russiainsider--2020-02-12--Putin moves from 'Fortress Russia' to 'Go for Growth'

Having built up massive hard currency reserves and believing the threat from the west is contained , Putin is ready to loosen the purse string and focus more on boosting the economy Things are happening in Russia – with change signalled both in the political and the economic policy settings .
In particular , herein over the past few weeks Putin announced plans far reaching constitutional changes , and a fairly extensive cabinet reshuffle .
The signal from the cabinet reshuffle , and the promotion of his former economic adviser , Andrei Belousov , to the post of first deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving to change the economic settings from “ Fortress Russia ” to “ Going for Growth Russia ” , as Belousov has hitherto been an ardent supporter of more pro-growth , some have argued “ Keynesian ” policies .
Notable herein was also the demotion of the prudent finance minister , Anton Siluanov , from the post of deputy prime minister , which added to the sense that a fundamental change is afoot in terms of economic policy .
Much has been made of these changes as reflecting on Putin ’ s thoughts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is mindful of the succession , perhaps therein taking recent moves ( to the side ) by Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan .
The thinking is to move to a kind of “ supervisory ” board role for Putin – chairman of the board of Russia inc , .
I think it is right to think of the focus on growth as being related to the political changes – Putin is likely going to put his changes to the people via a constitutional referendum , and creating a sufficient economic feel good factor therein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin gets his Soviet-style majority backing for any such reform .
But I think it would be wrong to solely explain these moves by Putin ’ s thoughts towards his own “ retirement ” , whether full or partial .
Indeed , I think part of the explanation for these changes lies in confidence on the part of Putin that he has won the geopolitical battle with the West .
From Moscow ’ s view Trump is weakening Euro-Atlantic political/security structures – NATO and the EU are in decline ( Trump/Brexit/Erdogan helping these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the fear of Western encroachment on Russia is no longer a real threat at least in Putin 's mindset .
With a weakened threat from the West – even the real chance , post this year ’ s US elections and a second Trump term , of re-approachment with the US/West – Putin can take more risks/chances on the economy front .
Fortress Russia is no longer essential – with CBR FX reserves back over $ 500bn , the Fortress is perhaps seen as impenetrable even from Western sanctions .
I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiscal /monetary easing is now in order , and a revamp of the economy team , helps suggest prospects for economic reform , which might help that very re-approachment with the West .
The focus on growth also dovetails with hints of some signs of moderation in geopolitical tensions with the West – seemingly intent on trying to achieve sanctions moderation , important also therein in helping to kick start growth , and to create more of a “ feel good ” factor around the economy .
Ukraine seems to be centre stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the West .
Already therein there has been some moderation by Moscow towards the Zelenskiy presidency in Ukraine – release of detained sailors , broader prisoner swaps , Normandy format meeting restart , and then the payment of the $ 2.9bn Stockholm arbitration ruling against Gazprom to Ukraine .
The demotion of the hawk Vladislav Surkov from the post of Russian special representative to talks with Ukraine , and his replacement by the deal making Dmitri Kozak – the person that Putin tends to rely more on “ to get things done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move on from Ukraine , and is perhaps more willing to compromise than Surkov felt comfortable with .
Perhaps even Putin thinks giving Trump a win on Ukraine could help Trump ’ s re-election – albeit maybe Putin failed to listen , or believe , US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , who allegedly snapped at a US reporter this week that Americans don ’ t give a damn ( or expletives to that effect ) about Ukraine – Venezuela more likely would be a meaningful win for Trump and the GOP .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could compromise allowing Ukraine control over its borders before votes are held in DPR and LPR – , which would also be a big win for Zelenskiy .
But for whatever reason – Putin seems to be of the view that Zelenskiy is someone who is less of a threat than former President Poroshenko , and whom he can do business with – maybe this reflects re-approachment also by some of those around Zelenskiy with Moscow , including the likes of Kolomoisky .
Perhaps it reflects less of a concern about Ukraine ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU – with the assumption in Moscow that these entities are in decline anyway , and Ukraine ’ s membership of these ( however unlikely still ) no longer moves the dial in terms of Russia ’ s geopolitical setting .
On the specific rejig of the government , I think in the Kremlin this reflects a refocusing on the transition in Putin 's management role , but also a refocusing on the need for a revamp of Russia ’ s economic settings .
Partly I think this reflects recognition that the existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustainable – and are driving the brain drain/long term decline of Russia .
All that said , in terms of the change in the economic settings , I am not sure that appointing Mikhail Mishustin represents much of a gamble or change for that matter .
Mishustin is a safe pair of hands .
A trusted technocrat , but with a “ siloviki ” wrap .
As head of the tax service , and a cyber geek , Mishustin will have mixed with the security service types on a regular basis .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take – using IT/surveillance .
He is absolutely trusted by Putin – and likely would tick many of the boxes for Putin looking to hire a new CEO for Russia inc , still to serve under the gaze of Chairman Putin .
True , the shift of Oreshkin from ministry of economy , and replacement by Belousov to first deputy PM role for the economy , means that this will be a new pro-growth agenda .
Belousov believes in looser fiscal and monetary policy .
There will be more spending for sure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the effectiveness of any such spending – indeed this is what held back the MOF under Siluvanov previously from spending when given the signal from Putin .
Indeed , I would not expect a huge fiscal splurge : First , as noted , the prudent fiscal culture runs very deep across the Russian government and will be hard to change .
Herein , past experiences where Russia opened the floodgates to spending – as per the $ 50bn Sochi Olympics , did not end particularly well .
And I think institutional memory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second , hiring a tax man to “ spend , spend , spend ” does not really square the circle .
His inherent bias likely will be cautious/prudent , albeit he proved efficient at raising taxes and perhaps Putin hired him with the assumption that the same efficiency zeal might just translate into spending .
Third , I think the Putin regime will still have an eye on the US elections , and fears therein that a win by the Democrats , would return US – Russia relations to default settings , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic settings .
The latter suggests a modest pre-positioning for fiscal loosening – getting the wheels in motion through 2020 , ready perhaps for this to step up , after the US elections , and then in the run up to any referendum on Russian constitutional changes .
But any fiscal impetus for 2020 is unlikely to be much over the equivalent of 1 % of GDP .
Big risk factor herein to all this is US elections – if the Democrats win , I think Putin goes back to default settings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections is one reason why any fiscal easing we are likely to see this year will be contained .
Putin is cautious , conservative by nature .
He will gradually ease policy through to US elections , but if Trump wins we might see then a further step up in the focus on growth/stimulus .

Having built up massive hard currency reserves and believing the threat from the west is contained, Putin is ready to loosen the purse string and focus more on boosting the economy
Having built up massive hard currency reserves and believing the threat from the west is contained, Putin is ready to loosen the purse string and focus more on boosting the economy
Things are happening in Russia – with change signalled both in the political and the economic policy settings.
In particular, herein over the past few weeks Putin announced plans far reaching constitutional changes, and a fairly extensive cabinet reshuffle.
The signal from the cabinet reshuffle, and the promotion of his former economic adviser, Andrei Belousov, to the post of first deputy prime minister, was that Putin is moving to change the economic settings from “Fortress Russia” to “Going for Growth Russia”, as Belousov has hitherto been an ardent supporter of more pro-growth, some have argued “Keynesian” policies. Notable herein was also the demotion of the prudent finance minister, Anton Siluanov, from the post of deputy prime minister, which added to the sense that a fundamental change is afoot in terms of economic policy.
Much has been made of these changes as reflecting on Putin’s thoughts towards his legacy, and that he is mindful of the succession, perhaps therein taking recent moves (to the side) by Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan. The thinking is to move to a kind of “supervisory” board role for Putin – chairman of the board of Russia inc,.
I think it is right to think of the focus on growth as being related to the political changes – Putin is likely going to put his changes to the people via a constitutional referendum, and creating a sufficient economic feel good factor therein likely will be important to ensure that Putin gets his Soviet-style majority backing for any such reform.
But I think it would be wrong to solely explain these moves by Putin’s thoughts towards his own “retirement”, whether full or partial.
Indeed, I think part of the explanation for these changes lies in confidence on the part of Putin that he has won the geopolitical battle with the West. From Moscow’s view Trump is weakening Euro-Atlantic political/security structures – NATO and the EU are in decline (Trump/Brexit/Erdogan helping these along), likely terminal now, and the fear of Western encroachment on Russia is no longer a real threat at least in Putin's mindset. With a weakened threat from the West – even the real chance, post this year’s US elections and a second Trump term, of re-approachment with the US/West – Putin can take more risks/chances on the economy front. Fortress Russia is no longer essential – with CBR FX reserves back over $500bn, the Fortress is perhaps seen as impenetrable even from Western sanctions. I would conjecture that Putin thinks that some modest fiscal /monetary easing is now in order, and a revamp of the economy team, helps suggest prospects for economic reform, which might help that very re-approachment with the West.
The focus on growth also dovetails with hints of some signs of moderation in geopolitical tensions with the West – seemingly intent on trying to achieve sanctions moderation, important also therein in helping to kick start growth, and to create more of a “feel good” factor around the economy.
Ukraine seems to be centre stage in this “out-reach” by Putin to the West. Already therein there has been some moderation by Moscow towards the Zelenskiy presidency in Ukraine – release of detained sailors, broader prisoner swaps, Normandy format meeting restart, and then the payment of the $2.9bn Stockholm arbitration ruling against Gazprom to Ukraine.
The demotion of the hawk Vladislav Surkov from the post of Russian special representative to talks with Ukraine, and his replacement by the deal making Dmitri Kozak – the person that Putin tends to rely more on “to get things done” would suggest that Putin wants to move on from Ukraine, and is perhaps more willing to compromise than Surkov felt comfortable with.
Perhaps even Putin thinks giving Trump a win on Ukraine could help Trump’s re-election – albeit maybe Putin failed to listen, or believe, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who allegedly snapped at a US reporter this week that Americans don’t give a damn (or expletives to that effect) about Ukraine – Venezuela more likely would be a meaningful win for Trump and the GOP. Its even possible to imagine that Putin could compromise allowing Ukraine control over its borders before votes are held in DPR and LPR –, which would also be a big win for Zelenskiy.
But for whatever reason – Putin seems to be of the view that Zelenskiy is someone who is less of a threat than former President Poroshenko, and whom he can do business with – maybe this reflects re-approachment also by some of those around Zelenskiy with Moscow, including the likes of Kolomoisky. Perhaps it reflects less of a concern about Ukraine’s potential entry into NATO and the EU – with the assumption in Moscow that these entities are in decline anyway, and Ukraine’s membership of these (however unlikely still) no longer moves the dial in terms of Russia’s geopolitical setting.
On the specific rejig of the government, I think in the Kremlin this reflects a refocusing on the transition in Putin's management role, but also a refocusing on the need for a revamp of Russia’s economic settings. Partly I think this reflects recognition that the existing “stagnation” settings are not really sustainable – and are driving the brain drain/long term decline of Russia.
All that said, in terms of the change in the economic settings, I am not sure that appointing Mikhail Mishustin represents much of a gamble or change for that matter. Mishustin is a safe pair of hands. A trusted technocrat, but with a “siloviki” wrap. As head of the tax service, and a cyber geek, Mishustin will have mixed with the security service types on a regular basis. And he is respected for delivering improved tax take – using IT/surveillance. He is absolutely trusted by Putin – and likely would tick many of the boxes for Putin looking to hire a new CEO for Russia inc, still to serve under the gaze of Chairman Putin.
True, the shift of Oreshkin from ministry of economy, and replacement by Belousov to first deputy PM role for the economy, means that this will be a new pro-growth agenda. Belousov believes in looser fiscal and monetary policy. There will be more spending for sure. But herein there are deep seated questions about the effectiveness of any such spending – indeed this is what held back the MOF under Siluvanov previously from spending when given the signal from Putin.
Indeed, I would not expect a huge fiscal splurge: First, as noted, the prudent fiscal culture runs very deep across the Russian government and will be hard to change. Herein, past experiences where Russia opened the floodgates to spending – as per the $50bn Sochi Olympics, did not end particularly well. And I think institutional memory will be a drag constraining spending.
Second, hiring a tax man to “spend, spend, spend” does not really square the circle. His inherent bias likely will be cautious/prudent, albeit he proved efficient at raising taxes and perhaps Putin hired him with the assumption that the same efficiency zeal might just translate into spending.
Third, I think the Putin regime will still have an eye on the US elections, and fears therein that a win by the Democrats, would return US – Russia relations to default settings, and a required return then to Fortress Russia economic settings. The latter suggests a modest pre-positioning for fiscal loosening – getting the wheels in motion through 2020, ready perhaps for this to step up, after the US elections, and then in the run up to any referendum on Russian constitutional changes. But any fiscal impetus for 2020 is unlikely to be much over the equivalent of 1% of GDP.
Big risk factor herein to all this is US elections – if the Democrats win, I think Putin goes back to default settings of Fortress Russia. Actually I think US elections is one reason why any fiscal easing we are likely to see this year will be contained. Putin is cautious, conservative by nature. He will gradually ease policy through to US elections, but if Trump wins we might see then a further step up in the focus on growth/stimulus.


russiainsider--2020-02-12--Antifa Brutally Tortured and Beaten by Heroic Russian Police

On Monday , seven members of a Russian anti-fascist activist group were jailed for up to 18 years on terrorism charges in a case that observers have compared to a Soviet-era show trial .
The members of the group Set — Russian for “ Network ” — were detained in the city of Penza in 2017 .
Investigators claimed they were planning attacks during the 2018 presidential election and the football World Cup , and Russia later added Set to its list of banned terrorist groups .
Throughout the trial , the defendants said they were tortured and forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while human rights groups have said the evidence against the young men was fabricated .
Monday 's sentencing has sparked a widespread outcry in Russia , with many observers saying that it resembled a Soviet show trial .
We look back at some of the defendants ' testimonies about the investigation .
They include allegations of brutal torture that may be disturbing to some readers : “ I lay on my belly and they started to take off my underwear , trying to connect wires to my genitals .
I started screaming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They kept saying : ‘ You are the leader.
’ To stop the torture , I answered : ‘ Yes , I 'm the leader.
’ ‘ You were going to stage terrorist attacks.
’ I answered : ‘ Yes , we were going to stage terrorist attacks.
’ ” “ The investigator told me in the middle of the investigation that this is going to be a show trial — ‘ You 're going to be put in prison to send a message to others.
’ To antifascists , anarchists .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organize .
But I think it 's become obvious to everyone that this show trial is having the opposite effect ...
I hope that in some future law lecture , a professor will say : ‘ Now we 're going to look at a case from 2017 .
It 's an example of how one should not act , with violations that should never be allowed.
’ '' Ilya Shakursky , 23 , sentenced to 16 years : “ I was told to keep my head down and sit on a bench .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then they connected some wires to my toes .
I felt the current and could n't stop myself from groaning and shuddering .
They continued until I promised to say what they told me to say .
After that , I forgot the word ‘ no ’ and repeated everything the officers told me.
” “ While we were driving , I saw ... that the man with a VDV [ Russian Airborne Forces ] tattoo , who had beaten me before , had taken out a brown box .
It had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thumbs .
They said they would check if there was a current .
I felt unbelievable pain , and I realized that they had sent the current through me .
At the same time , the people in the car started asking me questions , including names of people I did n't know .
If I told them I did n't know the names , I got shocked again . ''
Andrei Chernov , 30 , sentenced to 14 years : “ As soon as the door was closed , they started beating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face several times .
Without hesitation they punched me in the stomach and hit the back of my head with their elbows .
... [ FSB officer ] Shepelev kept threatening that they would ‘ put my brother in prison , fire all my relatives and cut off my fingers.
’ He said : ‘ Your life is over , you will die.
’ ” “ They slapped me several times in the face and started ripping off my right ear — I thought they would tear it off .
They beat my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Shepelev said that my only chance was to talk ...
It was only when they stopped beating me that I realized their threats were not just words .
”

Editor's Note: Considering who is making these allegations, there is a very high chance that this is a pack of lies from the usual suspects. The Moscow Times receives funding from NATO, the EU, and the State Department, and is owned by Jewish emigres who despise Putin.
Human rights activists say the case against the members of Set was “fabricated” and based on testimonies obtained through torture.Alexander Shcherbak / TASS
On Monday, seven members of a Russian anti-fascist activist group were jailed for up to 18 years on terrorism charges in a case that observers have compared to a Soviet-era show trial.
The members of the group Set — Russian for “Network” — were detained in the city of Penza in 2017. Investigators claimed they were planning attacks during the 2018 presidential election and the football World Cup, and Russia later added Set to its list of banned terrorist groups.
Throughout the trial, the defendants said they were tortured and forced to give false and incriminating testimonies by investigators, while human rights groups have said the evidence against the young men was fabricated.
Monday's sentencing has sparked a widespread outcry in Russia, with many observers saying that it resembled a Soviet show trial.
We look back at some of the defendants' testimonies about the investigation. They include allegations of brutal torture that may be disturbing to some readers:
Dmitry Pchelinstev, 27 years old, sentenced to 18 years:
“I lay on my belly and they started to take off my underwear, trying to connect wires to my genitals. I started screaming and begging them to stop torturing me… They kept saying: ‘You are the leader.’ To stop the torture, I answered: ‘Yes, I'm the leader.’ ‘You were going to stage terrorist attacks.’ I answered: ‘Yes, we were going to stage terrorist attacks.’”
Vasily Kuksov, 31, sentenced to nine years:
“The investigator told me in the middle of the investigation that this is going to be a show trial — ‘You're going to be put in prison to send a message to others.’ To antifascists, anarchists. So that they won’t gather or organize. But I think it's become obvious to everyone that this show trial is having the opposite effect... I hope that in some future law lecture, a professor will say: ‘Now we're going to look at a case from 2017. It's an example of how one should not act, with violations that should never be allowed.’"
Ilya Shakursky, 23, sentenced to 16 years:
“I was told to keep my head down and sit on a bench. I was blindfolded, bound and gagged. Then they connected some wires to my toes. I felt the current and couldn't stop myself from groaning and shuddering. They continued until I promised to say what they told me to say. After that, I forgot the word ‘no’ and repeated everything the officers told me.”
Arman Sygynbayev, 27, sentenced to six years:
“While we were driving, I saw... that the man with a VDV [Russian Airborne Forces] tattoo, who had beaten me before, had taken out a brown box. It had two wires which they connected to my thumbs. They said they would check if there was a current. I felt unbelievable pain, and I realized that they had sent the current through me. At the same time, the people in the car started asking me questions, including names of people I didn't know. If I told them I didn't know the names, I got shocked again."
Andrei Chernov, 30, sentenced to 14 years:
“As soon as the door was closed, they started beating me. I was punched in the face several times. Without hesitation they punched me in the stomach and hit the back of my head with their elbows. ... [FSB officer] Shepelev kept threatening that they would ‘put my brother in prison, fire all my relatives and cut off my fingers.’ He said: ‘Your life is over, you will die.’”
“They slapped me several times in the face and started ripping off my right ear — I thought they would tear it off. They beat my legs, asked questions and threatened me. Shepelev said that my only chance was to talk... It was only when they stopped beating me that I realized their threats were not just words.”


russiainsider--2020-02-12--Is Pete Buttigieg the Israel Lobby Choice?

Many Americans might consider it decidedly odd that the recent impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump also featured constant vilification of President Vladimir Putin , to such an extent that one might have though that the Russian leader was also in the dock awaiting sentencing .
The irony is , of course , that while “ Russian interference ” has virtually become a cliché , its actual impact on the 2016 election outcome was less than negligible .
Russia was cited seemingly incessantly by House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff , to include the always useful assertion that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over there [ in Ukraine ] we ’ ll have to fight them over here.
” Even more ridiculous , Schiff suggested that if Trump were to lose the presidential election later this year , he might well refuse to accept the result and could be supported by an invading Russian army .
Senator Charles Schumer of New York delivered one of the more astonishing pre-impeachment vote diatribes , tying Trump to foreign interests .
He said “ No greater subversion of our democracy than for foreign powers to determine or elections… My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our elections is a high crime .
Our Nation was founded on the idea of truth.
” Yet the same Schumer brazenly claimsthat he is the “ protector ” of Israel in the U.S. Senate , that his surname is derived from the Hebrew “ shomer ” which means “ guardian.
” Strangely , the country that , acting directly and through proxies like Schumer , does regularly and openly interfere in American politics and elections is Israel , but it was not mentioned at all in the hours of testimony in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s partiality towards the Jewish state has done more actual damage to genuine U.S. interests than the Kremlin was ever able to do .
One would have thought Israel and its kleptocratic leader Benjamin Netanyahu would have deserved at least a nod from Congress .
Indeed , Israel has been involved in American politics before , even if it is predictably never held accountable , and it has been suggested that Russiagate was really Israelgate based on what actually took place when shortly after the 2016 election , when Trump National Security Adviser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kislyak .
The call was made at the direction of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner , who , in turn , had been approached by Netanyahu , who not coincidentally is a family friend of the Kushners .
Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administration was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy , meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto .
Kushner , acting for Netanyahu , asked Flynn to contact each delegate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council to delay or kill the resolution .
Flynn agreed to do so , which included the call to the Russians .
Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334 , which passed unanimously on December 23rd .
What exactly did Kushner seek from Flynn ?
He asked the soon-to-be National Security Adviser to get the Russians to undermine and subvert what was being done by the still-in-power American government in Washington headed by President Barack Obama .
In legal terms this does not quite equate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since Israel is not technically an enemy , but it most certainly could be construed as covered by the “ conspiracy against the United States ” statute that Special Counsel Robert Mueller exploited in his investigations .
Currently , Israel may just turn out to be part of last week ’ s story of the astonishingly inept Democratic Party caucus in the state of Iowa .
Award winning investigative journalist Max Blumenthal has provided the back story relating to the app that was developed to expedite Iowa ’ s voting but which instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly a week .
It now appears that the app might be part of an operation being funded by Jewish billionaires with close ties to right wing Israeli settler groups who are opposed to Senator Bernie Sanders and supporting Mayor Peter Buttigieg .
The failed app that caused the problem was developed by a company called Shadow Inc. , which was staffed by former Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters and funded by billionaire Seth Klarman , who also is a major contributor to Pete Buttigieg ’ s campaign and also has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the intelligence community .
The Iowa Democratic Committee reported that the software that included the app was paid for by the Buttigieg campaign , “ Pete for America Inc. ” Klarman is a deeply committed hard line Zionist .
Blumenthal described in a separate article how “ Klarman has been a top funder for major Israel lobby outfits , including those that support the expansion of illegal settlements and Islamophobic campaigns .
Klarman was the principal financier of The Israel Project , the recently disbanded Israeli government-linked propaganda organization that lobbied against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israeli settlement enterprise .
Klarman has heaped hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Middle East Media Research Institute ( MEMRI ) and the American Jewish Committee .
And he funded The David Project , which was established to suppress Palestine solidarity organizing on college campuses across the U.S. and battled to block the establishment of a Muslim community center in Boston.
” Klarman also financially supports major Israeli lobbying and disinformation organizations to include AIPAC-founded Washington Institute for Near East Policy ( WINEP ) and the anti-Iranian neocon think tank Foundation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blumenthal also reports that Klarman owns the Times of Israel , which once called for Palestinian genocide .
The delay in the Iowa results just might have been deliberate , possibly caused by the Shadow app .
The New York Times review of the caucus results concluded that they were “ riddled with errors and inconsistencies , ” with tallies that are “ internally inconsistent , that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses .
In some cases , vote tallies do not add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates .
And in at least a few cases , the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.
” Apart from possible fraud or even a hack , Senator Bernie Sanders , who appeared to be heading for a win , found that the inconclusive and even disputed result denied him momentum and a victory speech heading towards this week ’ s primary in New Hampshire .
It also allowed Buttigieg to preemptively declare a predicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been counted : “ By all indications , we are going on to New Hampshire victorious .
# IowaCaucuses.
” And it is possible that worse is to come as the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) head Tom Perez is tweeting his intention to “ recanvass , ” which would mean a complete review of all work sheets and might even require new voting .
It could conceivably cost Bernie a win .
Sounds a bit like a conspiracy , doesn ’ t it ?
It is , in fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardened his line supporting Israel .
He has abandoned his commitment made last June that he would withhold aid from Israel if it were to seek to annex more of the West Bank , saying then that “ If Prime Minister Netanyahu makes good on his threat to annex West Bank settlements , he should know that a President Buttigieg would take steps to ensure that American taxpayers won ’ t help foot the bill.
” Buttigieg also is on record as having said in October “ I think that the aid is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction…that our policy goal will be to do what you do when a friend is moving in a way that you ’ re worried about , which is to put your arm around them and guide them somewhere better.
” Presidential aspirant Pete Buttigieg is not saying that any more .
Mondoweissreports an exchange he had in a speaking engagement in Iowa on January 29th with IfNotNow organizer Elias Newman : Newman : …recently I was happy to see that you said if annexation happens that you ’ ll make sure the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , I wanted to know…now that annexation is happening in full force , are you ready to commit ?
Are you ready to commit , to make sure the U.S. doesn ’ t send a blank check to Israel ?
Buttigieg : The U.S. can not be promoting annexation , like it is under this president .
By the way , I am not talking about withdrawing aid or withdrawing our support from Israel– Newman : You ’ re not willing to make good on your commitment– Buttigieg : Well , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to withdrawing American support for Israel , the answer is no .
Newman : I asked you a ‘ yes ’ or ‘ no ’ question….are you committed ‘ yes ’ or ‘ no ’ , to withdrawing aid for the occupation Buttigieg : I stand by what I said about this .
Newman : What , just now or a couple months ago ?
Buttigieg : So , if you ’ re asking me in light of the president ’ s proposal , I would withdraw aid from Israel ?
The answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a manufactured corporate candidate who is little more than an empty suit , having no core values whatsoever apart from seeking to become the first gay president .
The Establishment is comfortable with him and he is good-looking , seemingly affable and articulate , though he suffers from an unpronounceable surname .
He has now checked the box making him acceptable to the Israeli government and its powerful domestic lobby , which have always been suspicious of Trump even as he gives them gift after gift .
Being Israel-friendly is also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps the more important question must be related to the actual extent of Buttigieg ’ s possible involvement in another DNC/Clinton inspired and Israel-supporter financed scheme to stop Bernie Sanders .
There are indications that Zionist attack ads directed against Sanders have already been and will continue to be surfacing .
No one is seemingly asking , for example , whether the Shadow Inc. app , which was vulnerable to hacking , might have actually been able to change the vote totals without leaving an electronic footprint ?
Or was it designed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , which would most hurt a surging Sanders ?
Someone should ask Pete if we “ have seen the last of anything like the app that he and his apparent paymasters unleashed in Iowa to subvert the electoral process ?
” Stay tuned .

Many Americans might consider it decidedly odd that the recent impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump also featured constant vilification of President Vladimir Putin, to such an extent that one might have though that the Russian leader was also in the dock awaiting sentencing. The irony is, of course, that while “Russian interference” has virtually become a cliché, its actual impact on the 2016 election outcome was less than negligible.
Russia was cited seemingly incessantly by House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, to include the always useful assertion that “if we don’t fight them over there [in Ukraine] we’ll have to fight them over here.” Even more ridiculous, Schiff suggested that if Trump were to lose the presidential election later this year, he might well refuse to accept the result and could be supported by an invading Russian army.
Senator Charles Schumer of New York delivered one of the more astonishing pre-impeachment vote diatribes, tying Trump to foreign interests. He said “No greater subversion of our democracy than for foreign powers to determine or elections… My fellow Americans, asking for foreign interference in our elections is a high crime. Our Nation was founded on the idea of truth.” Yet the same Schumer brazenly claimsthat he is the “protector” of Israel in the U.S. Senate, that his surname is derived from the Hebrew “shomer” which means “guardian.”
Strangely, the country that, acting directly and through proxies like Schumer, does regularly and openly interfere in American politics and elections is Israel, but it was not mentioned at all in the hours of testimony in spite of the fact that Trump’s partiality towards the Jewish state has done more actual damage to genuine U.S. interests than the Kremlin was ever able to do. One would have thought Israel and its kleptocratic leader Benjamin Netanyahu would have deserved at least a nod from Congress.
Indeed, Israel has been involved in American politics before, even if it is predictably never held accountable, and it has been suggested that Russiagate was really Israelgate based on what actually took place when shortly after the 2016 election, when Trump National Security Adviser designate Michael Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The call was made at the direction of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who, in turn, had been approached by Netanyahu, who not coincidentally is a family friend of the Kushners.
Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administration was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included the call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23rd.
What exactly did Kushner seek from Flynn? He asked the soon-to-be National Security Adviser to get the Russians to undermine and subvert what was being done by the still-in-power American government in Washington headed by President Barack Obama. In legal terms this does not quite equate to the Constitution’s definition of treason since Israel is not technically an enemy, but it most certainly could be construed as covered by the “conspiracy against the United States” statute that Special Counsel Robert Mueller exploited in his investigations.
Currently, Israel may just turn out to be part of last week’s story of the astonishingly inept Democratic Party caucus in the state of Iowa. Award winning investigative journalist Max Blumenthal has provided the back story relating to the app that was developed to expedite Iowa’s voting but which instead delayed the reporting of the results for nearly a week. It now appears that the app might be part of an operation being funded by Jewish billionaires with close ties to right wing Israeli settler groups who are opposed to Senator Bernie Sanders and supporting Mayor Peter Buttigieg. The failed app that caused the problem was developed by a company called Shadow Inc., which was staffed by former Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters and funded by billionaire Seth Klarman, who also is a major contributor to Pete Buttigieg’s campaign and also has been linked to former and current senior members of the intelligence community. The Iowa Democratic Committee reported that the software that included the app was paid for by the Buttigieg campaign, “Pete for America Inc.”
Klarman is a deeply committed hard line Zionist. Blumenthal described in a separate article how “Klarman has been a top funder for major Israel lobby outfits, including those that support the expansion of illegal settlements and Islamophobic campaigns. Klarman was the principal financier of The Israel Project, the recently disbanded Israeli government-linked propaganda organization that lobbied against the Iran nuclear deal and backed the Israeli settlement enterprise. Klarman has heaped hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and the American Jewish Committee. And he funded The David Project, which was established to suppress Palestine solidarity organizing on college campuses across the U.S. and battled to block the establishment of a Muslim community center in Boston.”
Klarman also financially supports major Israeli lobbying and disinformation organizations to include AIPAC-founded Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the anti-Iranian neocon think tank Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD. Blumenthal also reports that Klarman owns the Times of Israel, which once called for Palestinian genocide.
The delay in the Iowa results just might have been deliberate, possibly caused by the Shadow app. The New York Times review of the caucus results concluded that they were “riddled with errors and inconsistencies,” with tallies that are “internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses. In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.”
Apart from possible fraud or even a hack, Senator Bernie Sanders, who appeared to be heading for a win, found that the inconclusive and even disputed result denied him momentum and a victory speech heading towards this week’s primary in New Hampshire. It also allowed Buttigieg to preemptively declare a predicted win on twitter even before any votes had been counted: “By all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious. #IowaCaucuses.” And it is possible that worse is to come as the Democratic National Committee (DNC) head Tom Perez is tweeting his intention to “recanvass,” which would mean a complete review of all work sheets and might even require new voting. It could conceivably cost Bernie a win. Sounds a bit like a conspiracy, doesn’t it?
It is, in fact, remarkable the extent to which Buttigieg has hardened his line supporting Israel. He has abandoned his commitment made last June that he would withhold aid from Israel if it were to seek to annex more of the West Bank, saying then that “If Prime Minister Netanyahu makes good on his threat to annex West Bank settlements, he should know that a President Buttigieg would take steps to ensure that American taxpayers won’t help foot the bill.”
Buttigieg also is on record as having said in October “I think that the aid is leverage to guide Israel in the right direction…that our policy goal will be to do what you do when a friend is moving in a way that you’re worried about, which is to put your arm around them and guide them somewhere better.”
Presidential aspirant Pete Buttigieg is not saying that any more. Mondoweissreports an exchange he had in a speaking engagement in Iowa on January 29th with IfNotNow organizer Elias Newman:
Newman: …recently I was happy to see that you said if annexation happens that you’ll make sure the U.S. doesn’t foot the bill. So, I wanted to know…now that annexation is happening in full force, are you ready to commit? Are you ready to commit, to make sure the U.S. doesn’t send a blank check to Israel? Buttigieg: The U.S. cannot be promoting annexation, like it is under this president. By the way, I am not talking about withdrawing aid or withdrawing our support from Israel– Newman: You’re not willing to make good on your commitment– Buttigieg: Well, if you’re asking me to commit to withdrawing American support for Israel, the answer is no. Newman: I asked you a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question….are you committed ‘yes’ or ‘no’, to withdrawing aid for the occupation Buttigieg: I stand by what I said about this. Newman: What, just now or a couple months ago? Buttigieg: So, if you’re asking me in light of the president’s proposal, I would withdraw aid from Israel? The answer is no.
In short, Buttigieg is a manufactured corporate candidate who is little more than an empty suit, having no core values whatsoever apart from seeking to become the first gay president. The Establishment is comfortable with him and he is good-looking, seemingly affable and articulate, though he suffers from an unpronounceable surname. He has now checked the box making him acceptable to the Israeli government and its powerful domestic lobby, which have always been suspicious of Trump even as he gives them gift after gift. Being Israel-friendly is also a must with the mainstream media.
But perhaps the more important question must be related to the actual extent of Buttigieg’s possible involvement in another DNC/Clinton inspired and Israel-supporter financed scheme to stop Bernie Sanders. There are indications that Zionist attack ads directed against Sanders have already been and will continue to be surfacing. No one is seemingly asking, for example, whether the Shadow Inc. app, which was vulnerable to hacking, might have actually been able to change the vote totals without leaving an electronic footprint? Or was it designed to fail, casting doubts on the caucus result, which would most hurt a surging Sanders? Someone should ask Pete if we “have seen the last of anything like the app that he and his apparent paymasters unleashed in Iowa to subvert the electoral process?” Stay tuned.


russiainsider--2020-02-12--Holocaust Denial Should be Illegal in America, Say Many on the Left

Editor 's Note : The author is Jewish , and has argued elsewhere that the 'Holocaust ' did in fact happen , killing about 2 million Jews .
When did we become so deathly afraid of speech ?
And why is it oddly appropriate that the recent 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz coincides with ramped-up efforts to curb free-speech rights in the U.S. ?
Let ’ s use a fake Indian as a scout to begin our journey toward the answer .
Last week , Elizabeth Warren announced a “ plan of action ” to curb “ digital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and criminal penalties ” for “ knowingly disseminating ” content that “ has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.
” Any speech that might “ depress voter turnout ” would be criminalized .
Warren ’ s plan follows months of drumbeating by mainstream journalists in the service of criminalizing political speech .
“ Why America Needs a Hate Speech Law ” was the title of an October WaPo piece by Richard Stengel , an Obama administration official–turned–editor of Time magazine .
Similar essays have appeared in dozens of mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A December Vox survey found that the majority of Democrat presidential candidates favor criminalizing or otherwise suppressing speech that ’ s deemed “ hateful ” or “ false.
” Warren , though , is the first Democrat to codify those proscriptions into a proposed law , one she ’ s pledged to pursue as president .
So where does the Holocaust come in ?
Well , most of Europe ’ s hate-speech laws were initially crafted to imprison Holocaust revisionists and deniers .
In Canada , the government ’ s recently announced regulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roots in the “ false news ” laws that were used in the ’ 80s to prosecute revisionists and deniers .
And here in the U.S. , Warren ’ s and Stengel ’ s proposed laws evolved from the 1988 Hofstra Law School “ model statute ” drafted to criminalize hateful and false speech ( the statute , discussed in greater detail here , was tested in moot court against a hypothetical Holocaust denier ) .
Indeed , the Holocaust serves as the spark for the spirit as well as the letter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , left and right alike , have always feared speech .
But it was the fear of what “ too much speech ” would do to Holocaust history , and how it could harm the feelings of Holocaust survivors , that prompted the codification of anti-speech paranoia into today ’ s legal statutes .
Arguing in favor of Warren ’ s curbs on speech , congressional Punjabi ( and affirmative-action asterisk law professor ) Ro Khanna tweeted , “ Falsity has never been part of our 1st Amendment tradition.
” In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; James Madison specifically stated that the “ misuse ” of speech is an inevitable and tolerable aspect of our First Amendment rights .
“ You can ’ t overcome the Western tradition of free speech and open debate overnight.
” If Khanna had an ounce of honesty coursing through his curry-caked arteries , he ’ d admit that the current war against speech “ falsity ” originated not with our Founders , but with Jews arguing that “ false speech ” endangers the memory of the Holocaust and pours salt on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Holocaustian origins of European , Canadian , and ( proposed ) American anti-speech laws , because these days those laws have metastasized to include protections for every nonwhite non-Christian non-straight non-male “ victim group.
” But go back to the roots of those laws , and you ’ ll find Jews humbly beseeching gentile society to curb just a little speech , just for them .
There ’ s an irony from my youth—the “ heyday ” of Holocaust revisionism—that I ’ m only now able to fully appreciate .
The way that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assisted in their expansion .
We would scoff , “ Typical Jews—demanding special protection for their interests , acting like only their suffering matters and only their feelings deserve coddling under cover of law.
” We fell into a finely laid trap .
Yes , the plan was to make people look at the laws that protected Holocaust history from “ false news ” and Holocaust survivors from “ offensive speech ” and say , “ Fuckin ’ Jews , why do only they get such special consideration ?
Why not other people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the speech suppressors wanted us to say .
Those anti-revisionist laws were a trial balloon , a “ phase one.
” You can ’ t overcome the Western tradition of free speech and open debate overnight .
You start by establishing acceptance of censorship regarding an issue that ’ s on most people ’ s periphery .
Something distant from and unimportant to their daily lives .
The laws that criminalized Holocaust revisionism and denial affected a ridiculously small number of people .
That was the point .
Folks got used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being touched by them personally .
As Westerners grew comfortable with the notion that yes , Holocaust survivors should be shielded from speech that offends , and yes , the history of the Holocaust is strengthened by restrictions on how it can be debated and discussed , it became easier and easier to expand those “ special protections ” in more invasive ways .
Whites became accustomed to the idea that some things fall outside the realm of free speech and open debate , and nonwhites ( and other assorted “ victims ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and feelings added to the list of things about which one must never speak ill .
The Holocaust laws primed the public for the eventual expansion of protected topics and peoples .
They were a point of entry for leftists ( Jews and non-Jews alike ) who understood the value of speech restrictions , and the necessity of them , in the fight to dismantle the traditional West .
Like Bontshe the Silent reluctantly asking the angels for a hot roll and schmear of butter , it started with humble old Jews , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Just censor a little speech in this one particular instance , ” and it led to where we are today .
“ Bad speech threatens Holocaust history ” has become “ Bad speech threatens democracy itself.
” “ Just censor Holocaust skeptics because their words offend weak old survivors who deserve to live out their final years in peace ” has become “ Censor all facts about basic biology because mentally ill men in dresses might get upset.
” All current attempts to stifle speech in the name of protecting feelings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unregulated speech inevitably leads to bad and destructive outcomes , owe their existence to the acceptance by Western whites of a set of “ special circumstances ” whereby traditional notions of “ fight speech with more speech ” and “ let truth and falsehood battle it out ” and “ sticks and stones may break my bones but words ’ ll never hurt me ” don ’ t apply to Holocaust history and Holocaust survivors .
Back in the early ’ 90s when I was mouthing off about how you can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lock from the inside , or where the doors open into the room , or where there are plate glass windows in the wall , I was routinely told by non-Jews who had no emotional connection to the Holocaust , “ Look , maybe what you ’ re saying is true , but why say it ?
Why cause such pain to the poor survivors ?
” More often than not , my work was banned and censored by people who , though not personally offended by it , nevertheless felt compelled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ granted to Holocaust-related speech .
Back then , a small number of people understood that , in fact , unregulated speech actually made Holocaust history better , sounder .
Christopher Hitchens , the New York Post ’ s Eric Breindel , and seminal Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg all conceded that the challenges posed by Holocaust revisionists and even outright deniers actually forced mainstream Holocaust historians to be better at their job ; that being confronted with criticism and opposing theories compels historians to bolster their theses ( to be fair , Hilberg only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of denier Ernst Zundel in Toronto in 1985 ) .
But Hitchens , Breindel , and Hilberg are dead now , as is the simple understanding that truth is only strengthened by having to compete with falsehood .
For anyone in the present day who ’ s been “ canceled ” for stating a fact or making a simple commonsense observation , well , welcome to the world of my youth .
Don ’ t forget that mainstream conservatives allied with liberals when it came to “ protecting ” Holocaust history from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And now conservatives bitch that they get banned from social media for making factual observations like “ There are only two genders.
” Too bad .
Your Holocaust “ special circumstances ” are claimed by trannies now .
And blacks .
And “ immigrants.
” And everyone else with an ax to grind against Western civ .
Shoulda killed that beast in utero thirty years ago .
By acquiescing to what was done to revisionists back then , you guys paved the path to where we all are now .
One additional point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the ’ 90s to challenge Holocaust orthodoxy , the more the revisionist side of the debate fell to the extremists .
The penalties and punishments chased away everyone with a career or a reputation to preserve .
What remained were the nuts , the brawlers who welcomed the fight and enjoyed being branded as Nazis .
Since at least the early 2000s , rational Holocaust revisionism has fallen to the irrational deniers , dimwit extremist ideologues who have no interest in historical research and documentation .
They just want to “ fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the historiography , is what appeals to them .
Another irony , this one totally predictable : As rational revisionists were attacked and chased away as Nazis , the field was ceded to actual Nazis .
This is the end result of speech criminalization .
Rational voices go silent , because rational people—capable as they are of weighing actions and consequences—do the math and realize that it ’ s more prudent to pull back and shut up , when speaking freely might cost them their livelihood or freedom .
What happened with Holocaust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ male/female biology and IQ inheritability .
Anyone with anything to lose will think twice before challenging the left ’ s orthodoxy on those topics .
That ’ s what speech penalties do ; they scare away exactly the people with the intellectual capacity to best make the case that the penalizers don ’ t want made .
And once a field is abandoned to crackpots who spout nonsense , the public becomes even more welcoming of speech proscriptions , due to the general loathsomeness of those being silenced .
Right now in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death of speech .
The fact that a presidential candidate for a major U.S. political party could run on a platform of curbing speech in order to “ save democracy ” shows just how bad things are .
And it all started with the Holocaust .
Holocaust history is precious and “ too much speech ” poses a threat to it .
Therefore , limit speech to “ save ” Holocaust history .
Democracy is precious and “ too much speech ” poses a threat to it .
Therefore , limit speech to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first precept led to acceptance of the second .
Thirty years ago , sane people had a chance to stop the madness .
But they allowed themselves to be emotionally blackmailed into accepting the belief that in “ certain circumstances ” free speech and open debate are harmful and should be curbed .
They assumed that those circumstances would remain special .
They ’ re now the norm .
You got played , folks .
And like any gullible mark who falls prey to a sob story in the service of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have nobody to blame but yourselves .

Editor's Note: The author is Jewish, and has argued elsewhere that the 'Holocaust' did in fact happen, killing about 2 million Jews.
When did we become so deathly afraid of speech? And why is it oddly appropriate that the recent 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz coincides with ramped-up efforts to curb free-speech rights in the U.S.?
Let’s use a fake Indian as a scout to begin our journey toward the answer.
Last week, Elizabeth Warren announced a “plan of action” to curb “digital disinformation.” The plan features “civil and criminal penalties” for “knowingly disseminating” content that “has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.” Any speech that might “depress voter turnout” would be criminalized.
Warren’s plan follows months of drumbeating by mainstream journalists in the service of criminalizing political speech. “Why America Needs a Hate Speech Law” was the title of an October WaPo piece by Richard Stengel, an Obama administration official–turned–editor of Time magazine. Similar essays have appeared in dozens of mainstream media organs (including Bloomberg). A December Vox survey found that the majority of Democrat presidential candidates favor criminalizing or otherwise suppressing speech that’s deemed “hateful” or “false.”
Warren, though, is the first Democrat to codify those proscriptions into a proposed law, one she’s pledged to pursue as president.
So where does the Holocaust come in? Well, most of Europe’s hate-speech laws were initially crafted to imprison Holocaust revisionists and deniers. In Canada, the government’s recently announced regulation of “fake news” has its roots in the “false news” laws that were used in the ’80s to prosecute revisionists and deniers. And here in the U.S., Warren’s and Stengel’s proposed laws evolved from the 1988 Hofstra Law School “model statute” drafted to criminalize hateful and false speech (the statute, discussed in greater detail here, was tested in moot court against a hypothetical Holocaust denier).
Indeed, the Holocaust serves as the spark for the spirit as well as the letter of modern-day speech criminalization laws. Would-be censors, left and right alike, have always feared speech. But it was the fear of what “too much speech” would do to Holocaust history, and how it could harm the feelings of Holocaust survivors, that prompted the codification of anti-speech paranoia into today’s legal statutes. Arguing in favor of Warren’s curbs on speech, congressional Punjabi (and affirmative-action asterisk law professor) Ro Khanna tweeted, “Falsity has never been part of our 1st Amendment tradition.” In fact, that’s 100% ass backwards; James Madison specifically stated that the “misuse” of speech is an inevitable and tolerable aspect of our First Amendment rights.
“You can’t overcome the Western tradition of free speech and open debate overnight.”
If Khanna had an ounce of honesty coursing through his curry-caked arteries, he’d admit that the current war against speech “falsity” originated not with our Founders, but with Jews arguing that “false speech” endangers the memory of the Holocaust and pours salt on the wounds of survivors. We forget the Holocaustian origins of European, Canadian, and (proposed) American anti-speech laws, because these days those laws have metastasized to include protections for every nonwhite non-Christian non-straight non-male “victim group.” But go back to the roots of those laws, and you’ll find Jews humbly beseeching gentile society to curb just a little speech, just for them.
There’s an irony from my youth—the “heyday” of Holocaust revisionism—that I’m only now able to fully appreciate. The way that revisionists responded to Holocaust anti-speech laws inadvertently assisted in their expansion. We would scoff, “Typical Jews—demanding special protection for their interests, acting like only their suffering matters and only their feelings deserve coddling under cover of law.”
We fell into a finely laid trap. Yes, the plan was to make people look at the laws that protected Holocaust history from “false news” and Holocaust survivors from “offensive speech” and say, “Fuckin’ Jews, why do only they get such special consideration? Why not other people who’ve suffered?”
Exactly what the speech suppressors wanted us to say.
Those anti-revisionist laws were a trial balloon, a “phase one.” You can’t overcome the Western tradition of free speech and open debate overnight. You start by establishing acceptance of censorship regarding an issue that’s on most people’s periphery. Something distant from and unimportant to their daily lives. The laws that criminalized Holocaust revisionism and denial affected a ridiculously small number of people. That was the point. Folks got used to the presence of those laws while not being touched by them personally. As Westerners grew comfortable with the notion that yes, Holocaust survivors should be shielded from speech that offends, and yes, the history of the Holocaust is strengthened by restrictions on how it can be debated and discussed, it became easier and easier to expand those “special protections” in more invasive ways.
Whites became accustomed to the idea that some things fall outside the realm of free speech and open debate, and nonwhites (and other assorted “victims”) began clamoring to have their causes and feelings added to the list of things about which one must never speak ill. The Holocaust laws primed the public for the eventual expansion of protected topics and peoples. They were a point of entry for leftists (Jews and non-Jews alike) who understood the value of speech restrictions, and the necessity of them, in the fight to dismantle the traditional West. Like Bontshe the Silent reluctantly asking the angels for a hot roll and schmear of butter, it started with humble old Jews, their hands outstretched, weepily entreating, “Just censor a little speech in this one particular instance,” and it led to where we are today. “Bad speech threatens Holocaust history” has become “Bad speech threatens democracy itself.” “Just censor Holocaust skeptics because their words offend weak old survivors who deserve to live out their final years in peace” has become “Censor all facts about basic biology because mentally ill men in dresses might get upset.”
All current attempts to stifle speech in the name of protecting feelings, and all current scare campaigns about how unregulated speech inevitably leads to bad and destructive outcomes, owe their existence to the acceptance by Western whites of a set of “special circumstances” whereby traditional notions of “fight speech with more speech” and “let truth and falsehood battle it out” and “sticks and stones may break my bones but words’ll never hurt me” don’t apply to Holocaust history and Holocaust survivors.
Back in the early ’90s when I was mouthing off about how you can’t gas people in rooms where the doors lock from the inside, or where the doors open into the room, or where there are plate glass windows in the wall, I was routinely told by non-Jews who had no emotional connection to the Holocaust, “Look, maybe what you’re saying is true, but why say it? Why cause such pain to the poor survivors?” More often than not, my work was banned and censored by people who, though not personally offended by it, nevertheless felt compelled to uphold the “special circumstance” protections granted to Holocaust-related speech.
Back then, a small number of people understood that, in fact, unregulated speech actually made Holocaust history better, sounder. Christopher Hitchens, the New York Post’s Eric Breindel, and seminal Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg all conceded that the challenges posed by Holocaust revisionists and even outright deniers actually forced mainstream Holocaust historians to be better at their job; that being confronted with criticism and opposing theories compels historians to bolster their theses (to be fair, Hilberg only admitted this under cross-examination during the trial of denier Ernst Zundel in Toronto in 1985).
But Hitchens, Breindel, and Hilberg are dead now, as is the simple understanding that truth is only strengthened by having to compete with falsehood.
For anyone in the present day who’s been “canceled” for stating a fact or making a simple commonsense observation, well, welcome to the world of my youth. Don’t forget that mainstream conservatives allied with liberals when it came to “protecting” Holocaust history from the reasonable observations of revisionists like me. And now conservatives bitch that they get banned from social media for making factual observations like “There are only two genders.” Too bad. Your Holocaust “special circumstances” are claimed by trannies now. And blacks. And “immigrants.” And everyone else with an ax to grind against Western civ. Shoulda killed that beast in utero thirty years ago. By acquiescing to what was done to revisionists back then, you guys paved the path to where we all are now.
One additional point: The more dangerous it became back in the ’90s to challenge Holocaust orthodoxy, the more the revisionist side of the debate fell to the extremists. The penalties and punishments chased away everyone with a career or a reputation to preserve. What remained were the nuts, the brawlers who welcomed the fight and enjoyed being branded as Nazis. Since at least the early 2000s, rational Holocaust revisionism has fallen to the irrational deniers, dimwit extremist ideologues who have no interest in historical research and documentation. They just want to “fight the Jews.” The fight, not the historiography, is what appeals to them.
Another irony, this one totally predictable: As rational revisionists were attacked and chased away as Nazis, the field was ceded to actual Nazis.
This is the end result of speech criminalization. Rational voices go silent, because rational people—capable as they are of weighing actions and consequences—do the math and realize that it’s more prudent to pull back and shut up, when speaking freely might cost them their livelihood or freedom. What happened with Holocaust history will soon happen with topics like male/female biology and IQ inheritability. Anyone with anything to lose will think twice before challenging the left’s orthodoxy on those topics. That’s what speech penalties do; they scare away exactly the people with the intellectual capacity to best make the case that the penalizers don’t want made. And once a field is abandoned to crackpots who spout nonsense, the public becomes even more welcoming of speech proscriptions, due to the general loathsomeness of those being silenced.
Right now in the West, we’re scared to death of speech. The fact that a presidential candidate for a major U.S. political party could run on a platform of curbing speech in order to “save democracy” shows just how bad things are. And it all started with the Holocaust. Holocaust history is precious and “too much speech” poses a threat to it. Therefore, limit speech to “save” Holocaust history. Democracy is precious and “too much speech” poses a threat to it. Therefore, limit speech to “save” democracy. Acceptance of the first precept led to acceptance of the second.
Thirty years ago, sane people had a chance to stop the madness. But they allowed themselves to be emotionally blackmailed into accepting the belief that in “certain circumstances” free speech and open debate are harmful and should be curbed. They assumed that those circumstances would remain special. They’re now the norm.
You got played, folks. And like any gullible mark who falls prey to a sob story in the service of a long con, in the end you have nobody to blame but yourselves.