, as I noted in 2016. President Trump is an immoral man. He keeps bad company and misplaces his trust on a routine basis. However, there is, as yet, no evidence that he has belonged to “the secret society” or that he has been “initiated” into the communist conspiracy against mankind. Consequently, they have done their best to manipulate him through his cabinet, through media crucifixion, through painting him as literally insane, through false allegations of Russian “collusion,” through preposterous cries of “racism” and “Nazism,” ad infinitum.

If one day credible, hard, verifiable evidence emerges from worthy sources that implicates Donald Trump in Russian conspiracy, I will be the first to decry him as a traitor and call for his head. However, I refuse to join the chorus of voices denouncing the president based on flimsy, unverifiable, contradictory evidence put forth by known communists and openly biased political activists. To do so is intellectually dishonest. I will not and cannot side with communists and the Marxist media in promoting their narrative that President Trump is on the Russian payroll. And I am ashamed that so many people, even some of my friends who call themselves “anti-communists,” “constitutionalists,” and “conservatives,” have turned a blind eye to the shady sources of this “collusion” tall tale.

Those who parrot the false, unverifiable claims of “collusion” are furthering the enemy’s agenda to destabilize America. Do not call yourself a patriot if you repeat this communist claptrap. Do not pretend you stand against the conspiracy when you believe its mantras. Cease and desist taking your information from biased and lying sources like Malcolm Nance, Luke Harding, Michael Hayden, James Comey, John Brennan, Christopher Steele, or the mainstream media. If you have any political sense whatsoever, you know that the media is controlled by Marxists and that when you repeat their fibs you promote the communist conspiracy.

communism172

Do not be part of the problem. Stand strong against the barrage of lies. Resist the daily indoctrination of the controlled communist press. Repel the lies of provocateurs like Malcolm Nance who use their professional credentials to lie and to convince gullible people that Donald Trump is colluding with the Russian state while simultaneously holding up Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as innocent angels who never did a thing wrong. Don’t be part of the problem.

To finish, I repeat that what is happening is not collusion, but manipulation. President Trump, for all the good intentions he may or may not have, is morally and intellectually compromised. As such, he is a puppet who doesn’t know he is a puppet – a rebellious dupe who sometimes get some things right, but who is being undermined by everyone he surrounds himself with.

While collusion with communists is rampant in our government, the media, Hollywood, academia, and society, there has yet to come forth any credible evidence from uncontaminated sources that Donald J. Trump is knowingly working with the enemy. You need only open the nearest communist-controlled newspaper, media outlet, or web page to know that Donald Trump is not their man and that he has been targeted for systematic discrediting, character assassination, and undermining. Anyone who cannot see the truth at this late stage in the game is blind. “And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14).

Zack Strong,

February 2, 2019

The Politically Incorrect Origin of Political Correctness

It is politically incorrect these days to single out communism as the chief enemy of our American Republic. It is unpopular to call someone a communist or to suggest that a person belongs to, or unwittingly serves, an international cabal hell-bent on subverting and destroying our society. Communist propaganda has been so effective that any mention of communism draws forth an avalanche of skepticism, outright dismissal, and ludicrous name-calling. If you dare speak the truth about the communist conspiracy, you are called a “Nazi” or an “anti-Semite,” or are accused of whipping up another “Red Scare” or bringing back “McCarthyism.” In this article, I will discuss the communist origin of political correctness and its current purpose in our society; namely, to silence dissent to the communist subversion of our culture, government, and way of life.

political correctness1

The Encyclopedia Britannica, hardly a conspiratorial source, said this of the origin of political correctness:

“The term first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (that is, the party line).”

To be strictly accurate, the term “politically correct” was used back in the late 1700s. But the meaning was so different as to be irreconcilable with what we know as political correctness today. In its modern connotation, the term originated and found popularity and widespread usage with the Soviets.

To recap, political correctness is the communist “party line.” It is the officially accepted and allowed mode of thinking and speaking among communists and their conquered subjects. It is a top-down standard of behavior forced upon society. It is a cookie cutter way of thinking and behaving dictated by a small clique that believes people are too stupid to rule their own lives. The purpose of political correctness is to stifle dissent to this “enlightened” way of life and to bring everyone into rigid conformity and obedience to communist leadership. It is collectivist groupthink at its most terrible.

communism15

If you wanted evidence that communism has taken over America, look no further than the existence and popular acceptance of political correctness. Political correctness has been foisted upon the United States by an alien group of gangsters as a means of dissuading the conquered from criticizing the conquerors. The elite Establishment will not tolerate outbursts among the peasantry. We are intended to do as we are told, think as we are commanded, and be what we are desired. And what our political overlords want us to be are slaves – cogs in their state machinery.

In an article, William Lind described political correctness thus:

“Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. . . .

“That is the dirty little secret of Political Correctness, folks: it is a form of Marxism.”

In another piece, Raymond V. Raehn wrote:

“America as a nation is now dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that has become known as Political Correctness. It seeks to impose a uniformity in thought and behavior among all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. It has its roots in the ideology of Marxism which requires a radical inversion of the prevailing traditional culture by cultural Marxism in order to achieve a social revolution. Such a social revolution is the kind envisioned by Karl Marx as an inversion of the social order and a commensurate inversion of the structure of power.”

political correctness7

And, finally, a third article described the concept this way:

“According to the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Kremlin advisers were the first to widely use the term. They did so without a trace of irony. Calling someone “politically correct” in Soviet Russia meant they toed the party line. A PC Kremlin insider was one who could reflect what Moscow was thinking—exactly the sort of person who would go far.”

Yes, political correctness is communism. It is an imposed “uniformity in thought and behavior.” It is totalitarian. Politically correct individuals are in reality toeing the latest Moscow propaganda line. The entire notion of political correctness is foreign to Americanism and the cherished, constitutionally-protected right of free thought, free speech, and public expression. Political correctness is a communist mechanism of subjugation – a form of warfare aimed at you and me.

political correctness3

Words are weapons. They are the most dangerous and effective weapons. Political correctness is perhaps more threatening than Russia and China’s massive, and ever-expanding, supply of thermonuclear missiles. This is because words sink into the soul and change our thoughts, speech, and deeds, whereas bombs only hurt our physical bodies. In order to truly conquer a nation, you must conquer their minds. The communists understand this and have kept up a century’s long barrage of propaganda and indoctrination aimed at bringing the American People into conformity to Moscow’s dictates.

In the era when Americans publicly denounced communism, many writers described the curse of conformity imposed by this demonic ideology. A 1949 publication of the U.S. House Committee on UnAmerican Activities titled 100 Things You Should Know About Communism asks the question “After you join [the Communist Party], what do you have to do?” and gives this answer:

“You have to obey the Party in all things. It may tell you to change your home, your job, your husband, or wife. It may order you to lie, steal, rob, or to go out into the street and fight.

“It claims the power to tell you what to think and what to do every day of your life. When you become a Communist, you become a revolutionary agent under a discipline more strict than the United States Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force have ever known.” (100 Things You Should Know About Communism, 14)

China2

In his book You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), the anti-communist author Fred Schwarz related a story about a psychiatrist who was angry at remarks Schwarz had made in a public address about the communist goal of world conquest. This psychiatrist railed against Schwarz and implied that his ideas were so crazy that he must need psychiatric help. Schwarz happened to have on hand a book written by the communist Liu Shao-chi wherein this Red Chinaman said that the communists would inevitably takeover the globe and make it communist. The psychiatrist saw the plain words on the page but nonetheless accused Schwarz of putting his own spin on them. Reflecting on this event, Schwarz made this observation to his readers:

“Outstanding among these attitudes is intellectual dishonesty. When the truth is too unpleasant, a natural tendency is to refuse to believe it. As a medical man, I have seen this often. A man of character and intelligence is afflicted with cancer. He knows the symptoms perfectly well, and if he saw them in another, would never have a moment’s doubt about the final outcome. When he observes these symptoms in himself, however, a strange thing happens. His characteristic honesty and clarity of judgement disappear. He ignores the central, symptomatic stream, and seizing on peripheral symptoms, builds them into a dream world in which to take refuge while doom advances. . . .

“The situation confronting us is dark and fearful. To face the true situation requires courage and honesty. The vast majority of people are quite unwilling to acknowledge the truth, preferring to ignore the evidence, or to select only those facts which will support their preconceived ideas and will not threaten the fulfilment of their desires. . . .

“When a man’s evidence cannot be discredited, the simplest alternative is to discredit the man himself. This is what [the psychiatrist] proceeded to do. . . .

“. . . Here was an apparently intelligent man who was quite unwilling to face the truth. . . .

“We have always had people in our midst who thought that fire would not burn, that if you jump out of a tenth story window, you may go down, but then again, you may go up. We used to call it insanity. Only recently has it taken itself the name of mental health.

“The malady of intellectual dishonesty has afflicted large segments of the educated and the religious groups leaving them quite unable to face the unpleasant truth. Intellectual dishonesty is one of the greatest allies of Communism. Like cancer, it cannot be treated adequately till its malignancy is recognized.” (Schwarz, You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), 102-103,115-116).

political correctness11

At the end of the day, political correctness is intellectual dishonesty. This is so because political correctness is not concerned with truth and facts; it is purely agenda driven. The agenda being promoted is communism. If it serves the communist cause to say the sky is red, then politically correct individuals will deny the sky is blue even if they see it with their own two eyes. The truth has no appeal to, or hold on, the politically correct mind.

Political correctness is a disease just as communism is a disease. I have long called communism the Red Plague. How many Americans are infected by this plague of the soul? Too many to count. But such people are easy to spot because they are politically correct and toe the accepted Establishment line regardless of what the plain reality is and regardless of how much evidence you hold under their nose. These people come from all across the political spectrum. Republicans slavishly defend their party against all truthful attacks just as readily as the Democrats blindly defend their interests from the reproof of reality. And in both cases, the communist elite smiles at the stunted intellectual abilities of Americans caused by the attitude of conformity undergirding political correctness.

When we indulge political correctness, we indulge communism. When we are intellectually dishonest, we aid the enemy and poison the waters of reason. Political correctness divides our power by preventing us from focusing our attacks on our true enemy – the communists who have hijacked our society.

Political correctness is a communist invention; a means of enforcing obedience within its ranks. It is a sad indictment that the American People have also adopted this alien mentality and have substituted individualism for groupthink collectivism. If we ever expect to reverse the devastating cultural and political trends initiated by communist agents seeking our overthrow, we must cast off the shackles of political correctness, acknowledge communism as public enemy no. 1, and promulgate the truth with clarity and courage regardless of the lame labels and phony falsehoods hurled at us by the communists and their dupes.

Zack Strong

April 22, 2018.

political correctness2