By Timothy Fitzpatrick

A British funeral director who claims he was offered money from Russia to silence his COVID-19 jab whistleblowing says he’s glad he refused and is not afraid.

“Very soon, I’m going to get a knock on the door and I’m going to disappear, I can tell you, or I’ll die from sudden heart failure or I’ll be a COVID death, and then who else is going to speak out?” says 53-year-old John O’Looney in an Ickonic interview that originally aired July 16.

“I’m telling you the truth, and I’m not afraid to die, and if I die based on that truth, so be it. Come and get me. You know where I am. I can’t run and hide, can I? I’m 53, we’ve all got smart phones, they’ve got 5G everywhere—there’s nowhere to run. Come and punish me for telling the truth. This has been my story. Why doesn’t anyone want to come speak to me? Why are they offering me large sums of money not to talk?”

O’Looney, an undertaker in Milton Keynes, England, claims state-run Russia Today (formerly “Soviet Russia Today”) offered him £85,000 to sanitize and own the rights to his perspective as a funeral director of what he sees as a deadly fallout from the mass COVID-19 injection campaign in Great Britain and around the world.

“The email asked me for my story,” said O’Looney about Moscow’s request via Russia Today USA. “It suggested that everyone I’d spoken to was deliberately anti-vax and they would like an impartial story, and it would pay for my exclusive story and it would pay me £85,000 upon my first interview and me signing a contract that their lawyers would draw up. But the conditions were that I could never speak to anyone else again.”

While a lot of people might have jumped at the offer, O’Looney thought about it and declined.

“I chewed that over the weekend, not because I wanted the money—I didn’t want the money—but because I wanted to respond and I wanted to respond in a correct way to save us all, to help save us all, and I kind of said to them, I’m happy to give my story… I’m not going to sign an exclusive, because I can tell you now, there’s no network anywhere across the world where their leaders are promoting these poisons that will air my story, so my story will go into a bottom drawer and then I’m tied to exclusivity. So, basically the offer of 85,000 was made to me to shut up.”

Many conservatives have been touting Russian president Vladimir as some kind of hero against “the globalists” and their clot shot mandate for announcing that Russia will not make the vaccine mandatory in Russia, but Russia has executed the same vaccine-laden COVID-19 campaign based on Louis Pasteur’s dubious germ theory as in every other nation and with similar fatal effects. And some places in Russia do require the clot shot passport. Russia also has similar mask mandates, restrictions, and lockdowns as most other Western nations. Today, Putin advised Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan to get Russia’s COVID-19 jab Sputnik. Incidentally, the Soviets developed mRNA technology almost four decades ago.

O’Looney has stated in interviews this year that he sees fraud going on in the way so called Covid-19 deaths are being tabulated (the funeral home business slowed right down in 2020, contradicting media reports of increased overall deaths); the systematic liquidation of the elderly in care homes resulting from often unnecessary use of drugs like Midazolam (passed off as COVID deaths); and the overall depopulation of the masses using poison under the guise of immunization (vaccines), with the spike in deaths by 250% when COVID vaccinations began as evidence.

“These jabs are damaging and killing people,” he says.

With the ever-changing COVID narrative—thanks in large to a pro-vaccine and government-compliant media, O’Looney says young children are the next target of this vaccine depopulation campaign endgame.

“I see two things happening: one is going to be the deaths of a lot of children and the maiming of a lot of children, and parents will be told that that’s a new strain of COVID…I don’t doubt that they’ll probably use crisis actors…and parade those on TV under the guise of they being bereaved parents…children will die the same way adults are dying—in large numbers….”

(Editor’s note: Ms. Valentine makes a compelling case that Operation Northwoods, which conveniently came out just before the 9/11 WTC terror attacks, is a forgery designed to feed suspicion that the U.S. government was partially or entirely responsible for the attacks (my position is that Russia and Israel orchestrated the attacks with the help of traitorous elements of the Bush administration). Valentine does not offer an exact culprit for the forgery, but in light of what we now know, it seems possible or even probable that Soviet assets trained to speak British English may have concocted it. This theory becomes even more interesting when we consider the growing evidence of Russian involvement in the events surrounding 9/11. It’s suspicious that the character evidently responsible for popularizing the Northwoods plan around 9/11 was James Bamford, a seemingly pro-Kremlin “truther” in cahoots with other pro-Kremlin shills, like Alex Jones.` —Timothy Fitzpatrick)

By Carol A. Valentine
January 24, 2002 Anno Domini

In “Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS” I referred to a plan allegedly hatched by Pentagon brass in the 1960s to commit terrorist acts and use them as a pretext for war with Cuba (see above URL).  The plan was called “Operation Northwoods.”

Operation Northwoods was unknown to the American public until May, 2001, when details were released in James Bamford’s new book, “Body of Secrets” (Doubleday).  Bamford summarizes:

. .. the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.  (pg. 82).

The mainstream press gave the book, in particular its Operation Northwoods revelations, lots of publicity. For example, ABCNews.com published a lengthy review with the author.

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/jointchiefs_010501.html
or:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/abcnorthwds

It seemed remarkable that ABC was willing to show the US military in such a bad light. Surely the Waco Holocaust was a more contemporaneous U.S. military scandal, yet ABC continues to cover it up. I wondered at that.

The reviews were well in circulation, but still fresh when 9-11 hit. In retrospect, Northwoods seemed like an eery premonition. I thought the release of the Northwoods revelations were indeed a timely coincidence. Because the Northwoods scenario seemed to fit the facts of 9-11, many writers cited Bamford and Northwoods. I was one of them.

But there is just one problem with Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was not written by Americans. Put in other words, Operation Northwoods documents were not written by the Pentagon. They are counterfeits.

First, turn to pg. 85 of “Body of Secrets.” Bamford says: “Among the most elaborate schemes was to ….”

And then he quotes a Northwoods document directly:

… create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

(You can download the Operation Northwoods documentation at the George Washington University’s National Archive website. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/or view it here: http://www.Public-Action.com/911/northwds.pdf. Look at paragraph 8 in “Annex to Appendix To Enclosure A” to see the words quoted above.)

Study the last sentence in that quote. “The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday ….”  See anything wrong here? Well, Americans don’t use the expression “off on a holiday.” That is a British expression.  Americans say “on vacation.”

Operation Northwoods was allegedly written in 1962. I don’t have a 1960s dictionary on hand, but I have a 1970s dictionary—the American Heritage New College Edition. Of “holiday,” it says: “Often plural. Chiefly British. A period of time during which one is free from work; a vacation.”

Whoever wrote and edited Operation Northwoods used British English. Remember, Pentagon documents pass through a gauntlet of reviewers, each one examining and weighing the significance of the smallest comma, ironing out idiosyncrasies until the document resembles dull, gray, luke warm bath water. The process is called “coordination.”

Bamford said on p. 82:  “… the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff …” Half a dozen pairs of eyes, including “the Chairman and every  member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff” would have reviewed the Northwoods documents had they been produced by the Pentagon. There is no way “off on a holiday” would have survived the first iteration had the writers and reviewers been American.

Nor is the phrase “grouping of persons” idiomatic American English. No, the documents were not generated by the bureaucrats at the Pentagon. So who wrote Northwoods?  [See Endnote.]

It’s hard to believe the author of a book on intelligence matters went past this obviously questionable documentation. His alarm bells should have gone off. Who is James Bamford?

According to the dustjacket, author James Bamford “was until recently Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s ‘World News Tonight with Peter Jennings’.” Impressive!

The dustjacket describes the book as “a no-holds-barred examination of the National Security Agency–packed with startling secrets about its past, newsbreaking revelations about its present-day activities, and chilling predictions about its future power and reach … The NSA is the largest, most secretive, and most powerful intelligence agency in the world … it dwarfs the CIA in budget, manpower, and influence ….”

Nor is “Body of Secrets” Bamford’s first exposé on the NSA. “James Bamford first penetrated the wall of silence surrounding the NSA in 1982, with the much talked about bestseller ‘The Puzzle Palace.’ In ‘Body of Secrets’ he offers shocking new details about the inner workings of the agency, gathered through unique access to thousands of internal documents and interviews with current and former officials. Unveiling extremely sensitive information for the first time ….” etc., etc.

Friends, what does all this mean? If Bamford was truly revealing “shocking” secrets of America’s most powerful intelligence agency, do you really believe current and former officials would be talking to him, and that he would be given “unique” access to internal NSA documents? Of course not.

There’s even a photo of the NSA building on the back cover. The back dustjacket reads: “JACKET PHOTOGRAPHY COURTESY OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY.”

Bamford is an NSA household pet, the designated unofficial “historian,” and their PR flack. Bamford tells us what his job is. He quotes NSA Director Michael Hayden: “The American people have to trust us [the NSA] and in order to trust us they have to know about us.” (Unnumbered and untitled page at beginning of book.) That’s Bamford’s job: telling the public exactly what the NSA bosses think the American public should know so the American public trusts the NSA.

Remember what the dustjacket says. “Body of Secrets” is supposed to be an exposé of the NSA, right? So instead of exposing an NSA outrage, the NSA errand boy exposés the Pentagon’s. So much for the “exposé.” Bamford is getting the American public to trust the NSA by citing obviously faked documents. So much for the “trust.”

Do your own search on google for reviews of “Body of Secrets.” If your results are like mine, you will find that the big news the reviewers featured was Northwoods. It seems to have been Bamford’s sexiest offering.

ABCNews.com raised the question of how this fascinating Northwoods material came into Bamford’s possession:

“Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film, ‘JFK,’ which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

“As public interest in the assassination swelled after ‘JFK’s’ release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public’s access to government records related to the assassination.

“The author says a friend on the board [?] tipped him off to the documents.

“Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.”

So it seems that the documents missed the shredder, were stored by mistake, and surfaced after Congress made more JFK assassination documents available, whereupon Bamford’s friend tipped him off (above). Whatever. All very lucky for Bamford, but with all this luck playing into his hands, you’d think he’d read them more carefully and notice the writers used British English and not American English. And you’d think his spook buddies at NSA would have noticed. And his publishers at Doubleday.

James Bamford tells us more about himself in an article he wrote about his relationship with accused FBI spy Robert Hanssen. See “My friend, the Spy,” published by the New York Times Magazine on March 18, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/18/magazine/18LIVES.html.

We learn Bamford met Hanssen through a mutual friend, a CIA spook.  ” … we all came together aboard my boat, a 60-foot motor yacht on the Potomac River in Washington.”

Bamford tells us his boat was docked just a few slips down from a yacht CIA Director John Deutch used for “quiet meetings.” We get a sense that, truly, Bamford is in with the in-crowd.

What was the name of Bamford’s yacht? “It’s name, perhaps fittingly, was ‘Safehouse,’ a hiding place for spies,” says Bamford.

It does not sound as though Bamford, the writer of exposés, had an antagonistic relationship with the spy community, does it? Here we have Bamford’s publishers boasting that Bamford is blowing the whistle on all this nasty spying business, while Bamford boasts his boat is a safe place for spies.

Bamford claims to have maintained a friendship with Robert Hanssen for approximately nine years. “He and his wife, Bonnie, even attended my wedding,” he says.

Yet, when Bamford’s “friend” Hanssen is accused of treason by the infamously criminal FBI, Bamford swallows every accusation against Hanssen, hook, line, and sinker. Remember, Bamford claims expertise on the world of intelligence, a world where lying, deception, forgery, frame ups, and assassinations are the coin of the realm. Yet he does not question any of the allegations made about his friend of nine years, despite the fact that Hanssen’s accusers pulled off every dirty trick in the book to prevent Hanssen from defending himself in open court.

A man in Bamford’s business must know that there’s at least an even chance Hanssen was the FBI’s victim, not a culprit. He must know how easy it would be to frame a counter-espionage agent. But what does Bamford do when his friend is publicly stoned? He takes part in the stoning.

Bamford paints his “friend” as a crank, a weirdo, and a religious fanatic, calling him “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hanssen. A man who could leave Sunday Mass and load a dead drop with top-secret documents or march in protest at the killing of ‘unborn children’ while coolly sending American spies to their deaths.”

Bamford does not tell us why he maintained a nine-year friendship with such a weirdo. Instead, Bamford suggests Hanssen pursued the friendship with Bamford, and that Hanssen had a hidden motive for doing so. If Bamford was simply an honest investigative journalist, what leaks could Bamford have possibly given to Hanssen?

Here is a professional NSA flack currying favor for the NSA by blowing the whistle on the Pentagon with counterfeit documents. The documents, presented as authentic, certainly put the Pentagon in a terrible light.

Of course we know that elements with the FAA and the U.S. Air Force worked in co-operation with the terrorists.  The failure of NORAD to intercept the errant planes on September 11, and the continued cover-up, proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But the Northwoods documents suggest that if 9-11 were an inside job—and it had to be—then the Pentagon was the ARCHITECT. The Northwoods exposé was ready and waiting for the inevitable 9-11 skeptics to show up, seize upon the plan, and point the finger of suspicion at the Pentagon. However, the Northwoods British-isms show that another hand, not an American hand, was guiding those planes into the WTC towers, and that the Operation Northwoods documents are a misdirector.

Northwoods was doubtlessly hatched by a foreign intelligence service and inserted into U.S. national records. The discovery of the Northwoods documents reminds one of the incident in Wag The Dog when a newly composed song was inserted into the Library of Congress records to give the impression it had been written decades earlier; then the song, “Old Shoe,” was conveniently “discovered” and popularized at the right time. Rent Wag The Dog at your local video store and watch it happen.

Let’s see now…. What nation is peopled by masters of deception? Who has been using the U.S. military as a cat’s paw? Using 9-11 as a pretext, whose enemies is the U.S. annihilating right now?  Lemme think….

A source has told me that Robert Hanssen found out about the plans of this foreign power to stage a big terrorist event in the U.S. Hanssen made the mistake of telling the wrong people in the FBI and was framed to keep him quiet.

Referring to Northwoods, Bamford told ABC: “The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years later.”

No.

The scary thing is that the tentacles of a malevolent foreign power are deeply embedded in the most secret and powerful agencies in the U.S.—that this power is pulling the strings, yanking the chains, crashing airplanes into cities, sending America off to war, and gutting our traditional liberties at home.

[Endnote: If you continue to read pgs. 85-86 of “Body of Secrets,” you will find these words right after the paragraph in which Americans go “off on a holiday”:

“Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception.” Then Bamford quotes from the  Northwoods documents:

An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted into a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft.] Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

Interesting plan, isn’t it? Remotely controlled aircraft and phony passengers? ]

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

Jewish political power seems to be concentrated in the still-present, yet deceptively modified, Soviet collectivist system and not in the state of Israel, as most believe.

Israel is merely a branch of this Soviet system, albeit, an important one, and largely serves as a decoy to hide the Soviet origin of crimes against humanity.

The Russia Federation today is following the same Soviet pattern in using Israel as a fall guy for its crimes as it has done with China for decades; thereby, throwing analysts off the trail to Moscow and securing the unfettered advancement of Soviet plans.

With the staged theatrics of the Sino-Soviet split from 1956-1966, as part of the scissors strategy (the fake falling out between the two red powers), the Soviets effectively used China to cover up their leading role in crimes like its global narcotics offensive against the West. Even today, China is all too willing to not only portray itself as openly communist, but take the blame for any perceived subversion of the West, when, in fact, subversive directives appear to be coming from Moscow, whose regime hides under the thin mask of democracy. Notice how Western Right-wing media today obsesses on China but demonizes and denigrates anyone who criticizes Moscow? This is exactly the desired outcome of Soviet planning.

“These propaganda instructions were extended in 1964 in a letter signed by Leonid Brezhnev which was discussed at a meeting of the Czechoslovak Defence Council. The letter directed that data on the Chinese drug and narcotics trafficking operation should be made public, to advertise China’s role as the source of illicit trafficking and thus to draw attention away from the Soviet operation. (One of the first articles written for this purpose appeared in Pravda on September 13,1964. It was written by V. Ovchinnikov and was entitled ‘The Drug Dealers’: see also page 146, and Note 43, page 152).” (1)

So, then, why wouldn’t Russia do something similar with the state of Israel (or other groups, for that matter)? Israel is a nation founded by Bolshevik Jews and currently run by Bolshevik Jews, exemplified in the Soviet-derived Likud party headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Every Prime Minister of Israel to present time has had Soviet roots, the intelligence services of both Israel and Russia seem to be working side by side, and both powers are co-operating in building the biggest economic alliance the world has ever seen (one belt, one road initiative)—to name just a few of the many similarities between the two powers.

It seems that Russia’s primary uses for Israel are to: 

1. Turn the world against the West (via indignation over Western support of Israel to the detriment of the Arab world) 
2. Divide Westerners (anti-Zionist Leftists vs. pro-Zionist right wingers) 
3. Displace Islamic world populations in order to facilitate the Soviet Kalergi Plan (via wars for Israel),
4. Subvert Western political institutions (under the guise of Israel as a Western ally, i.e., Kim Philby, Jonathan Pollard). 
5. Shepherd resulting Islamic anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism into terrorist cells against Weststern targets (actual and/or false flags)

Secondarily, the Bolsheviks may be using Israel to affirm masonic and Talmudic prophecy, centring around the City of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, well-meaning anti-Zionists get caught up in this secondary use, which forces their incorrect conclusions of the bigger picture. Also, whether intentional or not, Soviet Bolsheviks have utilized the existence of the state of Israel to demonize opponents of Jewish power as “Nazis” and/or “anti-Semites”.

Carefully, Russia has used Israel to turn the Middle East and Africa against Israel and, more importantly, the West while Russia waits in the wings to accept the seemingly helpless Arabs and Africans into its open arms, as explained by Jack Bernstein in the New York-Moscow-Tel Aviv triangle.

“From the terms of this pact, you can see it was, and still is, the aim of the Soviet Union and Zionist/Marxist Israel to prevent peace between the Arab countries and Israel until all the Arab countries are forced to adopt socialism under Soviet leadership.” (2)

Worst yet, Western conservatives have now also embraced Russia and the “former” Soviet bloc—naively believing that the crypto-Reds will save the world from the supposed Western-led New World Order. In other words, the Soviets have succeeded in turning both Lefitsts and right-wingers against their own government (a long-range Leninist goal), yet neither side can see this in its proper context (see: The Left’s fake anti-Russia narrative explained).

Although high-ranking Soviet defector Ion Mihai Pacepa doesn’t seem to understand Israel’s true role in the Soviet offensive, he does correctly identify Moscow’s leading role in Middle East turmoil and its intended negative effects on the West.

“’By 1972, Andropov’s disinformation machinery was working around the clock to persuade the Islamic world that Israel and the United States intended to transform the rest of the world into a Zionist fiefdom,” Pacepa writes of the Soviet’s Operation SIG. (3) “According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch.” (4)

Pacepa goes on to reveal that the Soviets went as far as seeding Arabic-translated copies of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in the Arab world even though, previously, it was Soviet policy to imprison or execute those caught with this banned material. At home, it seems, the Soviets want to keep a lid on the Protocols but see its uses for consumption abroad. (For more on this aspect of Soviet Israel, please see my article The Kremlin directs the anti-Zionist movement on behalf of Israel.)

Most people cannot understand this clever strategy. They might say, “why would Bolsheviks throw Bolsheviks under the bus?” If Israel weren’t thrown into the mix, the strategy would be too obvious. Imagine that Russia turned the Middle East against only the West but not Israel. You don’t think Western analysts would figure out that it were a Soviet measure? This is one of the reasons that Israel was created—to disguise the Soviet offensive against the West and the plan for world communism. It’s no coincidence that Israel and the West almost always gets fingered for all world events by both the Left and the Right: Israel/CIA killed JFK, not Russia; Israel/CIA did 9/11, not Russia; Israel/CIA is oppressing the Palestinians, not Russia; Israel/CIA conducts false-flag terrorism, not Russia; Israel/CIA manufactures and distributes narcotics, not Russia; Israel/CIA runs sexual blackmail operations, not Russia…. Hopefully you get the point. But just about everything Israel is accused of, there is evidence that the Soviet system is responsible.

What if Russia, like it has done with China, deliberately made public information implicating Israel in Kremlin crimes, like 9/11, for example? Isn’t it just a little suspicious that the Israel-friendly right-wing mainstream media reported Israelis dancing on a roof top as the World Trade Centre collapsed, Israeli spying in America just prior to 9/11 (Carl Cameron of Fox News), and suspicious Israelis arrested on 9/11? I’m not suggesting that Israelis weren’t involved but that their role may deliberately have been exaggerated so as to eliminate any possible trail back to Moscow. Or take JFK conspiracy theories. Most of them centre around blaming either the CIA (which fits the anti-Western Soviet narrative) or, in the alt right, Israel. Talk of Soviet orchestration is nearly completely absent from the debate.
As it stands today, analyzing the Soviet threat outside of the narrative of China and North Korea is off limits. While the fake collapse of communism provides the primary protection for Soviet Russia’s continued advancedment of world communism, Soviet Israel provides the added layer.

Notes:

1. Douglass, Jospeh D., Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America and the West,1999, pg. 41
2. Bernstein, Jack, The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel, 1984, The Noontide Press, California, pg. 23
3. Pacepa, Ion Mihai, Disinformation, 
4. Pacepa, Ion Mihai, Russian Footprints, National Review Online, August 24, 2006 – https://web.archive.org/web/20100715214448/http://article.nationalreview.com/289014/russian-footprints/ion-mihai-pacepa 

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
July 11, 2019 Anno Domini

It blows my mind that people in the Right-wing movement continue to peddle the idiotic rhetoric that Venezuela and its Soviet backer Russia are thwarting the New World Order.

Instead of accepting the simplest and most logical explanation, that Venezuela is still a Soviet satellite and a failed socialist state carrying on a long-range plan of enslavement, they choose to believe Soviet-seeded propaganda in the “alternative” media that the West is to blame for all evil in the world—exactly the perception that the Kremlin’s Operation SIG has sought to achieve in the world.

Having, myself, spent considerable time in the “workers’ paradise” of Venezuela, I can tell you that it is a complete communist hell hole. While moronic conspiracy buffs—most of whom probably have never stepped foot in South America—romanticize Venezuela for social media likes, channel subscriptions, and shekels, real Venezuelans are starving, being murdered, and are subjected to horrendous living conditions—all thanks to the Soviet Union’s collectivization of Latin America over the last century.

Yet, Madurophiles and Putinphiles alike have the audacity to engage in whataboutism, accusing the West of the all-too-familiar Marxist cliches of “colonialism”, “imperialism”, ad nauseum. Never mind the poverty and violence everywhere in Venezuela, the West is to blame for everything, everywhere, always. Forget that your neighbour is being forced to eat their house pets, we have anti-Zionism and anti-colonialism to save us!

I remember seeing anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian graffiti on slum walls as I rode a bus through Venezuela’s capital city Caracas (Caracas has the highest murder rate in the world) and in other places. Back then, I didn’t understand the close relationship between Marxist states and anti-Zionism. I, too, was almost sucked in to believing that Chavez and his socialist masonic Bolivarian utopia were thwarting the New World Order. Fortunately, I eventually woke up. However, I guess this superficial, Soviet-bred anti-Zionist gambit vindicates the failed socialist state of Venezuela in the eyes of the armchair anti-globalist keyboard warriors who portray themselves as experts. Blinded by their political zeal and bankrupt geopolitical analysis, this shows that they don’t care about real people, like the Venezuelan people. Like with every communist dictatorship, the people are just indispensable tools. These fools are so out of touch with reality that they think that Venezuelans care about rigged dialectical ideology more than what they will eat and with what they will clothe themselves. Also with every communist dictatorhip comes a completely criminal and corrupt regime and utter disregard for the sanctity of human life. In Venezuela, you can hire a hitman for as little as $7 USD—demonstrating that Venezuela is every bit the mafia state that Putinist Russia and its other satellites are.

I also remember communist Cuban agent provocateurs being flown in to Venezuela to murder dissenters and stir riots during the constant unrest and populist discontent with Chavez and his socialist “reforms” towards the last half of the 2000s. There were constant riots and demonstrations. Apparently, Chavez took a page out of Lenin’s handbook: it’s easier for foreigners to kill disseneters than have locals killing locals. It seems that to the world, Chavez would hide all this by spouting shallow, superficial rhetoric about then U.S. President George W. Bush, like rambling on about Bush being a “donkey”. Only a fool wouldn’t see through this cheap opposition. Chavez was engaging in the all-too-familiar Soviet whataboutism while his people starved (the food shortages were going on under Chavez’ rule, too). In the end, Soviet communism remained in power in Venezuela, as it does today. It matters not which puppet president graces the podium.

It’s no surprise that Russia Today television lies when it denies the mass starvation, mass violence, and mass social upheaval in Venezuela, because it could never admit that communism is a failed evil and Satanic system. Furthermore RT, as an organ of the Kremlin, could never compromise one of its satellites, which is so strategic in its destabilization of the West in this final end game. They count on people not checking it out. Well, I was there. It’s all too real.

By Anatoliy Golitsyn
June 22, 2019 Anno Domini
Excerpt: The Perestroika Deception, pgs. 137-144 (1998)

THE FAKE ‘AUGUST COUP’ AND ITS CALCULATED FAILURE
A deliberately engineered ‘Break with the Past’

Who called the shots in the USSR before the ‘coup’ and who introduced the ‘reforms’? Gorbachev and his ‘liberals’? NO, the Party and its strategists.

Who is calling the shots now and who proposed the coup to replace Gorbachev? The ‘hardliners’, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the KGB? NO, the Party and its strategists.

The ‘coup’ was proposed in accordance with the requirements of the Soviet strategy of convergence leading to eventual World Government. This strategy and its moves, like the present Soviet ‘coup’, can only be understood in the light of the theories of one of the principal Soviet agents of influence, namely Sakharov, and his timetable for convergence. According to Sakharov, during the first phase the Leninist realists (i.e. Gorbachev and other ‘liberals’) will expand and strengthen ‘democracy’ and economic reform in the USSR and other socialist countries.

As we know, this has already happened.

According to Sakharov, in the second phase the pressure exerted by the Soviet example and by the internal progressive forces would lead to the victory of the Leftist Reformist Wing (the Soviet term for American liberals) which would begin to implement a programme of collaboration and convergence with the USSR on a worldwide scale, entailing changes in the structure of ownership. According to Sakharov, this phase would include an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism.
We had reached this phase before the war with Iraq. In the assessment of the Soviet strategists, the US victory over Iraq adversely affected the political balance in the United States. In their view, the victory weakened and demoralised the liberals (or Leftist Reformists) and strengthened the centrist and conservative forces and the US military. This disturbed Soviet plans to carry out their strategy of convergence.

They saw that their main political allies in achieving convergence with the United States had been weakened. Accordingly they engineered this strategic ‘coup’ to reverse and improve the political fortunes of their American allies. Seen in strategic terms, the main purpose of Gorbachev’s ‘dismissal’ is further to confuse American opinion and to alter the political landscape in the United States so as to accelerate the progress of the Soviet strategy and to put it back on the rails.

This strategy is a deliberate and coordinated walk towards ultimate victory by advancing first the left leg of action by ‘liberals’, then the right leg of action by ‘hardliners’ and then once more the left leg of action by ‘liberals’. The ‘dismissal’ of Gorbachev is temporary. In earlier Memoranda I predicted a calculated ‘resignation’ by Gorbachev and his eventual return to power.

The ‘coup’ confirms this prediction. According to my analysis, the ‘coup’ is aimed at intensifying American anxieties over the fate of Gorbachev and the other ‘liberals’ and ‘reformists’ in the USSR like Shevardnadze.
When these concerns reach their peak, the Soviet strategists’ next move can be expected. They will return Gor- bachev and other ‘liberals’ to power through a campaign of strikes and demonstra- tions organised by the Party.

As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev’s return and the strengthening of the ‘reformists’ in the USSR will also strengthen the American liberals, revive their fortunes and help them win future elections – leading eventually to the convergence of the United States and the USSR. In short, Gorbachev’s return will be a repetition of the device of the suppression of Solidarity in Poland, followed by its victory.

The main purpose of the ‘coup’ is to reverse an unfavourable situation for potential Soviet allies in the United States and to create favourable conditions for the implementation of the convergence strategy. The second objective is to secure the non-violent creation of the new Soviet Federation of Republics. The third objective is to provide any potential adventurers there may be in the Soviet military with a lesson and thereby to eliminate any possibility of a genuine coup in the future.

A FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOVIET ‘COUP’

The point has already been made that Gorbachev will be returned to power at the moment when it best serves the Soviet strategy of convergence. Depending on the circumstances prevailing at the appropriate time, he could be returned to power through an election, after a period of other activities .

His alleged removal from power and house arrest are deliberate devices to build up his popularity before such an election.
Meanwhile one can expect that the Soviet strategists intend to replace him or to add to his team another ace card, the ‘anti-Communist’ (but, like Gorbachev, protege of Andropov) Boris Yeltsin, leader of the Russian Republic. As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev has exhausted the influence he exerted on their behalf in the West. He was unable to extract more econ- omic aid at the London Summit Meeting and his advice concerning a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Iraq was ignored by President Bush. It is the strategists’ belief that Boris Yeltsin will give greater credibility in the West to Soviet economic and political ‘reform’. He will be in a better position to exploit his influence to extract additional economic aid from the West and, in particular, to obtain from the West a commitment to a new Marshall Plan for Russia.

A Marshall Plan for Russia is one of the primary interim objectives of the Soviet strategists and one that Gorbachev failed to achieve. The strategists expect that Yeltsin will be able to exert greater influence in diplomatic, economic and political relationships and will receive more cooperation in the international arena particularly in the Middle East and at the United Nations. One can expect that the Soviet strategists will come forward with fresh initiatives combined with deliberate provo- cations and crises in order to enhance the role of the United Nations.

They will do this because they regard the United Nations as a stepping stone to a future World Government The Soviet political game and the Soviets’ trickery in ‘manipulating’ politicians like Gorbachev and Y eltsin for W estern public consumption demand more imagination and a better grasp of these machinations from the Bush Administration. For example, to proceed with the appointment of Mr Robert Strauss as the new Ambassador in Moscow is a great mistake because the appointment is being made at a time when the Soviet strategists are deliberately undermining the credit and prestige President Bush gained from his dealings with Gorbachev. They are undercutting the President in favour of their political allies – namely, the American liberals. Nowadays the situation is more serious than it was after the Second World War. President Truman woke up to the nature of Stalin’s mentality, his deeds and his intentions. The Bush Administration, by contrast, has no understanding of Soviet strategy and its ultimate, aggressive, strategic designs against the United States.

Given this situation and the Soviet ‘game plan’, the President, instead of appointing a politician/businessman like Robert Strauss as American Ambassador in Moscow, should consider appointing someone like Richard Helms or General Vernon Walters – that is to say, a professional man and an intelligence expert who might see through the Soviet game plan and help the Administration as General Bedell Smith helped President Truman in 1947.

THE AUTHOR’S ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CALCULATED SOVIET ‘COUP’ AND OF ITS CALCULATED ‘FAILURE’

According to my assessment, the Soviet ‘coup’ and its ‘failure’ constituted a grandiose display of deception – a provocation. The ‘ineptitude’ of the participants in the ‘coup’ and the ‘failure’ of it were skilfully planned and executed. The main argument in support of this assessment is that the Soviet military, the KGB, the Party and leading media figures apparently had neither the skill to launch a successful coup nor the guts to crush resistance to it. This is news indeed!

Facing a real crisis in Hungary in 1956, the same forces displayed exceptional skill, knowhow and determination in crushing a genuine revolt. Knowledge of the Soviet mentality and of Moscow’s record of ruthless action has convinced this analyst that the Soviet military, the Party and the leaders of the media all have the skill, the will and the courage to crush genuine resistance and opposition. They did not display them on this occasion because the abortive ‘coup’ was carried out in accor- dance with Party instructions; and it was the Party and the Komsomol themselves which organised the alleged resistance to it.

The real participants both in the ‘coup’ and in the ‘failure’ were some 20,000 or more chosen Komsomol and Party members in Moscow with two or three tank divisions guided by their political commissars and a handful of dedicated Party offi- cials and generals who sacrificed their prestige in the interests of the Party’s strategy and under the guidance of its strategists. The calculated nature of the ‘coup’ and its timing show that it was staged by the Russian, President Yeltsin, to save the essence of the Union at the time of transition to a new form of federation.

The abortive ‘coup’ and the ‘resistance’ to it were carefully calculated displays intended primarily for the West. This explains why Western media contacts with Moscow were not curtailed. On the contrary, the big guns of the Soviet media like Vitaliy Korotich and representatives of the Arbatov Institute were on hand both in Moscow and in the United States to ‘help’ the Western media with their interpretation of developments in the USSR. The episode shows how well Soviet strategists like Arbatov and his experts on the American media have mastered the art of projecting such displays for consumption by the American media, and throughout the West.

The Soviet strategists sought to underline for the West the dramatic ineptitude of the ‘coup’ and the spectacular courage and resistance displayed by the new ‘Russian democrats’ and their leader Yeltsin in ‘defending’ the Soviet Parliament – their symbolic equivalent of ‘The White House’. The main external objective of the display was to demonstrate to the West that Soviet democratisation is genuine, that it has the support of the people and that it is working. They want to convince the West that Western investment in the USSR will pay dividends.

They expect that the West will now respond with a new Marshall Plan which will bring Western technology flooding in to the Soviet Union, promoting joint ven- tures and stimulating a restructuring of the Soviet economy along the lines of the revival of the German and Japanese economies after the Second World War.

Internally, one objective is to influence the Soviet population towards acceptance of the new Party-controlled ‘democracy’ as a real power and to develop the strength and maturity of the new ‘democratic’ structure and the popularity of its leaders, especially Yeltsin. Another objective is to exploit this staged ‘coup’ in order to reorganise and ‘reform’ the Soviet bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organisations and the diplomatic service, and to give them a new ‘democratic’ image.

The Soviet strategists realise that only with such a new image, implying a ‘Break with the Past’ and severance from Communism, can these organisations be converted into effective weapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internal objective is to emphasise the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televised but calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.

These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design and intentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes are cosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate the American and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin’s staged ‘defence’ of the Soviet ‘White House’.

If the Soviets were truly moving towards genuine democracy, and were intent on a true ‘Break with the Past’, these symbolic changes would be accompanied by the introduction and implementation of a de-communisation programme, the irrevocable (not cosmetic) prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organisations at all levels throughout the USSR, and the removal of ‘former’ Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats of power including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, the Ministries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.

Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should be asked: ‘Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organisation?’ [Note: According to ‘The New York Times’ of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol voted to dissolve itself; its regulations were changed ‘to allow subordinate youth leagues in the Soviet Republics to succeed it’ – Author’s emphasis].

To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carried out at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification programme in Germany after the war. Without any such programme, present changes, however impressive, will remain cosmetic.

There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and a former Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity of the abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of former Communist leaders into true democrats would be a frank official statement from them that the Soviet Party and Government adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960, that ‘perestroika’ is the advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandoned forthwith in favour of normal, open, civilised relations. There has been no sign whatsoever of any such admission.

Further criteria for judging the sincerity of the abrupt conversion of ‘former’ Communist leaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:

• An official admission that the ‘dissident movement’ and its leader, Sakharov, were serving the interests of that strategy under KGB control;

• Public exposure of the main KGB agents among Soviet scientists, priests, writers and theatre and movie personalities who have been playing an active role in the KGB-controlled political ‘opposition’ – especially those like the ‘conservative’ Kochetov and the ‘liberal’ Tvardovskiy who in the 1960s engaged in a Party- and KGB-controlled debate intended to convey the false impression that Soviet society was evolving towards democracy;

• And finally: a categorical repudiation of any strategic intention on the part of the Soviets of working towards ‘convergence’ with the United States.

The self-evident absence of any of these criteria indicates that the symbolic changes mean no more than that the strategists had reached the conclusion that the old symbols had outlived their usefulness – at least, in the Soviet Union and East- em Europe – and had to be replaced by new, more attractive, popular symbols.

Moreover these cosmetic changes are logical and were predicted earlier by this ana- lyst. The Soviets realised that convergence with the United States cannot be achieved under the old compromised symbols like Lenin, Dzerzhinskiy and others associated in the Western mind with terror, repression, exile and bloodshed.
Convergence requires the introduction of new, attractive, national and ‘democratic’ symbols conveying the impression that Soviet ‘democracy’ is approaching the Western model.

No doubt these cosmetic changes, the reorganisation of the Soviet bureau- cracy and the new, more enigmatic status of its leaders like Yeltsin will be seen by the West as a deepening of the process of Soviet’ reform’, offering new opportunities for Western policy. But the West’s main weakness remains unchanged: it cannot grasp the fact that it is facing an acceleration in the unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procure the subservience of the West to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government.

The Machiavellian boldness and imagination displayed by the Soviet strategists through their staged ‘coup’ and its preordained defeat are alarming. No doubt these manoeuvres will be followed not only by faked suicides, but also by staged trials of the alleged leaders of the ‘coup’. These leaders may well be sentenced to apparent prison terms. But in fact they will live in comfortable retirement in resort areas like the Crimea and the Caucasus. Russia is a big country and places can be found for them to hide.

The ‘coup’ and its ‘defeat’ show that the Soviets will go to any lengths in pur- suit of their convergence strategy. This reminds me of remarks by Vladimir Zhenikhov, the former KGB Rezident in Finland, and Aleksey Novikov, another KGB officer, at the time the strategy was adopted in 1961.

Both of them had recently returned from home leave in Moscow. When I asked for the latest news from headquarters, both replied using different words but to the same effect: ‘This time the KGB are going to finish with capitalist America once and for all’. I believed them then, and I believe that what is happening now is a bad omen for Western democracy.

The other alarming aspect of the situation is Western euphoria and the uncritical acceptance of present Soviet developments at their face value. This shows how easily the West can be taken in by staged Soviet spectacles, and how justified the strategists are in believing that their ‘era of provocations’ will produce the intended results. Furthermore, Western euphoria and naivete serve only to encourage the Soviet strategists to stage new spectacles more convinced than ever that their strategic designs are realistic.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

Russia Insider is the rebirth of Russian-Jewish oligarch Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

Both strategically use anti-Jewish narratives in order to honeypot gullible people, at which point the sticky-lipped dupes are either rounded up and imprisoned or simply indoctrinated.

It is the latter in the case of Russia Insider, which is a go-to source for many Westerner alternative media junkies and Russia supporters.

Started in 2014 with the help the Kremlin and its oligarchic mafia (like Duginist Konstantin Malofeev), at the time when the neo-Bolshevik Putin regime was amping up its aggression against Ukraine, Russia Insider is the perfect Soviet double agent within the Western nationalist movement (not the first time the nationalist movement was infiltrated by the Soviets). They say all the right things at the right time, but when push comes to shove, they play the Judas Goat and mislead their audience into a Soviet Trust land of hypernormalized confusion and disinformation. One of Russia Insider’s creators, John Helmer, is alleged to have been recruited by the KGB. Russia Insider editor Charles Bausman has been featured on Kremlin-state media.

Looking at the lead article today at Russia Insider: “CHUTZPAH: CIA/Mossad Instigate Chemical Attack in Syria, Accuse Syria of Doing It”, the Soviet active measure of demoralizing the West is furthered. Instead of being told the truth, that Israel and Russia are the main players destroying Syria with largely Russian-groomed Chechen Jihadists, the clever crypto-Soviets spin it to being the fault of the “evil West”…then throw Israel in the mix as the gambit (notice it puts the CIA first, before Mossad). Peruse the rest of the site and all you will find are “articles” that can’t say enough great things about Putin and the Kremlin.

Of course, this is all OK with Israel, because Israel is simply helping big brother Russia execute its long-range goal of demoralizing and destabilizing the West. Israel doesn’t mind being thrown under the bus, so long as it serves the overall goal of destroying the West and bringing it within the grip of its Judeo global governance scheme, with Israel, Russia, and China leading the world into the “Olam ha ba”. And what better cover than for Russia Insider to pretend to be opposed to globalism, a case of the fox guarding the chicken coup.

Almost all of the Western alternative media serves very much the same purpose: blame everything on the West (resulting in divide-and-conquer polarization), vindicate Russia and Arab Soviet satellites (Iran, Syria, etc.). This game is so obvious. Putin is not mystical or that unpredictable. His hypernormalization strategy is now out in the open. He is simply a more sophisticated Soviet leader pursuing the usual active measures against the West, but this time, he has a lot more Western leaders compromised than his predecessors had—take for example Angela Merkel in Soviet satellite Germany. Putin’s Red predecessors only really had Eastern Germany to puppeteer. Now the Kremlin has all of it and its largest economy in the European Union.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
September 8, 2018 Anno Domini

What if this entire time, self-proclaimed American patriot radio host Alex Jones had been working for the Soviet power bloc in Russia and the East?

Would it be so difficult to believe? Could Russia have used him all this time to divide, distract, and radicalize the American populace as a means of weakening it for a final Marxist takeover?

Everything that has been levelled against Jones by his staunchest critics, myself included, namely that he is a Likudnik Zionist in the employ of Benjamin Netanyahu and the gangster-run Israeli government and that he is a counter-intelligence operative, could easily fit into an all-encompassing Soviets-dunnit narrative. He could very well be all a: Zionist, intelligence asset, freemason, neocon, and Soviet agent. In fact, these nefarious groups have all worked together for decades for mutual goals. Most of the time, it’s difficult to tell one from the other. Let the reader realize that the Soviet Union is run mostly by high-level freemasons and communist Jews who are loyal to the Marxist state of Israel. I use the present tense because the Soviet Union still secretly exists. It merely changed its flag and name for public consumption. The world communist conspiracy persists.

When looking back at all the questionable things Jones has done over the years in determining his loyalty to the West, I think back to the infamous Y2K (year 2000) scare in which Jones, then fairly new to the patriot movement, actively participated. Late conspiracy researcher William Cooper documented and analyzed this event with astounding prescience. He rightfully called Jones a fear mongering “bullshit artist”. He may have been the first to sound the alarm over Jones’ sincerity. During that night, Dec. 31, 1999, a point in time when all kinds of doom had been predicted and many people were on edge, Jones basically attempted to deceive his listeners into believing that the Russians were invading or carrying out some kind of major aggression against the United States. It wasn’t true. So, why did Jones lie about it? Was it merely another of his many scare tactics to whip up his listeners or was there something more?

Soviet human butcher Josef Stalin apparently was fascinated by the fake news of his day—something that fit naturally for a lying Soviet such as himself. Orson Welles’ fake news broadcast of a UFO invasion of America from H.G. Well’s The War of the Worlds especially interested Stalin. Stalin saw the obvious uses for fake news of this kind in manipulating the American populace and the West. If average Americans could be coaxed into brandishing firearms and firing them at imaginary space aliens in the sky, what else could they be tricked into doing? Author Annie Jacobsen writes that Wells’ fiction inspired Stalin and the Soviets to orchestrate the alleged UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico—an event that would go on to shape UFO folklore and even, to some degree, the conspiracy movement. Since that time, the Soviets have perfected their fake-news psychological operations. Who knows how many of these kinds of operations have been foisted on unsuspecting Western populations. Countless, no doubt. As it turns out, Wells met with Stalin in 1934. Does that mean Wells was a Soviet asset, too? Perhaps, as Wells himself claimed to be further Left than Stalin. He was a staunch Leftist involved in such things as the formation of the globalist/communist League of Nations. For all we know, The War of the Worlds broadcast over CBS radio that caused a public panic in the United States on Halloween in 1938 could have been a Soviet orchestration. Perhaps as Soviet mockery as to the source of this apparent psyop, the opening theme to the CBS broadcast was Tchaikovsky’s piano concerto No. 1.

Back to Jones, his fake news regarding the Soviet invasion during his Y2K broadcast may have been yet another of the POLITBURO’s psych warfare campaigns to test out the gullibility of their enemies. Many people believe that Jones began his career as a legitimate truther patriot and then later became compromised, but the continuity between now and the Y2K incident is apparent. Divide, distract, and radicalize. After writing dozens of articles critiquing Jones and his position as an anti-truther controlled-opposition agent and studying him for years, this seems to be the best conclusion to which I can come for his purpose in the patriot/truther movement—he is an agent provocateur, a stochastic terrorist. And it aligns perfectly with Vladimir Lenin’s prescriptions of establishing divisive agents of influence in the West as part of a long-range strategy of demoralizing and destabilizing it.
Jones’ neoconish style seems largely derived from the Jewish-controlled John Birch Society—a movement set up to roundup and neuter legitimate conservatives and nationalists. As with other Jewish-controlled anti-Communist movements, like the Trotskyite American Jewish League Against Communism,the Birch Society unsurprisingly has been completely ineffective at stopping the global communist threat and has delivered rather shallow blows against it. For instance, where was the Birch Society when the Soviets staged the fake “August Coup” against Gorbachev and the collapse of the USSR? If anyone should have exposed this colossal hoax, it should have been JBS. By leading their own opposition through fake movements, Judeo-Bolsheviks are able to control their opposition. Alex Jones appears to be one such controlled-opposition agent, luring unknowing nationalists down an alley that leads nowhere. The Soviet Trust is another good example of the depths the Soviets have gone to control their opposition. American Thinker writer Ricardo Galván Estrada seems to believe Jones is part of a crypto-communist campaign against the West and compares his rhetoric to that of Russian Foreign Intelligence Services operative Vicky Pelaez.

It’s no coincidence that today, the two major powers (really they are one and the same power) Jones refuses to criticize is Soviet power in Russia, which he doesn’t even admit exists, and Jewish power, which Jones protégé Paul Joseph Watson says he doesn’t really see “big Jewish influence…Jewish people aren’t really that present…you don’t really notice them anywhere”. The COMINTERN appears comfortable in allowing assets like Jones to blame the Chinese Communists, but that’s as far as they will let him and others go. And that’s all that is really needed in legitimizing Jones’ fake anti-Communism to his unsuspecting audience—the Chinese Communism angle serving as a limited hangout. Blaming China is a “nothing burger”, as Neocons like Jones like to say. For China is openly Communist. Russia, as the crypto-Communist power, is the one to finger, yet Jones goes along with the establishment narrative that Russia is now a fascist, thus conservative, nation, which has long since abandoned communism.
Forget about Jones lying about Soviet manipulation of U.S. elections, which they have been doing since long before Trump came along, he won’t even expose Russian false-flag terrorism—something that used to be the bread and butter of his credibility. It’s no wonder Soviet-controlled Russia Today has featured Alex Jones on its broadcast hundreds of times. Jones defends Russia just about as much as he defends Israel when it comes to geopolitical conflicts, poisonings, false flags, espionage, obvious corruption,or otherwise.

The United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence correctly stated that Russia Today and other Soviet media outlets have been campaigning to “undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest.” Nobody in the American media has done this more than Jones, whether it’s fuelling racial tensions or getting Americans to distrust their government. And he has been doing this for years, not just in the run-up to the last U.S. federal election. Jones and his comrades have perhaps been Russia’s best troll farm. It has not gone unnoticed by the Soviets, as Putin is purported to have praised Jones and Putin’s prophet Alexander Dugin has publicly done as much.

For an exhaustive examination of Alex Jones, see this dossier.

Remember what former Israeli Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky revealed in the early 1990s:

Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad’s general plan for the region. An Arab world run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West, thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in the region. And if the Mossad could arrange for the Hamas (Palestinian fundamentalists) to take over the Palestinian streets from the PLO, then the picture would be complete.

—Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception – pg. 197
For those not familiar with how the Zionist terrorist network in Israeli is structured, Ostrovsky gives the following illustration in By Way of Deception (1990):

Note: Shin Bet is now Shaback, which is basically like the FBI. However, this information is likely slightly outdated, as Ostrovsky’s books were published in the early 1990s. The Mossad (like America’s CIA) is Israel’s crown assassination Golem.

 ByTimothy Fitzpatrick
March 9, 2014 Anno Domini

Is Russian state-sponsored mouthpiece Russia Today the legitimate source of alternative news the world has been waiting for in the wake up repeated failures?

Those awake to the lies of the Zionist, corporate-controlled media are also awake to the lies, no less malevolent, of the controlled opposition alternative media. At times, Russia Today (RT) appears to be legitimate, but other times, it doesn’t. It exposes conspiracy, the Western media, Zionist geopolitics, and corporate fascism, but then it lobbies for cultural Marxist “progression”, particularly in the forms of LGBT-feminist rights as well as UN Agenda 21, global warming propaganda. So, what is the story? Is it the real deal?

The alleged NATO-Zionist-backed coup d’état in Ukraine has provoked the Russian network against Zionist-controlled Western media outlets, such as CNN, Fox News, and the British Press, even causing dissent within the network’s own ranks.

As expected, Russia Today has told some truth about America’s press: that it is part of the Zionist-controlled West’s geopolitical strategy. However, it seems Russia Today is not telling the truth for truth’s sake but for the Kremlin’s own self interests.

Newscasts full of cultural Marxist propaganda
One could argue that Russia Today’s consistent favourable coverage of gay rights through the network’s international English-speaking bureau has been a strategy to neutralize the West’s propaganda that Russia persecutes homosexuals. This has been especially noticeable in the lead up to the Sochi winter Olympics. But a handful of anchors on the network have been promoting their cultural Marxist rhetoric for a long time. Abby Martin (Breaking the Set) and Thom Hartmann (The Big Picture) are two of the biggest radical leftists on the network. These two clowns and their propaganda appear to completely contradict the supposed nationalist intent of the channel.
Afterall, Russia’s own Orthodox patriarch has warned that feminism could destroy Russia. One wonders what kind of hiring policy is in place, especially considering the recent resignation of RT correspondent Liz Wahl, who resigned on air in protest of RT’s coverage of the alleged Ukraine coup. She resigned at the height of the Ukraine crisis and RT carrying out daily reports about how the Western media allegedly is lying. Abby Martin has spoken out in support of the Wahl.

Peter Lavelle (Crosstalk) and Tim Kirby are tolerable, sometimes even insightful, but it doesn’t help RT’s credibility when they go out and hire shills like former CNN talk-show host Larry King (Politicking). And although Max Keiser seems to speak out against the Jewish usurist establishment, remember that he is part of the controlled opposition network headed by Zionist Alex Jones.
Keiser’s on-air personality on The Keiser Report is annoying and excessive. He is trying to be loud-mouthed and ironic in a way similar to Jones, but it just doesn’t work for Keiser.

If RT is to save face, it needs to immediately fire Martin and Hartmann, and forget about trying to legitimize itself with King. Get rid of King too. It also needs to quit placating the West with its LGBT rights nonsense.

Is RT’s divided house an indication of Russia’s intentions?
Perhaps everything is going as planned for RT in the way of editorial policies, except for the minor hiccup of Wahl. Perhaps Russia doesn’t really care for social conservatism but merely uses it as a pretext for furthering its geopolitical strategy. This would explain why Martin and Hartmann haven’t been fired. But then again, maybe this is all a façade for Western consumption. Perhaps RT’s Russian bureau tells a different, more united story…without the cultural Marxism. Either way, RT’s English-speaking bureau is sending mixed signals.