Page 17 of 27

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:00 pm
by Elvis
Jerky wrote:Elvis, would you please pass along a link or two where one might find the sort of information that might make an otherwise intelligent person such as yourself come to the firm conclusion that the White Helmets are a bunch of terrorists engaging in theater of crisis?

Thanks in advance.

It's not difficult to find. Here's one:

Take notes and get back to me.

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:10 am
by American Dream
An alternative to reactionary perspectives:

Make War on War: Solidarity with Proletarians in Syria

English translation from Spanish of a post by valladolor on Monday, April 16th, 2018.

“The world disorder that has emerged since the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1989-1991 and the ensuing series of local wars on which the various imperialist powers have sought to capitalize in order to defend their interests to the best of their ability, is now the normal state of the imperialism.”



The military attack of the US, French and British forces against Syrian Regime installations in the cities of Damascus and Homs is a new step in the declared commercial war in the Middle East between the world imperialist forces for the control of key geostrategic areas. The “exalted” stance of these Western forces in defense of the “human rights” of the Syrian population (against the chemical attacks of their own government) is the reverse of the defense of the “national integrity” of the Moscow government. Both are A- and B-sides of the same record: the imperialist war.

The “double standards” of the Western States justify their armed aggression with the fight against the chemical weapons used by the Syrian regime (let’s recall the lies that justified the attacks on Iraq of Saddam Hussein, what happened in Libya, etc.). Western imperialism bombs its public opinion “metaphorically” with lies to reassure and numb it (tranquilizers in the form of newspaper bombs and opinion campaigns) while physically and really bombing the population of Syria.


The Spanish government claims to support the bombings because “it is condemnable” that there are chemical attacks, and although it is not actively involved in them, it gives logistical support to the Western coalition and participates in NATO and the EU that fully justify the attack. [It seems to us that the controlled poisoning of its own population by the Spanish State does not fall under the category of “chemical attack”, poisoning made through legalization of toxic food products, medicines and potentially toxic fertilizers, or industries that generate cancer and other diseases in the Spanish territory. This is not “a chemical war against its own population”…] Thus, despite its apparent passivity at this moment, the Spanish state is an accomplice (necessary or not, always interested in its own imperialist development) of the attack carried out these days and with its troops on the ground (Turkish border, Lebanon, etc.) it is actively collaborating to the repression of the proletariat of the region and to the economic control of its own part of the cake.

The bourgeoisies of various imperialist States in contention wage war on each other and they associate according to the needs of the script: profits are ruling. War is the continuation of politics by other means: “Syria has become a place where the biggest imperialist powers and the regional capitalist powers play their own part with the aim of seizing part of the booty constituted by its territory (and, if possible, also get their hands on yet another part of Iraq – already divided according to confessional lines and where, intervening against ISIS while continuing to smack down the proletarians, yet, with different objectives, we find Western, Iranian and Turkish influences). Russians, Iranians and Turks are negotiating to reach an agreement to share ‘zones of influence’ in Syria, and the Americans are trying to curb this initiative so as not to be left out of their fair share of a living corpse…”

For all this, we call on the proletarians of any part of the world to fight and denounce the military intervention that has just taken place as well as future interventions that are already planned and to oppose them strongly with all the means our class disposes with.

The enemy is in our own country, our own bourgeoisie.

Proletarians and exploited in Syria need us, we do not abandon them.

Source in Spanish: https://valladolorentodaspartes.blogspo ... n-lxs.html

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:57 am
by American Dream
The "Putin" Regime is at perhaps as brutal as the "Trump" one. Beyond that, the State is violence:

“Are You a Bitch Yet?” FSB Makes New Threats to Framed and Tortured Antifascist Viktor Filinkov


On April 20, 2018, the Russian Investigative Committee officially declined to open a criminal case on the basis of a complaint filed by Viktor Filinkov, one of the young men accused in The Network case, who alleged he had been tortured by FSB officers.

Moreover, these very same FSB officers are permitted to visit him in remand prison. OVD Info has published, below, the account Filinkov gave to his lawyer of how the secret service officers who tortured him now talk to him.

At around eleven o’clock on April 19, 2018, I was escorted from my cell in the supermax wing of Gorelovo Remand Prison and taken to a holding area before being led out of the prison, where I was handed over to two men, one of whom I recognized as Konstantin Bondarev, a special agent in the St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region Office of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). I have known Special Agent Bondarev since January 23, 2018, when he supervised my apprehension at Pulkovo Airport and then, along with other local FSB officers, subjected me to physical and emotional violence for approximately thirty hours while also depriving me of rest, sleep, and food.

When I was escorted out of the holding area, one of the FSB officers meeting me ordered me to put my my hands behind my back, which he handcuffed extremely tightly. I was placed in a silver-colored Škoda. Before putting me in the car, Special Agent Bondarev asked me a question.

“Well, well, Filinkov. Are you a bitch yet?”

“What’s the point of your question?” I asked.

“You’re the point, fuckhead!” Special Agent Bondarev answered aggressively.

He then got behind the wheel of the car. I was put in the backseat. After a while, the car drove through the gates of Remand Prison No. 6. During the entire ride to St. Petersburg, the FSB officers said nothing to me, but I was genuinely afraid that, at any moment, they could drive me to a deserted place and subject me to violence.

We were on the road for about an hour. Finally, I was brought to the local FSB building and taken to the office of Investigator Klimov, where my defense attorney, Vitaly Cherkasov, was waiting for me.

Mr. Cherkasov and I had a one-on-one private conversation during which I informed him I was in a depressed state, since I had been forced to travel for a long time in the same car as Special Agent Bondarev, who had been negative and aggressive towards me, using criminal slang to threaten me with possible rape in Remand Prison No. 6.

In addition, I explained I had recognized Investigator Klimov as one of the officers who on January 24, 2018, after I was brought to the FSB building, had taken part in a prolonged attempt to coerce me mentally into signing a confession. I assume Investigator Klimov could see I had been beaten, and I also needed rest, sleep, water, and food.

It was on this basis that, when Investigator Klimov asked me whether I was willing to testify, I said I would not refuse to testify, but I was currently in a stressful state of mind due to my encounters with Special Agent Bondarev and Investigator Klimov, whom I did not trust, either. Moreover, I had been brought to the FSB building, which is linked in my mind with the torture and bullying I endured there on January 24 and January 25, 2018. For this reason, I told the investigator I could give detailed and thoughtful testimony only in Remand Prison No. 6, where I felt calmer and more secure. I put this explanation in writing in the comments section of the interrogation report.

The investigative procedure was thus completed. Investigator Klimov summoned guards, and two men in plain clothes wearing balaclavas over their heads entered his office. They handcuffed my hands behind my back. They led me out of the room and took me outside, where I was placed in the backseat of the silver-colored Škoda. Special Agent Bondarev was at the wheel.

On the way back to Gorelovo, the officers continued to pepper me with questions.

“Well, bitch, is your asshole raw yet?” Bondarev asked.

Then he said the following.

“Now I’m going to methodically drag you through the mud. Cherkasov is trying to make a name for himself, but you and Agora are all going to rot in prison, and you are to going to do your time in the Arctic Circle, in Murmansk or Karelia. Life taught you a lesson, and it gave you a chance. Do the guys in Remand Prison No. 6 know your lawyer defends LGBT?”

One of the special agents in the car responded, “He didn’t learn his lesson, apparently.”

“It didn’t get through his head, but it will get through his legs,” Bondarev replied.

“It will get through his asshole!” the other special agent added.

They laughed merrily after this remark.

I also remember that one of the special agents said, “You can find a good husband in Gorelovo.”

Bondarev and his colleagues insulted my human dignity, emotionally injured me in a profound way, and put me in a stressful state by saying these and other things. In addition to being humiliated, I finally realized that in the ranks of the local FSB off there are unworthy officers who employ prison notions for their own purposes in their attempts to pressure inmates.

Chatting with me in this vein, the FSB officers took around two hours to drive me back to the remand prison. We got in the car outside the local FSB building around 1:30 p.m. and arrived at Remand Prison No. 6 at 4:00 p.m. I kept track of the time on the clock in the car.*

After talking with the FSB special agents, I returned to my cell in a depressed state, and I was completely sweaty from the nervous atmosphere and heat in the car. My heart ached, I lost my appetite, I refused supper, and my psoriasis acted up due to the stress. When I combed my hair I felt psoriatic plaques on my head.

I take the threats made to me by Bondarev and his colleagues completely seriously. I am afraid for my safety, health, and life itself.

My verbal statement has been recorded faithfully, and I have read it over. I give my permission to publish it in the media.

* A directions search on Yandex Maps reveals that the drive from the local FSB building (4 Liteiny Prospect, Petersburg) to Remand Prison No. 6 in Gorelovo should take one hour and thirteen minutes, at most, if there are no traffic jams, and thirty-six minutes, at least, if the traffic is good and the driver takes the optimal route. This would suggest that Special Agent Konstantin Bondarev deliberately drove in circles for a long time in order to bully and threaten Mr. Filinkov. TRR

road to gorelovo

Thanks to George Losev for the heads-up. Translated by the Russian Reader

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:39 pm
by American Dream
Seems pretty obviously guided by left-wing principle:

You aren’t antiwar if you aren’t anti-Assad’s war


by Anton Mukhamedov

Following the joint US-UK-French strikes at the facilities associated with Syrian government’s chemical weapons programme on April 16, 2018, the international left needs to be in a position to ask tough questions about the steps the global powers are ready to take in order to prevent further civilian suffering in a country devastated by a brutal war, which the West has done nearly nothing to stop.

Unfortunately, deaf to the calls for transnational solidarity with the Syrian civil society, even as Syrian civilians have been fighting against both Assad and Islamist extremists, many figures associated with the anti-war movement have instead been preaching a kind of isolationism reminiscent of the times of the America First Committee.

Against a red-brown alliance

A month ago, a piece published by the Southern Poverty Law Center depicted a political scene ripe for barely hidden collaborations between the far right and a fraction of the Western left, such as the American ANSWER coalition or Party for Socialism and Liberation embracing similar foreign policy talking points as white nationalists. The author described a surprising connection over Syria, mediated by movements such as the Hands Off Syria coalition and think-tanks (inspired by a Russian fascist ideology going by the name of “Eurasianism”), all sharing the same affinity for Russian military intervention in Syria. Soon enough, the piece—written by Portland State University lecturer and fascism expert Alexander Reid Ross—was retracted due to a litigation threat issued by one of the actors mentioned in the article.

It is worth remembering that at the same time as imprisoning and torturing Russian leftists, the Russian state has been issuing calls for a “multipolar world”, a euphemism for a coalition of traditionalist and deeply reactionary “Eurasianist” powers fighting off what Aleksandr Dugin, a Russian National Bolshevik ideologue with ties to the Kremlin, refers to as “Atlanticism”, hence the support for far-right identitarian parties in Europe, white nationalists in the US, but also those anti-war groups who see collaboration with Russia as key to ensuring global peace. While Putin’s vision seems to be that of hegemonic powers left alone in their own sphere of interest, RT and other state outlets have been advancing the threat of a “new Cold War” to urge the political right and the political left to unite behind Russian power.

That is how in 2015, journalist Max Blumenthal ended up appearing on a panel in Moscow alongside the anti-semitic editor of Russia Insider. Several left-wing journalists and activists have also endorsed the Hands Off Syria “Points of Unity” statement which includes a passage legitimating military intervention on behalf of the Syrian government.

Far from being confined to the past, the threat of red-brown convergence is looming large in the wake of Syria strikes, as the recent anti-war protests have reunited self-described leftists and those individuals whose careers revolve around attacking leftists and minorities.

The former British National Party leader Nick Griffin proclaiming conditional support for Jeremy Corbyn, in case the latter continued to impute Assad with the responsibility for the latest chemical attack in Douma, must be a cause for concern. Instead of taking a look at what in Labour leader’s platform might attract British nationalists, some leftists claimed that Griffin simply “saw the light”.

Even more alarming, the Neo-Nazi blogger Tim Gionet, known as “Baked Alaska”, who previously attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, appeared alongside Los Angeles ANSWER coalition at a march featuring Syrian regime flags. Several Stop the War marches were also inundated with images celebrating Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin.

Rather than “seeing the light”, the reactionaries infiltrating left-wing spaces are instead remaining loyal to their positions and attempting to subvert movements deeming themselves progressive in favour of a pseudo anti-imperialist and reactionary approach to geopolitics, which lacks any concern for civilians and promotes, under the guise of secular anti-imperialism, a ruthless and sectarian dictator who has executed thousands and continues to commit crimes against humanity.

It is all the more alarming then that prominent left-wing intellectuals and political figures occasionally echo a discourse originating in conspiracy theories pushed by Russia Today legitimating said dictator. The left can oppose foreign military intervention without telling lies about it.

Despite what some believe, the UN has found the Assad regime guilty of using chemical weapons not just on one, but on at least 23 counts. That is why remarks alleging that the attacks on chemical faciliteis were nothing but a smokescreen to hide the lies about Syrian chemical weapons use and destroy evidence (as suggested by political activist Sam Husseini) are profoundly unhelpful, in addition to being inaccurate—the Syria strikes not having targeted any facility nearby the site of the Douma chemical attack.

This brings us to a necessity to reformulate a radical critique of foreign policy, that remains independent from a reactionary mindset putting state sovereignty above civilian suffering and equating brutal war on terror to legitimate self-defence.

For a left-wing critique of military intervention

It is crucial to identify what does and what does not constitute a sober critique of military intervention.

As countless commentators and Syrian refugees themselves have pointed out, it is sheer hypocrisy to stay silent as several global powers intervene to back one of the region’s most murderous dictatorship clinging to power via all means, even when it means destroying entire regions, and speak out only when a relatively harmless airstrike targets alleged chemical weapons facilities.

This does not mean that we ought embrace interventionist attitudes with open arms. A left truly independent of state-enforced narratives and emancipated from its own neo-Orientalism would place concern for civilians above all else. It would realise that the biggest perpetrators of war crimes in Syria have been the Assad forces, responsible for above 90% of civilian casualties.

The US also has its share of responsibility, notably for the complete destruction of Raqqa, which did not even have to fall into the arms of ISIS, if only the opposition forces holding it until January 2014 were supported against the extremists.

According to journalist Anand Gopal who meticulously documented American war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who appeared on The Irrelevant Arabs podcast in 2017 to discuss Raqqa, the reason for American inaction wasthat the nation was “constitutionally incapable” of dealing with a “popular democratic uprising”. As the revolution came to Syria, “Syrians were discovering everything that had been stamped out and suffocated in thirty or forty years. There were cases in various cities where the government was overthrown and people ran their own revolutionary councils—which had all sorts of mistakes and missteps, but these were people trying to figure out how to democratically run their lives for the first time ever (…) Unfortunately, the Syrians were never given the space to make those mistakes, because they were being bombed by the regime, they were being gassed, they weren’t being given weapons to defend themselves, and they were accused of being terrorists.”

A left-wing worldview would thus further actions of solidarity with civil society flourishing in liberated areas in Syria since the uprising and highlight the role of foreign powers in radicalising the opposition to prevent such experiences from taking place. A truly independent left would remain vigilant to the escalation of brutality happening in Syria ever since the protesters initially rose up to peacefully demand political reforms, only to be shot at and tortured.

Finally, a left empathic with the suffering of civilians abroad would realise that the limited military action against the Syrian regime only serves to preserve the semblance of what once was supposed to be a inviolable red line,—and that ultimately neither the red line itself, nor the feeble attempts at maintaining it will save Syrians from bombing, starvation, arrests and forced conscription.

Not only are the pro-Assad forces still physically capable of recurring to improvised chlorine weapons, they will also continue the same bloody campaign to reconquer the rest of rebel-held territories around Homs and Dera’a, and possibly Idlib, with the help of more conventional means of killing.

That is why in the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Syrian intellectual Yassin al-Haj Saleh argued that “the British-French-American strike [was] the gateway to rehabilitating this regime [which] will probably now start acting in a more responsible manner in front of them”, mostly avoiding the most spectacular kinds of chemical attacks. “The fascist moment of this world is still there and expanding”, he concludes.

Continues: ... ssads-war/

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:21 pm
by American Dream
I tend not to draw on Consortium News but As’ad AbuKhalil gets it right as to the important kernels of truth which the Far Right/Russian Information Warfare apparatus may appropriate for their own ends:

The (Unrecognized) US Contribution to Bloodshed in Syria

The dominant US. media narrative says only the Syrian government has killed anyone during the seven-year conflict while the US role in Syria’s nightmare is blacked out, says As’ad AbuKhalil in the first part of this Consortium News commentary.

By As`ad AbuKhalil Special to Consortium News

The US government—under Barack Obama and Donald Trump—has managed to exonerate itself from responsibility for the carnage in Syria and the prolongation of the war there. Media of the left and right (those ideological distinctions are meaningless when it comes to the coverage of the Syrian war in the US) have contributed to a narrative that basically presents the US as an innocent bystander to the bloodshed in Syria.

Worse, even when the US clearly engages in bombing which results in high rates of civilian casualties, the US media and the public attributes benevolent motives to the US—first to Obama and then to Trump. You have to believe that Trump orders bombing of Syria (or “bombing of Bashshar,” as US media like to say, implying that US bombs and rockets don’t fall on innocent Syrians) because Trump is moved by scenes of suffering. For this bizarre narrative to set in, it was necessary to engage in falsification and propaganda that far exceeds the propaganda of any party to the conflict. Far from being an outside party, the US has been heavily involved in the Syrian war from the very beginning—and most probably even before that.

The US government (and the compliant media—from the left to the far right) established a convenient explanation for the Syrian conflict: that the US and its allies (some of the most despotic regimes on the face of the earth in addition to the Israeli occupation state) have not contributed to any of the killing in Syria. All the killing in the civil war, this explanation goes—and it has become a civil war, albeit with regional and international dimensions like the Lebanese civil war—has been perpetrated by foes of the US and Israel.

A woman looking for her children in the aftermath of a powerful bomb that blew up in Tariq al-Jdideh in the mid 1980s.
(Photo: Khalil Duhaini)

According to this scenario, none of the killing in Syria can be even blamed on the Syrian “rebels”—which also is a convenient label intended to hide the clear Jihadi ideological doctrine of such groups. For example, the “rebels” in Yarmouk are specifically Al-Qa`idah and ISIS, while the “rebels” in Idlib countryside are Al-Qa`idah—but there’s no need to classify them lest the dominant narrative is disturbed.

Because many of those rebels fit into the same camp where the US is located, they can’t be blamed for the carnage. The Syrian government and its allies are solely responsible, according to this narrative. If you suggest otherwise (i.e. that Syrian rebels and their sponsors are also responsible for war crimes just as the Syrian regime, without entering into the question of numbers, because we don’t know yet who-killed-whom or how-many because there is no official tally of the victims, and it is unlikely there ever will be one—just like in Lebanon’s protracted war) you are accused of working for the interests of the Syrian regime, Russian intelligence, and Iranian mullahs.

It Started With Supporting Damascus

US responsibility begins with its support for the Syrian regime over the years. The US and Syria were not always enemies—all stories to the contrary in the US, pro-Zionist press notwithstanding. The US has been on the same side of regional conflicts on many occasions with the Syrian regime. In 1976, Damascus intervened in the Lebanese Civil war (on the side of the right-wing death squads of the Lebanese Forces—which were armed and sponsored by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and some European governments). When Syria intervened to crush the alliance of the Palestinian resistance movement and the Lebanese left, it did so with the full knowledge and support of the US and the Saudi government—we now know from declassified US archival documents.

Syria sought and received US blessing for its intervention and a pledge that Israel would not obstruct it. Even before the Lebanese war, we now know from US declassified documents and/or Wikileaks that the US and the Syrian regime (mostly through the Syrian chief-of-staff, Hikmat Shihabi, and others) worked closely against underground Lebanese communist revolutionary cells like the Arab Communist Organization (whose leader, `Ali Ghadban, was executed by the Syrian regime) as well as the Lebanese Socialist Revolutionary Movement (which stormed the Bank of America in Beirut in 1973, and sought $10 million to support the war effort against Israel).

Long before Syrian regime’s coordination with the US to go after those accused of Islamist radical violence, both governments worked against radical leftist groups even when the Syrian regime was ostensibly aligned with the USSR (of course, the relationship between USSR and Syria reached a crisis point in 1976, and the Syrian government underscored that state of relations in trying to win US support for its role in Lebanon).

But the relationship later soured between the US and Syrian governments in the wake of Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem in 1977. The Syrian government felt, rightly, that the US-Israeli alliance wanted to achieve peace according to Israeli terms and without having to insist on full Israeli withdrawal from those territories which were occupied in 1967. (None of the Arab regimes, including the Syrian, by 1977 were no longer really concerned over those territories of Palestine which were occupied back in 1948).

Continues: ... -in-syria/

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 6:13 am
by American Dream
He is a complicated fellow:

British Nationalist Trains Serb Far-Right for ‘Online War’

Dowson is a Protestant Scot who grew up in the shadow of violence in Northern Ireland. He says he fought and was wounded as a combatant against the Irish Republican Army, IRA, a paramilitary group which carried out a campaign of bombing across the UK as it attempted to unify Ireland.

After working as an anti-abortion activist, Dowson helped the far-right British National Party raise large sums while working with Nick Griffin, the party’s leader, who once served as a member of the European Parliament and now frequently works with Dowson in Serbia.

Dowson then set up the Britain First nationalist group in 2010 before leaving it in 2014.

London-based anti-fascist organisation Hope not Hate claims Dowson helped Britain First secure more than a million Facebook followers by mixing “emotive memes” with “hard-hitting right-wing and socially conservative material”, turning it into a major force online, although it had no success at the ballot box.

The staunchly anti-immigration movement came to the world’s attention in November 2017 when US President Donald Trump retweeted two controversial videos posted by one of the group’s leaders.

Britain First was removed from Facebook in March after the social media network said it had “repeatedly posted content designed to incite animosity and hatred against minority groups”.

Hope not Hate claims in its February 2017 report, that following his departure from Britain First, Dowson then used Budapest as a base to run a network of “patriotic” websites and set up a hub for his latest venture, KTI. Similar findings were also documented by the International Report Bigotry and Fascism.

In the same report, Hope not Hate named Dowson as “Britain’s most influential far-right activist”.

“His social media skills have raised his profile in the European far right and opened doors to new political and professional relationships,” the anti-fascist campaigners added. The Times of London called him an “extremists’ marketing mastermind”.

Dowson has boasted on videos posted across the KTI network of running “one of the world’s large media companies”, and “having been being credited with the Brexit result and helping elect President Trump” – a claim which mirrors that made in KTI’s own annual reports.

In January, he gave an hour-long interview with ‘The Trump Phenomenon’Radio show about the work of the KTI. In it, Dowson was introduced as the “director or main consultant for the Knights Templar”.

During the interview, he boasted of the reach that the KTI’s social media had built.

“One of the things we do as a modern order is we run huge social media sites right across the world,” he said. “We had about 30 guys – 30 young Europeans, Hungarians, Serbs, Brits, Irish during the Trump election campaign. We were the guys punching out all the emotive memes.

“We were producing thousands of them per week. We were reaching at one point 70 million Americans per week,” he claimed.

He did not name the social media pages, but BIRN has identified 14 Facebook pages whose content has come predominantly from the KTI or linked websites. Since January 25, the KTI’s membership page has been shared 500 times across 11 of these Facebook pages.

The Facebook pages are named to appeal to different sections of the social network’s audience, such as “Newschicken”; “Proud to Wear my Poppy ” and “President Trump - Make America Great Again”, said Andrej Petrovski, a Belgrade-based cyber forensic specialist who worked with BIRN on this investigation.

“They [KTI] are using the possibilities offered by social media to micro-target people from different walks of life, from hooligans to nurses to MPs, serving them with content that is appealing to a particular group,” Petrovski explained.

“This has resulted with over 2.5 million followers across several pages on Facebook, which is more than the followers of the UK Conservative and Labour party on Facebook combined. This number means quite a substantial reach, as the reach exponentially grows with the number of followers,” he said. ... 04-30-2018

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 6:11 pm
by American Dream
The Kremlin’s Loyal Friends in Europe

Posted on 16th April 2018

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime has loyal friends in the European Union. They might not be the most influential ones, and their impact might still be too small to influence EU policies, but that may not even be the purpose of this friendship. They provide an extra layer of domestic legitimacy to the Kremlin, and help undermine the trust in Western liberalism. An interview with political scientist Anton Shekhovtsov, expert of the entanglements between the far right and the Kremlin.

Krisztian Simon: In your book, Russia and the
Western Far Right: Tango noir, you write that with the formation of the far-right Europe of Freedom and Nations (ENF) group in the European Parliament, “Russia secured a predominantly loyal political structure at the heart of European democracy.” How does this help the Kremlin further its interest in Europe?

Anton Shekhovstov: This group brings the pro-Kremlin narratives into the European Parliament. These include, among others, the following claims: the Maidan revolution was inspired by Washington to undermine Russia’s influence in countries of the former Soviet Union; the referendum on Crimea was legitimate; the US and/or NATO forced the EU to impose sanctions on Russia; Europe needs to fight US influence; and Europe and Russia should aim towards a common, Eurasian geopolitical structure. These pro-Kremlin narratives – that also extend to the members of the far left as well as to non-affiliated far-right members, but are mostly characteristic of the ENF – are mainly important for domestic Russian media because such narratives allow them to report that there are members of the European Parliament who, for example, argue for the lifting of sanctions against Russia. Thereby, they aim to show the Russian audience that there are allies of Putin’s regime and that not everybody in the West is against Putin.

Overall, the legitimisation of Putin’s actions plays a very important role within the framework of the connections between various Russian actors and the European far right. These connections manifest themselves in European far-right participation in alternative, politically-biased electoral observation missions, in media cooperation, and of course in MEPs making regular appearances in the Russian media, where they are not only treated as newsmakers but also as commentators and experts.

Continues: ... in-europe/

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 8:43 pm
by Elvis
Elvis » Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:00 am wrote:
Jerky wrote:Elvis, would you please pass along a link or two where one might find the sort of information that might make an otherwise intelligent person such as yourself come to the firm conclusion that the White Helmets are a bunch of terrorists engaging in theater of crisis?

Thanks in advance.

It's not difficult to find. Here's one:

Take notes and get back to me.


Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2018 8:27 am
by American Dream
Vladimir Putin; Aleksandr Dugin (AP/Getty/YouTube/Photo Montage by Salon)

Did philosopher Alexander Dugin, aka “Putin’s brain,” shape the 2016 election?

Alexander Dugin wants a left-right alliance against liberalism — and urged Russia to meddle in Western politics

MAY 5, 2018 10:00AM (UTC)

Alexander Dugin can often sound like a postmodern thinker straight out of late 20th-century Paris. The Russian philosopher, political theorist and far-right ideologue, who has been called everything from “Putin’s brain” to “Putin’s Rasputin,” as well as “the most dangerous philosopher in the world,” makes it no secret that he has carefully studied left-wing thinkers and taken up their theories (and tactics) to advance his own reactionary agenda.

Consider Dugin's thoughts on Marxism, which he describes in his influential book “The Fourth Political Theory” (a kind of manifesto for the contemporary far right that advances a “fourth political theory” beyond liberalism, communism and fascism) as “relevant in terms of its description of liberalism, in identifying the contradictions of capitalism, [and] in its criticism of the bourgeois system.” The “critical potential” of Marxism is useful and applicable, he writes, and “may well be included in the arsenal of the Fourth Political Theory.”

“Marxism is often correct when it describes its enemy,” continues Dugin, who shares a common enemy with Marxists and thus endorses much of their critique. Marxists call this enemy the bourgeoisie, but Dugin refers to them simply as "liberals," in the traditional sense associated with liberal democracy and capitalism, not in the American usage that denotes center-left members of the Democratic Party. In the Russian philosopher’s account, liberalism is the first of the three political theories of modernity, with the latter two being socialism and/or communism (which challenged liberalism from the left) and fascism (which challenged it from the right).

Liberalism grew out of the Enlightenment, and favors the individual over the collective identity (e.g., national, ethnic, religious, class, etc.) and negative freedom (“freedom from”) over positive freedom (“freedom to”). Dugin describes this conception of liberalism as producing “the most disgusting formula of slavery, inasmuch as it temps man to an insurrection against God, against traditional values, against the moral and spiritual foundations of his people and his culture.” In Dugin’s view, liberalism is an “absolute evil” that must be destroyed. To do this, he is more than ready to employ left-wing critiques of liberalism, capitalism and modernity itself.

This partly explains why Dugin can often sound more like a left-wing radical than a reactionary extremist who longs for the restoration of the Russian Empire. He has employed the theories of postmodernism, for example, to attack objective truth and defend the propaganda that comes from the Russian state. “Everything is relative,” said Dugin in an interview with the BBC in 2016. “In Russia, we could use postmodernity in order to explain to the West that if any truth is relative, we have our special Russian truth. . . . Postmodernism teaches us . . . [that] the truth is a question of belief.”

Dugin similarly advocates a form of cultural relativism, which is associated more with contemporary progressives and leftists than with those on the right. “Societies can be compared, but we cannot state any one of them is objectively better than the others,” he explains, while proposing international relations based on “multipolarity” rather than the current unipolar status quo, with the United States (and its Western allies) as the world’s dominant superpower. In this multipolar world, different “civilizations” (including Russia, or “Eurasia”) would essentially be separate but equal (in theory), while liberal and humanist values would remain strictly Western. According to Dugin, concepts like democracy, human rights, individualism and so on are not universal but uniquely Western values and should not be encouraged or pushed on other cultures, civilizations or societies.

That is a complicated but not altogether incoherent notion, and Dugin manages to sound somewhat progressive even when discussing issues like gender -- at least when he’s not showing off his flagrant homophobia and transphobia. He declares that “behind modernity’s conception of gender, is Western or global patriarchy” and that the “most ‘male-affirming’ [ideology] is the theory of liberalism, as it considers this figure of the rational, rich, adult White male as the norm and as a natural phenomenon.”

Ultimately, however, what Dugin shares most with some on the left is his hostility towards America and the West:

The USA considers itself to be the logical conclusion and peak of Western civilization. But in essence, we are simply dealing with an updated version and continuation of a Western universalism that has been passed down from the Roman Empire, Medieval Christianity, [and] modernity in terms of the Enlightenment and colonisation.

Western society is particularly afflicted with such an ethnocentric approach and ‘universal’ pretensions rooted in its racist and colonialist past . . . the inner nature of such an attitude is rooted in the will to power and paranoid imposition of one’s own identity on the Other. This illness is called Western racism.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dugin is eager to form a political alliance with leftists, with whom he shares a common foe -- liberalism and American or Western imperialism -- and has called for “conscious cooperation of the radical Left-wingers and the New Right.” In order to do this, Dugin insists that both sides in this marriage of convenience must “put aside anti-Communist, as well as anti-fascist, prejudices,” which are “the instruments in the hands of liberals and globalists with which they keep their enemies divided.” In other words, to use parlance that will be familiar to some activists, Dugin wants a “Red-Brown alliance” against liberalism.

Dugin’s ideology and political stances can often seem baffling. Although he is frequently labeled a neo-fascist by critics, this seems incorrect for the simple reason that fascism was a modern ideology, whatever else we might say about it. Dugin’s political ideology is, as he puts it, an “unmodern theory” that “completely discards the idea of the irreversibility of history.” This reveals Dugin’s ultimate goal: He wants to destroy modernity and reverse history. Indeed, the very idea of “progress” is offensive and downright evil to Dugin — the work of the anti-Christ. Amazingly, he manages to use the language of the left even when he is disparaging the notion of progress (the foundation of any truly left-wing politics).

The very ideology of progress is racist in its structure. The assertion that the present is better and more fulfilling than the past, and continual assurances that the future will be even better than the present, are discriminations against the past and the present, as well as the humiliation of all those who lived in the past . . . and a violation of the right of the dead.

Progress is the “moral genocide” of past generations, he goes on to say, while calling the idea of modernization equally racist and vile. That Dugin can present such an absurdly reactionary worldview by using the language — and often the theories — of the left should deeply concern any leftist or progressive. Dugin can sometimes come across as a half-mad crackpot, but his impact should not be trivialized. Though Dugin’s personal influence over Vladimir Putin's decisions and policies is exaggerated by the Western media, there is little doubt that his writings have an audience in the Kremlin.

In Dugin's 1997 book, “Foundations of Geopolitics,” for example, which is perceived as highly influential in Russian military circles, he laid out a detailed strategy of how Russia could reassert itself on the international stage after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Among many other recommendations, Dugin suggested that Russia annex Ukraine and encourage Britain’s exit from the European Union (i.e., Brexit), both things that have come true at least in part.

But the most chilling section today is on American politics. Russia, Dugin writes, should “introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S.” It would also make sense, he continues, to “support isolationist tendencies in American politics.”

After reading this, it is hard not to think about Russian interference in the 2016 election and the propaganda machine that the Kremlin has built over the past decade, in a new light. Since the 2016 election, it has become increasingly evident that the Russian government meddled in the American election, engaging in “information warfare” to “spread distrust toward the candidates and the political system in general.”

Although it is a common view among Democrats that the Kremlin supported Donald Trump because of his politics -- or, as the more paranoid believe, because he was Putin's version of a Manchurian candidate -- this is a misconception. The Kremlin didn’t so much support Trump as support the chaos he represented. As new evidence has come out, it has become clear that Russian agents acting through the internet worked to bolster the candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Green Party nominee Jill Stein as well. Again, this was meant to fuel and maximize disorder, not because of any political agreement, clandestine or otherwise.

Ultimately, the entire purpose of the Russian misinformation campaign was to create confusion and to destabilize Western democracy, just as Dugin had advised 20 years earlier. “The point of this new propaganda is not to persuade anyone,” journalist Peter Pomerantsev, author of the 2014 book “Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia,” has written, “but to keep the viewer hooked and distracted — to disrupt Western narratives rather than provide a counternarrative.” The aim, Pomerantsev writes in another article, is “to confuse rather than convince, to trash the information space so the audience gives up looking for any truth amid the chaos.”

Could Dugin have asked for a better turn of events? Objective truth has become harder and harder to find, while trust in the media (along with other U.S. institutions) is at an all-time low. Truth, as Dugin has said, citing the postmodernists, is relative, and the Western “Enlightenment” narrative promoting progress, science and individual freedom is just one of many narratives. The fact that Russian media organizations like RT and Sputnik News — which has stated that its goal is to point “the way to a multipolar world that respects every country’s national interests, culture, history and traditions” — give a platform to both far-right and left-wing perspectives is hardly surprising, if the primary goal is to muddy the waters and counter Western liberalism at all costs.

Those on the left should be careful not to treat their enemy’s enemy as their friend. Dugin can often sound like a left-winger when discussing things like Western imperialism and racism, or cultural relativism and capitalism. That makes him, along with other reactionaries of his ilk, particularly dangerous. Like anti-capitalist leftists, Dugin and other far-right ideologues reject the neoliberal order and global capitalism — but for completely different reasons.

Reactionaries are anti-modern, and therefore want to restore the status quo ante that preceded the revolutionary changes of the Enlightenment, capitalism and modernity. For a Russian like Dugin, this means restoring the Russian Empire of the czarist era; for an Islamic extremist it means restoring the caliphate; and for an American white supremacist it means the restoration of systemic racism and the creation of an ethno-state.

For any true “progressive,” the status quo (yes, that means "liberalism" and capitalism) is clearly preferable to the status quo ante of feudalism, autocracy, monarchy and theocracy, even if the ultimate goal is to replace the status quo with something better. The idea of a “multipolar” world may sound appealing to many leftists who (rightly) oppose U.S. interventionism and imperialism, but it is ultimately an ideological tool for reactionaries like Dugin, who stand in firm opposition to progressive and democratic values.

Historically, the left has been internationalist and modernist in nature, but today some left-wingers have become, for lack of a better word, “postmodernist.” The French philosopher Jean François Lyotard defined postmodernism as “an incredulity towards metanarratives,” or “Grand Narratives.” From this perspective, the idea of progress and liberation can be seen as nothing more than a Western narrative (just as all “truth” is relative and a matter of belief).

Though the postmodernists were considered left-wing in their time, their movement and theories have arguably gone a long way toward weakening the global left and empowering the far right. Indeed, Pomerantsev has called the modern Russian state a “postmodern dictatorship,” a world of “simulated institutions and simulated narratives, where nothing can ever be said to be genuine, where not only the financial system, but language and ideas, have become corrupted.”

If the left is to succeed in replacing the status quo with something better, then it must create an international movement and reject all the worst impulses of postmodernism and once again get behind what German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has called the “project of modernity.” Most importantly, leftists must be careful to avoid political alliances (voluntary or involuntary) with reactionary movements or “anti-modern” ideologues like Dugin. If a true progressive believes in the notion of “progress,” then she would sooner defend the status quo than align with political forces that hope to restore some forgotten "golden age." ... -election/

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 6:27 pm
by American Dream
Searching "Querfront", I found this:

AUGUST 17, 2015

Who Is Willy Wimmer?

ImageThe Tagesspiegel has a piece discussing the "Querfront" (literally: "Cross-Front") movement in Germany which unites the far-left and far-right in hatred of the United States, support of Putin, and rejection of mainstream press (Ein Netzwerk für Putin und Pegida).

A key figure in the Quefront movement is Willy Wimmer, who served in the Bundestag for 33 years and was the defense spokesman for the CDU (Christian Democrats). Wimmer is an outspoken critic of the United States and a reliable apologist for the Kremlin. I note that Willy Wimmer will speak at the upcoming anti-American Berlin conference on the US "occupation" (Besatzung) of Germany.

Most Americans will have never heard of Willy Wimmer. There are many YouTube videos of Wimmer attacking the "war-mongering" United States and praising Russian aggression in the Ukraine, but they are all in German. I did manage to find an interview with Wimmer in English with the Putin propaganda outlet Sputnik where one can gain insight into his virulent anti-American perspective:

WImmer agrees that the CIA has taken control of the United States:

Sputnik: The CIA and the military industrial complex in the United States have taken control of the Government. They will ally themselves with anyone, as long as it serves their goal of defeating an enemy. This time the target is Russia. There is not anyone else who is going to fight Russia or that they can use against Russia. And that is why I think they are supporting these Nazis. Do you agree with that?

Wimmer: Yes! There is a good understanding here that forces in the United States or in other countries, they act together with those who are willing to act against the common enemy. And there are strange words in Germany about such an attitude. And, therefore, it is complicated.We know for years that the right-wing forces in Germany are financially subsidized out of the US, out of Denmark, out of the Netherlands, out of France and out of Spain. So there is obviously a development on the Western side of our common continent, which is dangerous not only when you look into history.

Wimmer agrees that the CIA was infiltrated by German Nazis after the war:

Sputnik: After the WW II many Nazis went to the US, something like 40,000, I believe, they founded a lot of programs in the CIA. Do you see any correlation?

Wimmer: When you look on the today's situation, it is obvious that the forces in the US are eager to get control over the Russian resources of oil and gas, and everything else. And there is an ongoing interest of these US forces to get in control of everything which is on Russian soil. And the former US State Secretary Ms. Albright made it very public that what is on the Russian soil, it can't belong to one country.

There is obviously an understanding which has the historic roots, which go back to the situation after the First World War.

There is a common understanding among historians that you can't explain Adolf Hitler without mentioning Henry Ford. And the most complicated problem in my understanding has been the efforts of Henry Kissinger in the late 90's to destroy the international rule of law, and to replace it by the American-led international law structure.

Wimmer agrees that the Ukraine is killing Russian journalists. Wimmer is angry that Hillary Clinton said mean things about Vladimir Putin:

Sputnik: What is your opinion on the killing of journalists, on the refugee situation in Ukraine and then the Russian reaction to everything that is going on there?

Wimmer:The killing of journalists is an organized effort to continue with the control of the mainstream media in the West.

For some weeks the only chance to get a fair picture of the situation in Ukraine on TV has been Russia Today, France 24 or Al Jazeera.

When you kill Russian journalists, you see efforts to maintain the dominance in propaganda. It is not a coincidence that journalists are killed. It is a combined effort to do so. And, therefore, it is an attack on democracy, that's for sure.

With regards to President Putin, it is disastrous and it leads to a conflict, if you blame the president of another country in the way as it had been done here for weeks and months in the past. And we are all familiar with the words of Hillary Clinton and of others against President Putin.

We are now in the 25th year after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and here in Germany nobody has an understanding of blaming President Putin or the Russian people in the way that Hillary Clinton did it.

Based on everything I've read and listened to, Willy Wimmer is a reliable spokesman for Putin's Fifth Column in Germany. ... immer.html

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 7:35 pm
by MacCruiskeen
^^The Tagesspiegel is a reactionary centre-right neoliberal rag, the author of that piece is a sneaky fool and an illiterate (and a terrible translator), and Willy Wimmer is a brave and honest man.

But I do recommend reading that screed, including the quotes, because it demonstrates exactly the kind and quality of people & institutions "American Dream" chooses to ally himself with. It also makes it crystal-clear what kind of people "American Dream" objects to -- brave and honest people -- and why he fights so hard to slander them (without ever taking responsibility for that slander).

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 7:44 pm
by Elvis
Salon. :ohno:

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 10:16 am
by American Dream
Fightback has done important work before and is now returning, stronger than ever:

The Red-Brown “zombie plague”: how fascist ideas are becoming popular on the Left – PART ONE



Robin Yassin-Kassab, co-author of the essential text on the Syrian conflict Burning Country, recently discussed his run-ins with Western activists bending his ear about how “the Rothschilds” or “pipelines” were the secret behind all Middle-Eastern conflicts, and commented:

Arabs and Muslims are notoriously vulnerable to conspiratorial thinking, in part because in a previous generation so much politics was actually done by conspiracy, and in part through intellectual laziness. It’s always been simpler to blame ‘the Jews’ or ‘the Shia’ for all ills than to actually address the ills. But not really simpler. Conspiracy theories don’t merely promote complacent inaction, they create new tragedies too. In north western Pakistan, for instance, where word spread that the polio inoculation was a UN poison to render Muslims infertile, a new generation has been stunted by the disease.

Perhaps there’s more excuse for conspiracism in regions where the people are subject to the traumas of poverty, dictatorship and war. If so, its increasing prevalence in the educated, prosperous West is more difficult to explain.

So, what is behind the enthusiasm of the Western activist Left for these denialist narratives? The argument that I wish to make in this article is as follows:

1. the growing willingness of Left activists to believe ideologically-convenient conspiracy theory over well-supported reporting is part of a growing convergence of Leftist and far–right rhetoric, in particular around the ongoing war in Syria. While – with some exceptions to be discussed – Leftists do not openly or consciously align themselves with fascists, many increasingly accept ideas that are disquietingly close to fascist narratives. The idea of a politics which unifies Leftists and fascists has historically been known by many names, including Strasserism, Third Position or Querfront (German for “cross-front”). In this article I will use the well-established term red–brown; brown taken from the Nazi “brownshirts” (stormtroopers).

2. This “Red-Brown” convergence is based on a political misrecognition of neoliberal globalism as a conspiracy of the US and other Western countries for global domination, rather than a strategy adopted by the global capitalist class as a whole. This has led the Left into an “anti-imperialism” which is in fact nationalism under another name; which leads to programmatic unity with fascists who support authoritarian “ethno-states”.

3. This is a problem which cuts across the “revolutionary/reformist” division on the Left. A strong base of this thinking is found in the revitalised “Marxist-Leninist” (ML) trend on the Internet, but the acceptance of nationalism, traditionalism and anti-rationalism which I have previously called “conservative leftism” has a long history in both the social-democratic and Communist traditions on the Left, including the support base of British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

4. This convergence is encouraged by the propaganda/intelligence branches of the Russian state, for its own geopolitical reasons. But it is also perpetuated by an unwillingness for socialists (who have lived through decades of isolations) to struggle among themselves over political line; or, worse, a more-or-less conscious rejection of international solidarity in favour of keeping the biggest “broad front” at home. Finally, there is a small contingent of people associated with the Left who have discarded anti-fascist principle and now actively support a Querfront (with the Russian state, the US “alt-right” and even the Trump administration) against neoliberal globalism. While this explicit alliance makes up a minority of the left, it must be actively fought.’

More: ... -part-one/

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 1:37 pm
by MacCruiskeen

Introduction: Conspiracy theories and “pod people”

When I wrote “Against Conservative Leftism” just over two years ago, I considered it disturbing that socialists would rally to support New Zealand’s colonial-era flag. If I was disturbed then, there are no words left to describe how to feel in an era when committed revolutionary activists – people who have an honourable track record of struggle in favour of a classless society and against all oppression – are happy to argue that the recent chemical warfare attacks against rebel-held towns in Syria are a “false flag”, something faked by the US state or its allies to justify an invasion. [How very dare they?] Even one of my favourite musicians has recently repeated such baseless slander from the concert stage.

It’s a toss-up whether this version is more sickening than the alternative line, that the attacks were real but were carried out by the rebels themselves – that is, the rebels murdered their own children in order to manipulate foreign opinion. This is not the place to take these conspiracy theories to pieces – this has been admirably done already by many sources, for example Bellingcat [a spook] or Snopes.[ :ohno: ] The British ecosocialist writer George Monbiot also ably dismantled previous Syrian regime chemical warfare denial [!!!] last year. The question – among others – that I wish to deal with here is of [sic] the similarity between this behaviour and the behaviour of the Right-wing conspiracy theorists who regularly yell FALSE FLAG to every mass killing in the United States – from the 9/11/2001 attacks in New York to the depressingly regular mass shootings in schools.

It’s common sense in liberal and Left circles that ideas like “9/11 Truth”, the theories that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was forged, or that the victims of the Sandy Hook or Parkland school shootings were “crisis actors”, are wild fantasies either made up by the bigoted and ill-informed to justify their prejudices, or else false narratives being deliberately fed to such people (for profit or political gain) by unscrupulous media operatives such as FOX News or Alex Jones’ InfoWars. We are appalled when parents of school shooting victims are harassed by unhinged strangers calling them conspiracy operatives and telling them that their dead children never existed.

And yet this is precisely what much of the Western Left has been doing to the people whose children died of chlorine poisoning in the basements of Douma, Syria. Experienced Western journalist Robert Fisk even took a trip to Douma – courtesy of the Syrian government – to find an anonymous doctor who would confirm such fantasies. This, while actual Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors were still barred from the site, so that the regime and its allies could make the evidence disappear.

The motivation is clear. “False flag” theories are based on the idea that elaborate lies are being told by a secret conspiracy to manipulate public opinion, and that mainstream sources are part of this conspiracy. Alex Jones claims that

Garbage. Warmongering propaganda and deliberate confusionism. This semi-literate screed slanders Jeff Wells, it slanders the very idea of Rigorous Intuition, it slanders every honest and rational member of this board. It conflates opposites. It worships the US and UK states while posing as "anarchist". It makes incessant and shameless use of the CIA's favourite weaponized term. Its only argumentative strategies are 1, straw-manning and 2. guilt by association. It is utter bollocks from beginning to end. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Of course it slanders Robert Fisk in passing. How could it not? It is a steaming pile of sneaky spook bullshit, a truly shameless piece of warmongering and casual drive-by character-assassination. And of course the execrable Louis Proyect turns up among the four (in figures: 4) cretinously enthusiastic commenters.

Complaint's in.

Re: The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 3:34 pm
by American Dream
What is good for one should be good for all. I am happy to follow official rules for this board as posted in the proper places. As we all respect the same guidelines, the better this board will be.