The Juicy Fruits
The Russian liberal opposition, which is neither liberal no Russian.
In the last January the whole topic of Russian liberal opposition has flared up again in the international media. It is because of the series of disturbances provoked by a questionable opposition leader Navalnyi, that returned from Germany to Russia. Here I don’t want to discuss the political situation in Russia or its international position. The task of this article is to look into the actual crowd that is responsible for all this mayhem that was provoked throughout Russia recently. Even the cursory look on the leaders of the opposition can give us an understanding of the ethnic nature of this movement. The whole situation is painfully similar to the one back in the last years of the Russian empire. The same tribe, the same methods, the same tricks. And again, the provocateurs are able to successfully goad a bunch of the mainstream simpletons into actions that are contrary to their own interests. Their persuasion abilities are unparalleled indeed. They can convince a frog that a heron is its best friend.
The key advantage is their knack for camouflage. They can superficially merge with almost any society into which they operate. And the host society, with few exceptions, is unable to discern this alien and utterly hostile element, freely operating in the national body. The outcomes of this process are always the same: either the society uncovers the danger and kicks out the mites, or the mites suck all blood and jump out, when the victim is dry and dead.
Here in Russia, these alien creatures were most successful in subverting the national state and to impose their ethnic tyranny in 1917. Since then, their influence shaped the whole life in this country. Even after the actual ethnic share of this tribe had somewhat diminished in the government (as a result of Stalin’s purges and partial return of Russians into administrative apparatus), their place in society remained far above of their share in the population; particularly it is the case in culture, literature and media, where they hold the control package.
Some of the tribesmen prefer to remain quiet and to advance their collective and private interests through superficially lawful actions, accruing wealth and political influence. These are the systemic tribesmen. They are the majority of the tribe. It was always so. Even in the revolutionary turmoil of 1905-07 the tribe as a whole professed its peacefulness and loyalty to the Tsar, thus successfully evading the collective punishment measures. But there always was the small revolutionary vanguard of the tribe that struck blows against the state. All tribesmen knew that these men were theirs but for the record they distanced themselves from them. The vanguard too, preferred to present themselves not as tribesmen but as some kind of universalist revolutionaries craving to bring happiness and justice for “all people”. The ruse is very primitive, but it worked. It worked back then and it continue to work now. The tribal revolutionary vanguard strikes blow against the enemy state, but presents it as an internal disturbance caused by social discontent of the native population. Perfect weapon; perfect deniability.
The main advantge of this enemy is their ability to ingratiate themselves with the targeted auditory; to persuade it of their genuine good intentions and honesty. Being excellent actors, they are able to accomplish this task fairly rapidly and effectively. After some time, the mainstream dupes so trust them that would tear apart anyone expressing slightest doubt about these “leaders”. This scheme was successfully used in all so called “workers’ movements” throughout Europe in the first half of the 20th century. The “leaders” were always of the tribe and the mass of rioters were always the local gullible buffoons, believing that by destroying their own country they advance some kind of the new happy world.
Since then, the scheme was superficially modified but the essence remains the same.
To be really successful, the enemy group needs to diversify their actions; to cater to different layers of society. This method was well developed in commercial sphere, where different marketing styles of the same product allow to sell it profitably to the different social groups. The same is applicable in politics. The enemy advertise its product differently to different auditory. The whole method could be tracked to its root in apostle Paul’s formula “…to become all things to all people…”. This profound duplicity allows the tribe to manipulate all stratums of society to their own advantage.
As it was empirically found by the tribe, the slogans “for freedom” and “equality” were the most popular among stupid majority of any country. Therefore, these empty notions were always used by the tribesmen to incite mass disturbances. The naive masses don’t even bother to ask obvious questions about “for whose freedom” and for “what kind of equality” the whole mayhem is created. The tribesmen are very apt to play on the lowest instincts of bipedal creatures. The desire to steel something from a rich person is the most widespread secret craving of any average bipedal creature. If these secret cravings of the masses were united and channeled into one direction, the monstrous human tsunami is created, which is able to destroy any state or social structure. Therefore, the constant playing on the primitive greed and envy is the mainstay of the tribal revolutionary agitators.
But as the experience had shown, it is not enough to incite lowly masses to overthrow a state. If the higher stratums of society remain hostile to the events, the whole undertaking can well end like the one known as “Spartacist uprising” in Berlin in 1919 or “Hungarian Soviet Republic” of the same year. You can’t achieve the durable victory unless some part of the more intelligent stratums was attracted on your side. Therefore, you need to produce some attractive enticements for intellectuals. You don’t need all of them, but only enough to show the lowly crowd that the “clever people” with them too. It creates an impression of the universal support for the proposed social changes.
Since the end of WW2 the tribe adjusted its methods of subversion and shifted the accents from primary work among low people to the active proselytizing among educated classes. They understood that in order to take USA and other socially stable and economically successful societies, they need to subvert their higher stratums first, in order to spread the chaos from top down. Here I will not delve into this question, which requires a voluminous scientific research to describe it in detail. For our purposes it is enough to note that from then onward the tribe started to greatly diversify its appeal. They try to reach for all layers of society and to plant their agents in all political movements, in order to monitor and influence them. Their rhetoric too, has diversified greatly; nowadays they are not the same garrulous mob inciters, but mostly the sleeky, soft-spoken “caretakers” for the whole mankind. These “wisemen” control the political discourse of society. They can initiate discussion of any useless topic and can silence the most relevant one. If someone don’t like a particular “wiseman”, he can switch to another one, who speaks differently and even criticizes other “wisemen”. The scheme works almost perfectly; some kind of perpetual motion engine. The simpletons are constantly put their energy into it; the engine runs, the goofs are being grinded into dust and replaced with the following generation of goofs.
The main task is to be able to discern who is who; to trace the seemingly intractable mental ruses of the enemy agents to the primary origin; to the initial tribal agenda. When you start to look on them through this mental filter, like through infrared binoculars, you can easily discern almost all secret threads that connect seemingly different people and phenomena. The enemy fears this most of all. Secrecy and conspiratorial methods were their mainstay for centuries. To deny them this secrecy is like to bring cockroaches or mice to light. They lose the operational freedom, they hate the light, they can’t continue with their usual methods if put under public scrutiny. It is why they become red-hot angry each time the truth comes on the surface. It is why they do everything possible to silence everyone exposing their methods.
Knowing these theoretical foundations of the problem, we can easily discern the main undercurrents of the whole Russian “liberal” movement. The questions that remain utterly incomprehensible for the mainstream public, become all too clear and easily explainable for those who know the basic truth.
Having looked into the underlying theory, let’s look now into the actual workings of the tribe in Russia; how its operatives push their agenda by attracting mainstream simpletons and using mechanisms of the so called “civil society”.
The tribesmen like to wave the “freedom of speech” flag on all occasions, but the only ones whose speech is to be allowed are them and no one else. It is the main tenet of their “liberalism”.
The overall liberal monster could be divided roughly into the three components: politics, media and culture. These three heads of the same monster are specializing in their particular areas and mutually support each other. Therefore, to understand what is happening, we should know beforehand that all these three heads belong to the same body, even if it is not obvious.
Since the dismantling of the USSR, the tribe had successfully appropriated all major media sources and nascent political parties. Culture and literature were firm in their hands since early Soviet period; in this sphere nothing has changed.
As it was already said, the tribe widely diversifies its stakes, in order to be winners in all possible outcomes. But there is always the main stake, the direction of the main blow. “Liberalism” is this main direction now. Therefore, dissecting of this phenomenon provides the best case-study of the question.
To appeal to all kinds of intellectuals, tribesmen put on public scene various versions of “liberals”. Here you can have a street rough version for those who like scuffles with police. The more sensitive auditory is presented with the refined cultured “liberals” who speak the same “truths” but always add “by peaceful means”, “following the law”, “peaceful resistance”, “mutual understanding” and other hollow niceties. It is enough to create an impression of profound “goodness” and almost “holiness” of those “refined liberals”. You can choose any “liberal” you like, with any imaginable flavor and taste; it is like modern candies – the thousand flavors but the same basic compound.
Here I present a random sample of Russian “liberals” (“Russian” exclusively in the sense that they operate in Russia). The actual tribal “liberal” crowd is much greater, but I have taken specific examples to illustrate the whole scheme.
Preparation of the political scene in Russia was started yet in the two final decades of USSR. The whole “dissident movement” was almost exclusively appropriated by the tribesmen and was used as a ram against the state. Yes, it was their state, where they had the greatest stake and occupied the best social positions, but they wanted more; they reckoned that the controlled collapse of society would bring them even more riches and influence than they already had. And it really happened so. The main result of Soviet collapse was the unimaginable accumulation of wealth in the tribal hands. They achieved the main goal. Now they needed to ensure and strengthen those gains. They needed some political justification of their immense crime; some doctrine that would explain to the public that this crime is blessing and that the tribesmen are not thieves but the holy wisemen, spreading “open market” magic formula.
One of the most known and long-standing “liberal” politicians of this kind is Grigorii Yavlinskii. He was one of the founders of the whole “shock therapy” program (along with Egor Gaidar – the grandson of the Bolshevik gangster), according to which the whole society should be allowed to plunge into abysmal poverty in order to stimulate growth of “market economy”. Society was thrown into chaos; everything collapsed; millions of people died because of abysmal living conditions. But all those crimes were easily explained by the “necessity of the transitory period’.
Yet one of those “liberal” politicians was Boris Nemtsov. He played a key role in robbing public sector and giving its chunks to the fellow—tribesmen for token payments.
At the end of 1990es the conditions in Russia had worsened to such an extent that some urgent actions were necessary to preserve the country. And tribesmen preferred to have Russia intact because it was their obedient milk-cow. So, through some internal deal the unknown KGB operative was put on the presidential chair. He was intended to be the figure-head under strict control of the “wisemen”. But something went aslant. There are some other clans in Russia beside the tribesmen. They too are powerful and have somewhat different agenda. Maybe, those clans were able to take Putin under their influence and to attract him to somewhat different path. We can’t know for sure.
What we know is that after couple of years of mutual love between Putin and tribesmen, some hostility flared up; it was a limited affair initially, but it started to grow with time.
I suppose that the main reason is that the Kremlin clan with Putin at its head tries to steer their own path in the world politics; they want everything for themselves; their reasoning is simple: “why should we share our riches with some crooks in foreign countries if we can have it all for ourselves?” The whole “liberals versus Putin” conflict is based on this thoroughly criminal conflict about wealth.
Putin actually eliminated a few of the most outspoken oligarchs, who tried openly to compete for power. Some part of tribesmen was incensed and wanted revenge, as it is usual with them. They demanded their American brethren to intervene on their behalf; all those “Magnitsky acts” are the result of this tribal cooperation.
But Putin and his gang, having tasted the flavor of unlimited power, didn’t want to share it with others. They conceived the idea of spreading their influence further. Based on the nostalgic feelings of the KGB veterans, the new doctrine was born that called for restoration of the USSR in some other form. Dugin was the philosopher who was able to put those feelings into geopolitical formulas. He charted the path to follow and some key figures in Kremlin were genuinely interested in those theories. Dugin gained in influence and prominence; his ideas started to be used by the highest state officials, including Putin himself. The whole Dugin’s theory could be described by the idea of creating a European-Asiatic superstate with Russia being its core. Some kind of new Golden Hord. Population of this superstate should eventually consist of the European-Mongoloid mongrels that should have useful qualities of both races. In essence, it is the competing globalist project that directly contradicts the already existing western globalist project.
Therefore, we can see that, initially started as a purely criminal conflict about money, the whole Kremlin versus the West scuffle has transformed into the global cold war of rival globalist ideologies. It frequently happens so. Something global comes from the very local and initially insignificant.
Tribesmen are accustomed to operate in such hostile environment. They play on all sides and accrue gains. They like to use the energy of the boiling pot, even if it is the pot of the dawning nuclear war.
Nothing new, they do what their immediate ancestors did before both world wars; they rock the boats and grab the chips from the roulette table of the international politics. I doubt that they think deeply about the long-term consequences of their actions; they are drunk of power and money.
So, now, the “liberal” tribesmen residing in Russia have clearly cast their lot with the American faction of the tribe; they want to transform Russia into a colony of the West; to assign it the role of mineral resources repository with population reduced to the level enough to provide working force for extracting industry. They simply want to continue the project of 1990es that was interrupted by Putin’s neo-imperialist interlude.
This is the global picture that should be kept in mind when studying actual events in Russian internal politics.
Since Putin openly had challenged the American hegemony in the world by his Munich speech in 2007, “liberal” tribesmen jumped for action, kicking turf by their hind legs and growling. They heard blasphemous words against their cherished nascent globalist empire; they instantly started to hate the source of this blasphemy; they called for blood. And as usual, they channel all their hatred toward the host population. The anti-Russian informational campaign was started in all “liberal” media sources. The same trite phrases like “totalitarian tendencies”, “nascent fascism”, “threat to democracy”, “stifling of civil society”. The liberals started to stir the pot in honest. The Russian-Georgian war only increased the tensions. Now, the “liberal” crowd had the “smoking gun”, the “Rheinlandbesetzung” of the sort. For the first time since the collapse of USSR, Russians had successfully taken a piece of land. Now they could justly call Kremlin to be a “fascist state”. But initially only few did it. The whole scuffle was yet too unnatural and play-like.
The turning point was the Maidan uprising. The whole affair was the result of the geopolitical struggle between Kremlin and the West. Kiev had become the focal point of the conflict between the competing globalist projects. Ukraine found itself in the position of Korea or Vietnam; no one really cared about it, but all used to their nefarious ends.
When the war started in real and Russian military units had crossed the border, the whole affair lost its playfulness. The insane tribesmen imagined Donetsk as a new Danzig and wanted America to “stop Hitler”. But the whole affair was too messy and uncontrollable. Some tribesmen were scared too much about rising nationalist feelings among Ukrainians, particularly about some militia units successfully fighting against pro-Kremlin separatists. Those Ukrainian militiamen openly touted the Second World War’s era symbols, and it was too much for tribal sensitivities. The tribesmen applied brakes to the American military help for Ukraine; they still hated Kremlin’s reemerging empire, but they hated Ukrainian nationalists even more; so, they preferred to let both sides to bleed each other for indefinite period of time.
But “liberals” inside Russia had a heyday. Now they had their undeniable proof of the inherent Russian evil nature. The whole “liberal” pack jumped into action. They wanted a revolution, dethronement of the dictator and international tribunal. But the state system was resilient enough to contain the pack; they were allowed to bark and growl, but the tight leash and muzzle were applied.
“Liberals” whined about the innocent victims of MH17; about how awful it was to shoot down a civilian plane, forgetting mentioning similar incidents in American foreign wars.
This incident really was a turning point of some kind. From then onward the Kremlin rulers could not extricate themselves from the universal opprobrium by simply paying money and giving curt apologies. They couldn’t even accept the responsibility. The only option was to remain in total denial of everything; “it isn’t us”, “we have nothing to do with this war”, “none of our soldiers is in the combat zone”, “Ukraine is the sole responsible side in the incident, because it happened on their territory”. These talking points were given to all Russian state officials and they repeated them for hundreds of times on all occasions, both at home and abroad. There was no other way. The obvious falsehood and crudeness of those denials was used by “liberals” to build their whole propaganda upon. At this time the unofficial leader of “liberals” was Nemtsov. He and his crew had fiercely attacked Kremlin and exposed their crude and unimaginative lies about the war in Ukraine. It was a great ideological victory for “liberals”. It had allowed to take high moral ground for them. Now, the Putin’s government were “Nazis” and all Russians are “Neanderthals” whom the “civilized world” should stop at all costs. The same narrative as the tribesmen used against all their enemies before.
The anti-Russian sanctions have worsened economic conditions in Russia. Together with increased military spending it pushed actual average income down; the anti-government sentiments started to grow among the masses. Since 2014 up to now the living standard continues to decline. Discontent is growing and presents fertile ground for various rabble rousers. It is what “liberals” always want. Now they can appeal to the most basic feelings.
But as it was already said, “liberals” need the support of the intellectual stratum. And to win it they employ their whole arsenal of persuasions. The ossified state propagandistic agencies simply unable to oppose such an ideological onslaught. Their countermeasures are primitive, rude and unproductive. Sometimes their narration makes more damage than “liberals” themselves. On many occasions the state officials made such funny and incongruous remarks that the “liberal” jackals use them for years as the most effective weapon against the state. The stupid state officials, trying to do service to their superiors, say something unacceptable, insulting to people or simply funny. Actually, the best jokes in Russia are the literal quotations of the high state officials. “Liberals” skillfully use those flops and multiply the effect manyfold.
The system constantly narrows the scope of its intellectual appeal; it forbids some topics altogether; many things can be discussed only in the given framework and some things are ascribed holy status and all Russian population is supposed to worship them.
On the contrary, “liberals” try to discuss almost everything, to cast shadow of intellectual doubts to all official “truths”. And some of those “liberals” do it very aptly and persuasively. They are able to create an image of true freedom of speech and unbiased approach. Only trained mind can discern their well camouflaged bias and agenda. The apparent intellectual freedom of “liberals” attracts many people who are tired of the stifling officialdom.
The best and brightest of those “liberal” manipulators are Mikhail Veller, Evgenii Ponasenkov and Alexander Nevzorov. They are the superstars for the liberal-leaning Russian intellectual elites. And to give them their due, they deserve this adulation. They are very talented people; they are able to firmly hold people’s attention and to mesmerize masses like magicians. They specialize on speaking on the topic that are implicitly forbidden. This novelty, multiplied by the natural oration gift, produces miraculous mental effect on great masses of people. People literally worship this “liberal trinity”.
Mikhail Veller is a Jewish writer who have been playing on various ideological undertones, without precisely associating himself with any political party or ideology. He is the perfect Jew; he is able to seem everything for everyone; for patriots he seems to be patriot, for liberals he is a liberal, for systemic conformists he is conformist but his own brethren well know who he really is. There is a great crowd of intelligent Russian people who worship him. He is their idol; the epitome of wisdom and intellectual courage. Veller was able, as many his kinsmen in former times, to become a prophet to gullible goyims. And he uses this status cleverly; he promotes his true agenda very subtly and imperceptibly for absolute majority of his listeners. He inserts false ideas without disclosing them; he does it implicitly, as if those ideas are something self-evident. He is the sleekest Jew that I ever seen. He combines purely Jewish cunning with European intellectual abilities. Looking at him you would hardly suppose that he is a Jew; only after listening him for some time and after reading his books, you start to understand his true identity. I would give him the highest mark of all Jews operating in Russia.
To gain listeners’ confidence, Veller speaks truth about the most painful questions. He chastises Bolsheviks and Soviet past; he scolds Stalin and his henchmen. He even dares to reveal the unsavory truth about Soviet atrocities in Germany in 1944-45; he openly speaks about mass rapes, looting, killing of civilians. He does it with indignation and just ire. The listeners are enchanted by those outbursts of pure truth. No one else dares to say such things publicly in Russia.
But knowing that you are dealing with a Jew (a Superjew), you can easily detect the bugs in his speech; the subtle insinuations where he substitutes reality by a convenient version, that totally exculpates Jews. Yes, Bolsheviks were criminals and committed crimes unparalleled in history; yes, the Red Army raped Germany; yes, USSR planned to invade Europe in 1941, but all those things have nothing to do with Jews. On the contrary, Jews suffered too, or even most of all, under cruel Soviet dictatorship. Veller is able to put all historical events in such a light, that it starts to seem that the main perpetrators were ethnic Russians; it is they who made Bolshevik revolution; they craved to conquer the whole Europe; they incited terrorist and insurgent movements throughout the world.
The sum total of Veller’s version of history is as follows: Germans and Russians were equally bad; both sides bear the responsibility for starting WW2; both sides committed horrible crimes against humanity but only one side was put to trial. Veller doesn’t even questions a single false accusation against Germans; for him German inherent villainy is a fact hewn in stone. But to this “undeniable fact” he adds the new “revelation”: Russians are not better or even worse. So, Jews are able to kill two birds with one stone. Many Jews start to understand that the original propagandist version about WW2 crumbles under the weight of hard facts. Seeing this, they adroitly catch the banner of truth-seekers and start to twist true facts into favorable to them light. These eternal liars are able to create an image of paragons of honesty.
But this doesn’t mean that the whole Jewry in Russia supports this path. Most of them still prefer to promote the hard stupid Stalinist version of good against evil war. They hate Germans so much that don’t even try to modify their line to accommodate the hard historic facts. Veller and his likes are put out as an alternative for those people who don’t want to accept the official fairy-tale version of WW2 history. Therefore, Jews are able to hold in their hands both sides of the historic discourse about WW2. The versions that are not favorable to them are simply proclaimed to be “extremist propaganda” and “rehabilitation of Nazism”, which formulas automatically entail criminal prosecution in Russia. The whole scheme is very apt and allows them to exercise control above mainstream minds in Russia.
This personage is the most charismatic and eccentric one. He too like Veller speaks on forbidden topics, which fact alone is bound to attract substantial auditory, because many people are too fed up with the official insipid propaganda and shallow fairy-tales on history topics.
Ponasenkov started his carrier in 2000es from dethroning the Russian official version of the 1812 war against Napoleon. Since then he has written many articles and two books dedicated to this theme. He presents the unsavory reality of Russian tsar Alexander’s military inaptitude together with total failure of Kutuzov’s generalship. Ponasenkov openly proclaims that his far-reaching target is to dethrone the foundational myths of the Russian collective mentality. The war of 1812 against Napoleon is one of those corner-stones on which this mentality is based. This war was sanctified yet in tsarist times and this mythical aura was continued into Soviet period. Stalin used the war against Napoleon as an ideological argument for inevitable victory against German invasion of 1941. Therefore, those two wars of 1812 and 1941-45 are considered to be the main state-defining events in Russian modern history. Ponasenkov brilliantly undermined the 1812 myth and now he is writing his version of history of the Soviet-German war of 1941-45. No doubts that it will be the revisionist book destroying the main myths of this war. But it is unlikely to supersede or even to approach the popularity of the most successful book on this topic - the “Icebreaker” by Victor Suvorov. In any case, I like such efforts, even though the authors have very different motives from my own. Ponasenkov strives to dethrone Russian/Soviet foundational mythology not because he seeks triumph of historic truth. For him it is the ideological weapon against collective Russian mentality. Many tribal “liberals” pursue the same tactical line. They strike against all the most important mental spots, seeking to undermine public cohesion of any kind. It is part of the overall plan of transformation of society into brainless cattle without any kind of historic roots. These “liberals” target all historic aspects; they use the proven tactic of scorched earth; they destroy everything to create absolute mental void, which could be filled with the Hollywood trash and “democratic values”. For “liberals” even the Soviet heroic mythology seems a factor too dangerous and too masculine to allow it to remain in place. The situation is very interesting; on the one side it is good that “liberals” destroy Soviet falsehoods; but on the other hand, we should clearly understand that they do it because of malicious intents and not because of truth-seeking.
But Ponasenkov’s phenomenon doesn’t end there. He chose a precarious path of being some kind of racially aware liberal. I don’t know to what extent he chose it by himself or was assigned this role. In any case, this personality is interesting to analyze.
Since 2020 BLM riots in USA, Ponasenkov took the hard anti-riot position. On many occasions, in his youtube videos and public speeches, he denounced the whole BLM and leftists’ movement as a conspiracy of degenerates to destroy the civilization. He even alluded to the inherent differences between races and asserted the necessity to preserve the ethnic character of European and other white countries. His position is very close to American Renaissance. The only vital part that his reasoning lacks is the elucidation on Jewish role in all those events. He prefers to chastise the abstract “leftists” without mentioning who are these eerily beings are. To do him a justice, in one of his recent speeches he said something of the sort: “What are these people thinking about? Are they want the repetition of the public response that happened in 1920-30es? Do they want to activate the social immune system as it happened back then? It is sure to destroy everything; it would be even more lethal than it was. The leftists should be stopped; we can’t allow them to trigger this mechanism”. After hearing this outburst, I even supposed that Ponasenkov speaks sincerely; maybe he starts to understand that if Europe falls, the whole tribal supernational empire would fall too; the whole supposed greatness of the tribe holds exclusively on the back of the white world; there will be nothing left if Europe falls. Probably some tiny part of the tribesmen started to see what is coming. But regardless of their true motives, we should be very cautious when dealing with these creatures. They are too devious to be trusted in anything. They did too much damage to allow them even slightest amount of our good will. If some of them want to be forgiven, they should first to do real things, not words. But I doubt that it would ever happen. I suppose that it is yet one psychological warfare operation of sowing deception and reconnoiter the social mental landscape. It was done on many occasions in previous times. In Russia in 1990es this task was brilliantly accomplished by a fake Russian nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky (who turned out to be one of the tribe).
In current political events Ponasenkov supports anti-Putin liberal movement, lauds the Russian-Jewish “liberal” martyr/saint Boris Nemtsov, chastises China, supports LGBT movement, denounces Russian Orthodox Church, supports anti-Lukashenko protests in Belorussia; professes the infallibility of the universal free market capitalist values; promotes the narrow-minded individualism. Therefore, on the most relevant questions concerning current events in Russia, Ponasenkov repeats the overall “liberal” propagandist line.
Ponasenkov on some occasions expressed his unbounded devotion to Israel. He said that “Israel is the outpost of civilization surrounded by savages; we should do our utmost to support it”. I don’t know whether it is his true sentiment or merely a crude attempt to gain favor from Jewish elite. Most probably both factors are present.
In regard to his ethnic origin he likes to proudly call himself a “Russian intellectual”; but on one occasion he obliquely mentioned his Jewish roots.
This bastard Jew is a veteran of Russian media scene; he occupies a very special place in Russian media and politics. He started yet at the end of Soviet Empire as an “independent” journalist denouncing the rotten social system. According to Nevzorov’s own confession his mother was so promiscuous that she didn’t even know who was the biological father of her son. “Literally, tens of men could claim to be my father” – says Nevzorov with a tinge of perverted pride. His Jewish mother was a daughter of a KGB/MGB general (the chief of MGB in Lithuania in 1946-55, whose main work was to organize punitive operations against “forest brothers”). When being young, Alexander frequently visited his grandfather’s workplace. Little wonder that later he was enrolled into KGB (successor to MGB) too. He prides himself of being “one from the office”. He frequently mentions his KGB connections as a source of his special knowledge of events in Russia.
Nevzorov is one of the most immoral personages of the “liberal” camp in Russia. He revels in his dirt; he accentuates all kinds of the most repulsive details and presents any matter in the most disgusting light. In his earlier times in late 1980es and early 1990es, he produced the most shocking reports about cannibals, maniacs, tortures in prisons and any other topics that shock public morals. And he did it not so much to rectify it, but evidently to indulge his own maniac mental tendencies. Even now, being a grown man, he features on his site the most repulsive “souvenirs” in the form of plastic models of chopped out feet, hands and noses. Beside it, there are t-shirts with Lenin depicted as a fallos, various rings and bracelets with etched skulls and black-magic symbols. He sells these items as memorabilia.
Nevzorov had acquired fame at a time when there was almost no competition in the nascent independent media. His first TV-program “600 seconds” was an instant success. Back then, people in USSR had only two TV channels and many newspapers whose only value was to serve as toilet-paper. This society, for many decades deprived of any independent information sources, was stunned when seeing this outburst of gutter reality. Afterward, Nevzorov continued this trend by his program “Wilderness” (this term has a special historic meaning in Russian, denoting the open lawless land where roamed nomadic tribes and where human life was valued too low).
Capitalizing on this popularity, Nevzorov successfully participated in elections and gained seat in Russian parliament in 1990es.
Despite his active participation in the tumultuous public events in Russia for three decades, Nevzorov was able to remain unaffiliated and to avoid being associated with any particular ideology. He presents himself as simply being “objective”, “freethinker”, “truth-seeker” and “atheist”. He supported Putin up to 2012, being officially his local trustee in Saint Petersburg. But afterward something has changed. In the last 5 years he started actively pursue the “liberal” opposition ideological line. His speeches of the last two years had become ever more radical and stop short of calling for open armed revolt against the state. In the last month he called on Belorussian people to think about how magnificently burn tires of Belaz quarry trucks (these are the famous heavy trucks produced exclusively in Belorussia), thus all too clearly alluding to the necessity of replaying Maidan uprising of their own.
One of the main topics for Nevzorov in the last decade was the militant anti-clericalism. He vilifies Russian Orthodox Church in the most disgusting ways, presenting all priests as pedophiles and homosexuals. He capitalizes on the negative attitude of the substantial part of Russian public toward the newly recreated state-run Orthodoxy. But instead of denouncing the monotheist Asiatic roots of this religion, Nevzorov adroitly turns this whole question into a weapon against ethnic Russians. He depicts the whole religious question as a Russian ethnic feature that confirms (according to Nevzorov) the inherent Russian backwardness, incurable stupidity and inability to attain higher forms of civilized life. He, as many other tribesmen, uses this theme only as yet another weapon for undermining and humiliating Russian collective psyche.
On international topics he parrots the official western line. He denounced Trump, scoffed at “Brexit retards”, vilified patriotic Americans as “rustic half-wits with guns”, extolls the Hollywood-style Americanism. But despite of this all too clear propagandistic line, he continues to present himself as the most independent voice in Russia. His channel has a million subscribers, his influence is substantial and continues to grow because of the overall grows of anti-government sentiments.
This person is one of the most successful agents of influence in the tribal arsenal.
Dmitrii Bykov. The long-term professional “liberal” poet and writer. He gained countrywide popularity through his TV project “citizen-poet” where his verses were artfully read and played by a well-known non-Jewish actor Michael Efremov. Very professional stuff. Besides his literature work Bykov actively participates in social life, attending various talk-shows and radio programs. On each occasion he vilifies current government and Russia as a whole. Nothing special about his views; the same “liberal” agenda. His look is unmistakably tribal, likewise his behavior and speaking mode.
Alexander (Sasha) Sotnik. The most outspoken extremist critic of Putin’s regime. Sotnik started to gain popularity since the protests of May 2011 where he participated and filmed the events. Since then he took part in all major protests in Moscow, interviewed many opposition activists and was himself detained by police on few occasions. Initially, he worked on his own, but afterward has created an independent TV channel where he employs few of his associates. The extremist pitch of his programs has been growing steadily up to the point when it couldn’t be tolerated by the state anymore. According to Sotnik’s words, he was warned by FSB officer that they would tolerate this no more; he either should stop this or go out of the country. Sotnik chose to migrate and had settled in Slovakia. After his departure, the extremist pitch of his programs increased even more. In the last year Sotnik on many occasions openly called for armed insurrection and attacks on police, state officials and their families. His hysterical outbursts are very artful and infectious; he is a talented man; typical Jewish revolutionary with outstanding ability to influence primitive minds.
His style is unmistakably Jewish – aggressive, insolent, insulting, obscene. He tries to completely dehumanize his political opponents, thereby, to insinuate the necessity of their physical annihilation. He calls to throw incendiary bottles into local administration buildings and police stations; to “crush the sculls of the regime’s dogs”, to detect, ambush and kill riot policemen when they are not on duty. In essence nothing new; these were standard tactics of Jewish/Bolshevik terrorists in 1905-07 in Russia.
Sotnik’s channel on youtube has more than half a million subscribers; he is fairly popular. He skillfully plays on the growing dissatisfaction among people in Russia. But his main auditory is not even ethnic Russians but all kinds of minorities. Especially he tries to appeal toward separatist sentiments among North Caucasus tribes; he frequently interviews Chechen separatist leaders in exile. He stirs up Crimean Tartar’s anti-Russian feelings. In each of his programs he humiliates ethnic Russians, calling them “stupid cattle”, “blockheads”, “biomass” and all other unimaginable verbal constructions that his sick mind can produce. He dares to say what other “liberals” prefer to conceal. In this regard he is very useful specimen that allows the insight into inner workings of the “liberal” mind.
Sotnik hates any criticisms about him; he instantly starts to vilify anyone who even slightly disagrees with him. Sotnik is unfailingly right on all points (in his own eyes) and any doubt of this evokes holy ire on his part. In this regard he is a typical tribal specimen.
Such deranged individuals are almost comic and are not taken seriously by many, but if given real power they are sure to repeat Bolshevik terror according to their tribal Biblical templates. Sotnik is an ideal case-prove of the fact that there is nothing liberal about “liberalism”; it is the most totalitarian ideology that seeks destruction of all opposing ideas and people.
Victor Schenderovich. As usual, the progeny of the successful communist party functionaries, comfortably fit in Soviet society but eternally troubled by fabulous oppression from the evil Russians. This man has acquired wide popularity in 1990es as an anchorman of a weekly political-comic TV program on oligarch Gusinsky’s “independent” channel NTV; the program’s name could be translated as “To sum up”. Yet one of his projects was the weekly program “Puppets”, where the most famous Russian politicians were played by their artfully made life-size puppets. In these programs he in his typical Jewish manner vilified all those who were somehow disfavored by the tribe. The ethnic Russians were, certainly, the main targets, and invariably were portrayed as profoundly stupid, drunken, uncouth and pugnacious. After oligarch Gusinsky fell out of Kremlin’s favor in 2001-02 and lost his channel, Schenderovich too had gone from there. For some years he kept quiet, participated in some second rate TV channels, published articles in liberal newspapers. He had reemerged again on the wide political scene on the protest wave of the last decade. He too, like his brethren, has increased the pitch of his squeal to the level of hysterical fit. In the last months he too started to call for violent actions against police. This tribal creature is a perfect indicator of his ethnic “party-line” and reflects the prevalent mood of the diaspora. Previously he played role of a “moderate” but now the mask is off. The jackal cries for fresh blood.
Aleksei Venedictov. A long-term anchor-man of the main liberal voice in Russia – the radio “Moscow’s Echo”. Nothing special about this creature; the talking-head of the same insipid “liberal truths”, that he recycles like Lenin’s quotes previously. Utterly unimaginative, mediocre but conceited individual who imagines himself to be a sage. He is respected and paid obeisance to by all “liberals”; probably, he has some elevated tribal lineage; otherwise, it is impossible to explain this special status.
Ilya Varlamov. The new internet generation of “liberals”. I didn’t find any official information about his Jewishness but his style of speaking and behavior are unmistakably Jewish. The ease with which he rose to prominence in fairly early age is too suggestive of a special status that he enjoys. Varlamov is profoundly shallow person but very loquacious. He can speak with ardor for hours without expressing any original thought. But he is very popular, maybe precisely due to this emptiness. Too many people find him close to their minds. 2.2 million people have subscribed to his channel.
Varlamov eagerly participates in all major protests in Russia, but keeps safe distance from any danger; he likes blood spilled, but not his own. He gloats on social disturbances and agitates for more violence, although not in such blunt terms as Sotnik do.
Beside this opposition activity, Varlamov travels throughout Russia and the world and films videos about various places. He has an established pattern: he mostly praises foreign cities and vilifies Russian ones. He presents Russian life in such a way as if it consists exclusively of dirt, drunkenness, crime and all possible abominations. Nothing new; the usual Jewish slander and hatred. But what I can note with pleasure is the marked intellectual deterioration of their new generation of “self-chosen” elite. Almost all their new stars are worse than the previous ones. The downward trend is all too obvious.
The one of the most famous rock-stars of the late Soviet scene. He was always presented as an exclusively talented singer and composer, but in reality a mediocrity. His meteoric rise to prominence in early age is exclusively due to tribal connections.
Makarevich supported Kremlin up to 2011. Since then, he started to criticize it. After 2014 he went even farther and affiliated himself with his tribal oppositional brethren. He plays a “good quiet man” that strives for peace. He is not especially active in politics but is used by his brethren as a symbol. Due to his being universally known in former USSR, Makarevich’s brand is a very useful tool.
Yet another Jewish rock-star of Soviet/Russian scene. Nothing special. Friend of Makarevich and others of this kind. Criticizes totalitarianism and authoritarianism, supports Navalnyi, pays obeisance to the usual assortment of universal “liberal values”. The same meteoric rise to prominence in early age and media-fueled popularity. This creature strives to present himself as a “consciousness of a nation”. Yes, look at him: it is the consciousness of the whole Russia. He likes to be Russian for all, but to remain Jewish for his brethren. In 1990es he condemned the war in Chechnya, spilling crocodile’s tears about “civilian casualties”. The usual fifth-column stuff. Now he occasionally composes songs critical of the government and gives interviews to liberal media.
The openly Jewish troublemaker. The son of a rabbi. His main area of activity are street-protests. The Bolshevik-style rabble-rouser. In the last decade he participated, probably, in all anti-government demonstrations; had been detained by police many times. The face of protests; he featured in all liberal media outlets. In 2019 was sentenced for a year in prison for inciting violence.
Lev Schlosberg. Yavlinsky’s associate from Pskov. The country-wide popularity gained in 2014 due to his investigation of the participation of the airborne troops based in Pskov in the war in Ukraine. He claims that he was physically assaulted by unknown goons because of this work. He is an articulate critic of the government and is a darling of the whole Yabloko party. Many of the party members expressed their wish for him to replace Yavlinsky as a leader. I suppose it is not done because of Schlossberg’s too obvious tribal face. In case of him becoming a party leader, the ethnic nature of this organization would be too pronounced. But so far Yabloko party tries to present an all-Russian appearance.
Ostensibly the second man in Navalny’s Anti-corruption Foundation. But I suppose that he is the real chairman. Navalny is a Russian face for this, mostly Jewish, organization whose main task is to undermine the existing power structure in Russia. Volkov holds all real levers and does the organizational work. Recently, he openly identified himself as being Jewish. He doesn’t even pretend to be Russian, as many of his fellow-tribesmen do. He hates Russia and Russians; he wants to repeat the organized robbery of the whole country under pretense of “economic liberalization”. But he too is not the real man in charge. This whole “anti-corruption” Navalny-branded enterprise is the ram of globalists; in this regard the evaluations of Putin’s officials, who had spoken on the subject, are mostly true, with minor correction being that Navalnii/Volkov’s shadow handlers are not the foreign secret services as such but the so-called non-governmental organizations that represent globalist force. Therefore, Navalnii and his associates are technically truthful when denying being the traitors and spies. Not, they are not agents of the foreign spy agencies; they are much worse: they are the agents of the globalist supernational structure that seeks to undermine and eventually eliminate all existing states. In essence, it is the continuation of the Bolshevik project of the “World Revolution”. The decorations were remodeled but the core ideas remain the same, as well as the tribal nature of the core group that promotes this agenda.
The interesting fact that needs to be repeated is that all first-line leaders of “liberal” opposition in Russia belong to higher social stratum. They are all from the privileged class. Their parents and grandparents occupied very good positions in Soviet state and they themselves have tens times higher incomes than average Russians do. Then, what is the reason for them to fight against the state that benefits them more than population majority? It is the same paradox as in USA where the highest social stratum does its utmost to destroy the system that abundantly nurtured them.
This privileged scum tries to incite social unrest and to create revolutionary situation that would allow them to gain even higher position than they have now.
Different times, different countries but the same enemy.
I have presented only few samples of the most prominent tribesmen. Actually, they are much more numerous and all-pervasive in the most lucrative areas; they swarm in Russian cultural and public life like Colorado beetles on potato leaves. These sleezy creatures are never satisfied; they want ever more. And they always whine about being prosecuted; they are always victims and others are always villains, particularly if dare to doubt the tribal narrative on any issue. There is no middle ground with them; they would never compromise; maybe only pretend moderation on some secondary issues but never changing their foundational extremist views.
Here I write exclusively about local Russian events and describe figures that are influential and well-known locally. Therefore, this article could seem irrelevant for English-speaking auditory. Yes, if it was the description of Razin or Pugachev uprisings of 17-18 centuries, it should be considered purely local and Russian and having no bearing on events in other countries. But now we are dealing with the global phenomenon and globalized enemy, who, like plague, disregards state borders. This enemy is very multifaceted but the main features of his activities are similar and vary little from state to state. Therefore, having learnt his tactics and strategy in one place, you can easily detect them in all other places. For, example, being well acquainted with this enemy in Russia, I had no difficulties (when I started to study the English-speaking political scene) to discern almost instantly the same enemy in USA and Britain.
Despite of the fact that USA is the “headquarters” of this enemy and there live about half of the tribe, American experience in dealing with them is limited by the one and a half centuries. Before it, the tribesmen were rare in the dangerous lands of pioneers. Only after those pioneers transformed wilderness into a blooming garden, the locusts swarmed into this, yet another, “promised land” of “milk and honey”.
If the 19th century was the period of glorious American drive to the west and conquest of the new lands, the 20th century could be reckoned as the clandestine gradual conquest of USA by the tribe. Step by step they gained ever more influence, wealth and power; and after reaching controlling stakes in all key state and social institutions, they decided to formalize this conquest by eliminating the yet existing European social structure.
USA is the modern Roman empire and the events that happen there have repercussions for all other nations and lands. Therefore, America is the main war theatre where the key battles are fought. But despite of this fact, we should remember, that USA is the very recent player in the world history and its population is very inexperienced (in historical terms); Americans are fairly naive, if judged as a whole society. Only very few can see the underlying mechanisms of the current events.
On the contrary, the European countries have much more lengthy experience with the tribe and have accumulated profound collective immunity against this social virus. They were not able to eradicate it, but they were able to survive and to adapt. Therefore, this experience is all too valuable for Americans.
Russians were at war with the tribe for at least 11 centuries. Russians had militarily defeated the Khazar kingdom in 10th century; but the tribe eventually was able to turn this defeat into victory, having infiltrated into Eastern European community. What they were not able to achieve through open power of Khazar kingdom, they were able to gain through clandestine means of economic conquest.
Russia had to deal with the tribe for more than a thousand years. Russians had accumulated great experience of indirect resistance. Particularly valuable are the hard-won lessons of the last century. This experience is paid for by blood of the best people; we should learn it and employ the knowledge. So far, mainstream Americans are in their primary school in relation to the tribal question. They don’t even see how easily they are manipulated by the tribe. This educational gap should be spanned as rapidly as possible. Russians, despite of their seeming backwardness and overall lower intellectual standards (in relation to western Europe), were always smart in regard to human interrelations. Russian fairy-tales and proverbs are the best testimony of this fact. Russian peasants were able to decipher all vile intricacies of the tribe and despised these vermin. It is why Bolsheviks so hated Russian peasants and did everything in their power to eliminate them both spiritually and physically. They had almost succeeded in this task; Russian peasantry as a distinct social stratum was destroyed and dispersed, but their wisdom continues to live. The deeply rooted resentment and collective ethnic memory are alive, although covered by thick layer of ostensible obsequiousness and friendliness. Mainstream Russians well understand the privileged position of the tribe; therefore, they are compelled to pay them obeisance, but privately they hate these new arrogant “nobles”.
The tribe in Russia is more experienced and more resilient; it is enough to say that most of “American” tribesmen are the descendants of Russian/Polish strain of this plague. Therefore, to understand better your local bugs, you need to study the original ones. It is why, I think, this description of the seemingly peripheral political theatre has some value. Comparing your American tribal specimen with the Russian ones, I come to the conclusion that “ours” are more venomous and craftier. The confirmation of this assertion could be found in the analysis of the tribal crime wave that inundated USA in 1990es. Almost all of those “Russian” gangsters were the tribesmen. Both William Pierce and David Duke had spoken about this phenomenon. But the majority of the American public were held in dark in regard to this question. The weirdness of the situation is increased by the fact that now, the American media uses the established negative attitude toward “Russian” mafia as a basis to build the hateful sentiments against Russia. The tribal media insinuates the implicit thought chain that “all Russians are like these evil gangsters”. The tribesmen are the masters of such psychological tricks; they are apt to use their own excrements to smear other people with, and to cry afterward – “look, how stinky they are!” The masters of deceit. To understand their methods and their mentality, we need to study their activities in different places and under different circumstances. In such a way we can gain a panoramic view of the problem, to have clear vision of the situation and to deny the enemy his main advantage of being invisible and unknown.