The Surkov Leaks: Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine and the West

 

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
July 23, 2019

Russian active measures against Ukraine is a microcosm of its active measures against the West. Please download and read this very important report. We can glean a lot from Russia’s hybrid wars against countries like Ukraine and Georgia, starting with the communist-named Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR)—the focal point of Russia’s divide-and-conquer strategy against the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

The report contains seven sections:

  1. The Three Tranches of the Kremlin Leaks
  2. The People Behind Russia’s Hybrid War Against Ukraine
  3. Ukrainian Vulnerabilities Exploited by Russia’s Hybrid War
  4. The ‘People’s Republics’ in the Donbas Region
  5. The Kremlin’s Phantom of Separatism and Chaos in Ukraine
  6. Political Meddling: How the Kremlin Tried to Change Ukraine’s Constitution
  7. The Kremlin’s Political Power: Reaching the Ukrainian ‘Soul’

Also contained in this report is an update to Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov’s four-pronged Soviet strategy (demoralisation; destabilisation; bringing the situation to crisis point; and renormalisation). Analysts believe this strategy has expanded and now entails: Hidden Genesis; Escalation; Beginning of Conflict Actions; Crisis; Resolution; and Restoration, which is explained in greater detail in this vital report.

U.S. congressmen confronted on Soviet Israeli blackmail

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel confronts U.S. congressmen about Russian-Israeli blackmail of Trump through Jeffrey Epstein.

(To that last congressman: no, Israel is not America’s greatest ally. The Pollard betrayal was not an isolated incident. It was routine!)

 

For more on the apparent Soviet Israeli blackmail of President Trump, please read this article.

Video emerges of Trump partying with pedo blackmailer Epstein at Mar-a-Lago


July 17, 2019

Newly found footage from NBC News’ archives shows Donald Trump apparently talking about women with Jeffrey Epstein, now a registered sex offender, at a party at Mar-a-Lago in November 1992. The party was a decade before Epstein’s plea deal in Florida. The Morning Joe panel discusses.

Video

Article

Also present at this Mar-A-Lago party was Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of KGB/Mossad spy and media mogul Robert Maxwell.

Ghislaine Maxwell at Mar-A-Lago part with Trump and Epstein in 1992.

For an in-depth analysis of this whole affair, please see the five-part series Trump Controlled By Mossad.

Shill Steve Pieczenik blames West for Epstein sex ring

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
July 16, 2019 Anno Domini

Why does Steve Pieczenik endorse the Soviet narrative of things by blaming the West for the Epstein sex ring and the deep state?

Pieczenik, a Cuban born with a Russian-Jewish mother, does blames Israel, too, but within the context that Israel is a Western creation—which is exactly the narrative that the Soviet’s Operation SIG invented as a tactic to undermine the West. 

In truth, Israel is a Soviet creation, but Pieczenik says nothing about this, perhaps because he is an asset of the FSB (formerly KGB), Russia’s secret service. Keep in mind that the U.S. State Department, at which Pieczenik was formerly employed under then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has been the U.S. government body most infiltrated by the KGB. Even the CIA, at times, has been at odds with it over its Soviet leanings (author Charlotte Iserbyt has well documented the State Department’s Soviet takeover). Pieczenik has also been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and seems to be part of the old Soviet-controlled neocon clique, having worked under both the Nixon and George W. Bush administrations.

A few years ago, I began a series of articles exposing Trump as being blackmailed by Mossad through this Maxwell/Epstein ring. Almost nobody else was making this connection, until now—except they are trying to keep Trump out of the equation. Regardless, by Part IV of my series, I was beginning to understand the perestroika deception and how this apparent Mossad blackmail ring was actually a Soviet blackmail ring (but probably using the Mossad, as the Mossad is a KGB affiliate) that may have been run by KGB/Mossad asset Robert Maxwell, father of Epstein’s madame Ghislaine. Of course, Pieczenik, nor anyone else in the alternative media, are talking about this. They are endorsing the Operation SIG version of things—twisting the facts to exonerate Putin stooge Trump and redwash for the Kremlin while Israel and the West get the blame. Classic Soviet trick. Israel goes right along with this strategy, because it knows that it serves a bigger purpose in snuffing out those pesky goyim and achieving world government.

It’s difficult to say why the establishment-controlled alternative media is finally saying what I did three years ago, although they are not linking Trump to this ring—only Epstein. Unfortunately, they are not reforming that theory to its true conclusion, which is that Trump and Epstein are part of a Soviet kompromat operation that has hijacked the political system in the United States of America…and, of course, the White House.

Pieczenik and the “alternative” media might have been given the green light to expose the Mossad link to Epstein as part of a Limited Hangout play. They may be anticipating further exposure of Russia’s involvement in 9/11 and the perestroika deception, so this may be pre-emptive propaganda to neutralize the truth and continue the ridiculous lie that Trump is an outsider draining the swamp, which now includes Epstein. This might be a good indication that the establishment plans to put Trump in for another four years.

There are probably multiple reasons for the establishment bringing Epstein down. We can only guess. One of my initial thoughts was that it was a ploy by Soviet Israel to protect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud’s rule of Israel on behalf of the Kremlin, as Bibi’s biggest competition for the Knesset is former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who is deeply connected to Epstein. Barak is no Likudnik and apparently poses some kind of threat to the Soviet agenda for Israel, so it’s paramount to keep the scandal-ridden Netanyahu in power, or at least Likud.

Piezcenik is telling half truths, but half truths are necessary for Limited Hangouts. Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves!

Russia carries out 9/11-like false-flag attacks against its own citizens to justify invasion of Chechnya

‘Russian Orthodox’ KGB patriarch Kirill says Muslims worship same god as Christians

MOSCOW, RUSSIA – MAY 24, 2019: Gennady Zyuganov (L), Chairman of the Russian Federation Communist Party (KPRF), congratulates Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia on his name day, Saints Cyril and Methodius Day. Valery Sharifulin/TASS (Photo by Valery SharifulinTASS via Getty Images)

Eighty-five-year-old schemamonk Elder Raphail of Mount Athos warns the flock of the KGB (FSB), ecumenical, and masonic tyranny of the Soviet-controlled Moscow Patriarchate of Eastern Orthodoxy, with footage of “Patriarch” Kirill stating that Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the same god. Kirill is a KGB agent, suspected mason, and champion of the ecumenical World Council of Churches.

Usury in Christendom

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
June 23, 2019 Anno Domini
Book Review

Michael Hoffman’s Usury in Christendom is a thought-provoking and challenging elucidation on the gradual acceptance of the mortal sin of usury in the Catholic Church contrasted with the supposed stern stand against usury by early Puritans—the supposed inheritors of medieval Catholicism.

The first couple hundred pages are fairly straight forward and illustrate the Biblical and Early Church teaching on usury, which appears uncompromising (no amount of interest is permitted under the sin of usury, according to traditional Church teaching). Hoffman starts with Medici Pope Leo X as the beginning of the Church leadership’s slide into apostasy (the love of money being the root of all evil). It was Leo X who, as Hoffman contends, created the loophole for moderate rates of interest with the institution of the monte di pieta, a Florentine bank supposedly designed to offer relief to the poor from the excessive interest rates of Jewish and gentile loansharks thriving in the region. Hoffman argues that the loophole of Leo X and those of Popes thereafter has absolutely no moral justification and is a contravention of Biblical teaching. A fair point by Hoffman that’s difficult to counter, especially considering that Leo X threatened excommunication to anyone publicly expressing doubts over his 1515 Bull. However, on page 226, Hoffman seems to inadvertently provide his own loophole when he writes, “Few churches today exhort against interest on loans beyond the rate of inflation….” How is Hoffman’s exception of inflation any more permissible than the monte di pieta’s exception of circumventing Jewish loansharking by way of low-rate fees required to keep the bank in operation? Hoffman then shows that the loopholes eventually led to mass acceptance of differing forms of usury, persecution of anti-usury dissidents (within the Church and outside of it), and the Catholic Church’s lending of its own money at interest. He claims encyclicals of post-Renaissance popes, like Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum of 1891, were merely rhetoric to placate the masses while Church-sanctioned usury continued unabated.

The latter half of Usury in Christendom ramps up the book’s overall polemical tone and uplifts the early Puritans—unlike the supposedly wayward later Puritans—as the harbingers of anti-usury, anti-capitalist Biblical economic practices. And even when he does discuss those wayward Protestants, like crypto-Jew John Calvin, he can’t help but blame their permittance of usury on the influence of “Roman Catholic nominalists”. Catholics are somehow solely responsible for all usury in the modern world, it seems. Hoffman clearly suggests that the apostate Roman Catholic leadership is primarily responsible for modern usurious capitalism, not Jews or Protestants. The latter have been unfairly scapegoated, although they are involved, Hoffman insists. The Catholics must also be responsible for the early Puritan’s usurist loophole, with which Hoffman seems to have no problem, of permitting usury on commercial investment.

“The early Puritans were capitalism’s worst nightmare; how they came to be made synonymous with its ‘spirit’ is an act of legerdemain by way of a malignant prejudice.”

John Cotton is one such early Puritan to whom Hoffman frequently refers.

Hoffman seems to feel that he must—in the name of historical truth, I suppose—correct Catholic “ignoramuses” in their prejudicial views on the early Puritans and, to a lesser degree, anti-usurist Calvinists. After all, it seems according to Hoffman, Catholics ought to look to Protestant reformers (heretics) to correct Catholic apostasy. A rather absurd conclusion, if in fact, it is his. Hoffman’s championing of the early Puritans is set up early on in his book as he leaves them out of his list of the guilty parties involved in usury. “Modern Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and Mennonites are all guilty of this grotesque disobedience to God.” He seems to suggest, as he does with the early Puritans, that early Protestants were obedient to Biblical teaching on usury. It was only modern Protestants that got it wrong. While Hoffman be be correct that many Catholics throughout the ages have levelled unfair and/or exaggerated charges against early Protestants of usury and Shylockian economic practices, he comes across as quite angry and reactionary—the same way he does with his critics in public discussions (online comments, etc.).

Hoffman’s yearning for an Amish-like economic system may be ideal for the Church, but it is completely impractical in a time when Satanic communism co-opts any legitimate anti-capitalist movements. It may be even more impractical now because of the no-return-like state of the world economy (it seems the banksters have created a system by which only further usury and quantitative easing can keep it going). At times, Hoffman seems to embrace Soviet critiques of Western “colonialism”, particularly in the following mocking tone:

“Was it Puritan Conquistadors who, in an orgy of greed unprecedented in the annals of the western hemisphere, contracted a gold fever that burned so hot it plundered and enslaved the helpless indigenous nations at their mercy?”

Regardless, Hoffman does correctly point out that capitalism and communism are two dialectical forces that both serve the purpose of the money power. They are both based in materialism.

He also equates the “social justice” in Fr. Charles E. Coughlin’s The National Union for Social Justice with the same kind of modern “social justice” against which pundits like Glen Beck rail. Hoffman may be correct that Beck is a hopeless predatory capitalist, but I doubt very much that Coughlin’s social justice is the same as that expressed by the radical Left today.

Critics of Hoffman have pointed out his inconsistent reasoning when accepting mainstream media narratives in one instance and rejecting them as “cryptocracy” propaganda in the next instance. The following Hoffman polemic illustrates this:

“Are these fables about the first Puritans seeded by the Cryptocracy to keep us from studying the radical Protestant roots of resistance to the authority of money? With the virtual collapse of the credibility of popery in the 21st century—with its melange of institutionalized child molestation and ‘infallible’ canonization of ‘Blessed’ John Paul II, patron saint of Voodoo in Benin and Koran-kissing in Rome—an alternative to papalolatry is intensely to be desired.”

Hoffman’s refusal to publicly acknowledge to which Church authority he subscribes only further provides ammunition for his critics. But perhaps we can glean something from a small footnote on page 259. Is he Protestant? Catholic? Schismatic?

“In our protest of the idolization of mere human beings (Romans 3:10; Matt. 20:25-28), we meant to take nothing away from the esteem due to faithful and saintly pre-Renaissance pontiffs who upheld the integrity and authority of the Word of God.”

Completely left out of Usury in Christendom’s equation, oddly, is the history of usury and capitalism—for or against—in Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly as it pertains to the great and prosperous Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Orthodox position is the same anti-usury teaching of the traditional Roman Catholic Church). Was this an historiographical blunder or does Hoffman think it irrelevant? Apparently he feels that the relatively short Puritan period warrants more attention than 1,000 years of Byzantium—through which to learn lessons on usury.

On a minor note, the book has no index, which is unusual and inconvenient.

Putting aside Hoffman’s frequent Puritan apologetics, his book makes solid points about the apostasy of Catholic leadership since the Middle Ages when it comes to usury. His logic and standards are sometimes inconsistent, but his points on usury in the Catholic Church are valid and important. His theory on loopholes is plausible and should not be ignored, despite his biases.

“Contraception, abortion, and homosexuality are, in part, derived from the corruption of a society that has legalized the crime of usury.”

Soviet dialectics & predictive power

By Anatoliy Golitsyn
Excerpt from The Perestroika Deception, pgs. 26-27 (1998 edition)
June 14, 2019 Anno Domini

Correct understanding of the strategy and the application of that understanding to the analysis of events enables one to predict otherwise surprising Soviet actions. Since the strategy is long-range, it has several phases. The strategists plan their actions in the early phases in preparation for the final phase. They conceive Soviet reforms in the initial phase, they rehearse them in the preparatory phase and they introduce them in the final phase. Because of this planning framework, the strategy has its own dialectic. It has its thesis – the Stalinist regime: its antithesis – criticism and rejection of the Stalinist regime: and its synthesis – a new, reformed model which ‘perestroika’ is designed to create, and which will be the product of ‘convergence’ (the joining of the two opposites). Understanding the dialectic and logic of the strategy is crucial for prediction: it enables one to see how the situation in one phase will develop in the next phase.

For instance, it enables one to predict the change in the role and status of Soviet ‘dissidents’. In the initial phase, they were recruited and trained by the KGB. In the preparatory phase, they were ‘criticised’ and ‘persecuted’ by the KGB. In the final phase, they are accepted and even incorporated into ‘perestroika’. It was through understanding this dialectic that the Author was able to predict the simple fact that Sakharov ‘might be included in some capacity in government’. In the event, he became one of Gorbachev’s chief advisers.

Likewise, the dialectic enables one to understand that Euro-Communist criticism in the 1960s and 1970s of repressive practices and violations of human rights in the USSR was undertaken and tolerated with official foreknowledge of the impending ‘reform’ of the Soviet system. The fact that the Berlin Wall was built at the time when the strategy was adopted was a sufficient basis for the prediction that it would be pulled down again in the strategy’s final phase. The dialectic enables one to see through the calculated publication of anti-Soviet manuscripts abroad, Soviet condem- nation of them at the time and the present lifting of the ban on much of the ‘dissident’ writing of the 1960s and 1970s. Understanding of the dialectic enables one to provide further predictions and warnings about political and social issues which the Soviet strategists will seek to exploit in Western Europe, the United States and elsewhere.

The Left has completely hijacked logical fallacy inquiry

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Feb. 21, 2019

Research logical fallacies and you will find a plethora of lists and descriptions that all seem to share a similar narrative.

You will find long and short lists of common and uncommon fallacies (illogical arguments) as well as examples of contemporary and past uses of these fallacies. But whether it’s from academia, its closely allied skeptics movement, or from people calling themselves “rational”, the lists and examples tend to share the same narrative.: Right wingers, the religious, and traditionalists—or anyone who Leftists hate—are all illogical, bigoted idiots who should be ignored.

This problem wouldn’t be so bad if one could find a genuinely ideologically neutral source, but it seems next to impossible. Whether the search engines have been manipulated to produce these results and/or non-Leftists are simply not talking about logical fallacies is anyone’s guess. It seems to be a combination of the two. What one could find through search engines 10-20 years ago was a lot more than one finds today. Non-leftists are typically very logical thinking people, but they don’t seem to be engaged in this kind of debate or they may not be aware that their logical thinking has been systematized and put down on paper (as would be the case with the logically thinking but formally uneducated).

Had the Right been more aware, they would have seen that today’s definitions and examples used for the ancient school of logic has been re-organized by the world scientific dictatorship with its Leftist bias. They would have seen and laughed at the Left presenting itself as the sole arbiter of “logic” and morally justified opponents of logically fallacious idiot right wingers.

In reality, the opposite seems true. Academicians and their bedfellow skeptics movement Marxists are themselves guilty of consistently employing logical fallacies. Their worldview is largely based in anti-logic (anti-Logos); their use for logical fallacy inquiry, then, is really only to keep young rank-and-file Lefties from discovering true logic (through distortion of the definitions), as well as to keep the Right from figuring out their deceptive games (prevent the Right from learning about the trappings of logical fallacies). Therefore, by monopolizing this form of inquiry, they can further gatekeep for the Left, thereby maintaing their academic and societal supremacy. They get to control almost all public discourse. Double agent Jordan Peterson recently cemented this absolute public dominance when he declared that European ethno-nationalists ought to be excluded from any discussions.

Forget about historical inquiry about the alleged happenings during the “Holocaust”, because that would be Holocaust denial (appeal to ridicule, appeal to pity, ad hominem, no discussion, narrative fallacy, non-recognition, playing on emotion, reductio ad Hitlerum). Forget about challenging academia and the media’s eschatological fallacies regarding the doomed environment and climate change, for that would be climate denial (appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, no discussion, reductionism, Big Lie technique). Don’t ever criticize Israel or Jewish behaviour, for that would be a classic case of vicious anti-Semitism (name calling, appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, no discussion). While you’re at it, don’t talk about the freemasons, dangers of vaccines, or world government, because that would just mean that you are one of those conspiracy theorists (name calling, appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, no discussion).

As you can see from these brief examples, nobody is more guilty than the Left is of employing deceptive, fallacious arguments, especially the so called skeptics movement (they are some of the biggest hypocrites in this respect). Yet the media and academia portray the opposite (gaslighting!). With the Left’s “Holocaust denier” fallacy alone, I found at least eight appropriate categories involved in the Left’s dismissal of Holocaust inquiry. Check them out, but just beware of the source and the wording of the carefully crafted descriptions. 

One of the most common fallacies of the Leftist Logical Fallacy Police (LLFPD) is to misrepresent arguments from those on the Right (strawman fallacy). They also frequently use the “fallacy fallacy”, which is when it is assumed that just because someone presents a fallacious argument, their entire position is automatically wrong, when it could simply be that they just haven’t adequately argued their position. This happens with the Right because the Left is typically more formally educated. A Leftist can academically dismiss a fallacious argument presented by a Right winger and resort to a state of cognitive dissonance (thereby re-affirming his Leftist worldview), even though the Right winger’s position is actually true. This is unfortunate.

The LLFPD favours Jews in that they dismiss any and all criticism of Jews as a collective group under the guise of the scapegoating fallacy. While this is a real and legitimate fallacy, it’s most often falsely attributed to critics of Jews. Sure, some people who know nothing about the Jewish question will callously blame Jews for things. But authentic critics will provide solid arguments that demonstrate the cause and effects of collective Jewish behaviour.

Eventually, knowledge of logical fallacies—and logic in general—will become so distorted that it will be meaningless. You can already see this trajectory with the way the Left has reclassified and reworded the definitions and examples. Orwell’s post-truth 1984 seems all the more likely.

Galileo Gambits: Trump, Putin, & Pizzagate

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Feb. 1, 2019

The most common defense of Donald Trump as an anti-globalist, conservative swamp drainer is that he must be authentic because of how much the media and the establishment are perceived as hating and vilifying him.

Not only is this defense false, given the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary, it’s a fallacious argument to start with.

It’s called the “Galileo Gambit” fallacy.

“The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. Users of the fallacy are to be understood as being essentially ‘Galileo wannabes’.”

Trump’s Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevist handlers know this fallacy well and have used it in building up the Cult of Trump—enough that it won him the title of President of the United States. It was none other than a globalist who first put out the lie that Trump was an “outsider” who “couldn’t be bought”. One Newt Gingrich, as if you couldn’t find a swampier spokesman to shill for you. After Gingrich’s opener for Chump, the Cult of Trump base simply expanded on and amplified the fallacious meme, turning Trump into one of the most successful psyops ever foisted on the American people. The more the media attacked Trump in the lead up to the U.S. presidential election, the more convinced his base became of his legitimacy, regardless of the facts.

“This logic is obviously flawed. For example, consider a horribly-oppressed ideology: Wahhabism. Western governments seek to persecute and censor Wahhabists at every opportunity. Does this mean that Wahhabism is correct?”

The Trump defense also falls under the associated fallacy known as Argumentum ad martyrdom—the notion that something becomes true if the person asserting it is perceived to be hated for it and/or that perceived martyrdom is proof that the martyr was correct. 

The Trump psyop also entails a bit of the hostile media effect.

Clearly, all the negative publicity helped Trump more than it hindered him during the election, whether the media knew it or not (I am convinced they were in on the charade). The negative publicity still helps Trump today, simultaneously keeping people tuned into the mind-controlling round-the-clock news in both the mainstream and in the alternative spheres.

This Galileo defense is more commonly used when fellow conservatives are challenging Trump supporters as to their blind allegiance to Chump’s cult of personality. The Chump base has other bags of tricks for Leftist critiquing of their supreme leader, namely dirty tricks like “Pizzagate”. Incidentally, the KGB-Team Trump co-ordination of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory was also validated by his base because of belief in the Galileo gambit fallacy. When some online outlets began censoring the obviously defamatory elements of “Pizzagate”, Trump’s base took it as proof that there was truth to it—all of it, no matter how ridiculous it was.

Trump supporters seem to revert to a state of cognitive dissonance when confronted with the irrationality of their Galileo gambitting. They attack their opponents and run and hide to their echo chambers, which are lovingly padded by double-agent “alternative” media charlatans like Infowars and Zerohedge. It’s no wonder they don’t learn. Their delusions are only fed by the gatekeeper alternative media. Alex Jones’ hypnotic and repetitious meme of “When you’re over the target, you take the most flak” is an explicit example of the Galileo gambit at work. He is another beneficiary of this fallacy and is also heavily involved with the promotion of both Putin and Trump.

These same Trumpists use the exact same fallacy when appraising Russian President Vladimir Putin and the actions of the Kremlin. If the Leftist Western media hates him so much, they argue, he must be the real deal. If the media blames Russia for colluding to hack the election, it must mean that Russia didn’t. Furthermore, it must mean that Russia is the good guy, and an anti-globalist to boot, the rhetoric goes (see this article arguing that the Left’s critique of Russia actually helps Russia). In effect, this dupes are leading the media dictate their analysis of world events, albeit a reactionary response. They don’t seem to grasp that there are constant dialectics at work in media narratives. The social engineers know that the media can control people not only by going along with media narratives but also by contrary reactions to media narratives. This is exactly what has happened with Trump and Putin.

The Putin-Chump cucks live in a make-believe world. Anything the two globalist stooges do is insulated against any valid arguments simply because the Galileo gambit has their base completely deceived and hardwired in to a pre-fabricated narrative. We live in a post-truth era where reason and logic are ignored and lies and memes are king.