I have written about Russia and its love of tradition here, its resistance to social Marxism here, and have shown here that in terms of economic policies and social policies, the US is muchmore socialist than today's Russia.
The above-linked articles all contain links to evidentiary documentation, but the Russian bashers, who by now run a full blown cottage industry, brush me off with keen observations like "that's all nonsense!" In fact, yesterday, one asked "are you a communist?" I responded, "no I am not, but if you are looking for a communist, you might try the Berkley Yellow Pages."
The more charitable say I am "a sincere patriot but tragically wrong" about Putin, who they declare is "insincere." Yet, nota bene: I have never argued that Putin was sincere. Are Western politicians sincere?
When I ask how these Russophobes can be sure of Russia's sinister plans, they say Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn has provided air-tight evidence.
Golitsyn is practically their only link to their airy world of Cold War intrigue and is their most-cited author. Practically everything hinges on Anatoliy. What would they do without him? I bought his book for reference to make sure I wasn't missing something. Indeed, it turns out that Golitsyn does thoroughly detail the strategies of the Soviet Union and it is hard to doubt his veracity. But there are 2 problems for my Russophobe friends:
1. The outlined "Soviet" strategies are precisely the same disinformation strategies used throughout the West against its own population, and
2. Golitsyn defected in 1962, i.e., 29 years before the fall of the Soviet Union or over 50 years ago today, and considering the vicissitudes of the Politburo from Stalin to Krushchev, for example, it is hard to imagine that the last 29 years would not have seen major changes that Golitsyn could not possibly have been privy to.
When I tell Russia bashers this and ask for further evidence of their theories, they say Golitsyn has made uncanny predictions that all came true, suggesting he is a Russian Edgar Cayce. None of them has yet detailed any of these predictions for me, but I just happened to dig up an old copy of "Origins of the Fourth World War," written by J.R. Nyquist and first published in 1998. Despite a few brief mentions of the Chinese, it is obvious that the author is wagering on our being conquered by Russia, with little cooperation from China, which we are to believe would apparently sit back and let Russia have us.
But note this:
Page 46 of the paperback says that Anatoliy Golitsyn exposed the Soviet plan to conquer the world and "the target date for achieving this conquest is the year 2000."
Obviously, Nyquist really believed Russia was about to "conquer" the world in just 2 short years, despite their recent collapse. It reminded me of the Y2K theory.
Now that was 14 years ago and Russia is struggling to hold together the remnants of its empire.
Obviously, something went terribly wrong in 2000. Both for the Soviets and for the Russia bashers.
Beyond these anomalies, there is a bigger issue, and that is the way the muchgreater Chinese threat is downplayed and ignored.
Oddly, once-atheist Russia has recently stood for the Christians, both in the Middle East and in the former Yugoslavia, where the West working in concert carved out Kosovo, the first ever Western made Muslim state. China, on the other hand, persecutes Christians and supports the most anti-Christian regime ever, North Korea. Further, thanks to Western trade, China can afford its current enormous arms buildup. The Pentagon admits this is happening but plays it down saying China is "building up a force with power to strike in Asia as far afield as the US territory of Guam." If only that were the extent of it. A translation of mine from Chinese military journal Junshi says it can strike any US city with a nuclear weapon.
Of course, Russia says it can do likewise but, by contrast, it does not rattle sabers over territory or threaten Western powers. Putin was gentlemanly about Syria, showing more diplomacy and statesmanship than the world had seen in years. Meanwhile, what has China been up to?
Why carving out a no-go zone in a part of the Asian Pacific that was once the exclusive go-zone of the American military.
So what motivates this class of Russophobic researchers to highlight Russia while downplaying China?
Answer: Today's China owes its vast, rapid military buildup mostly to the GOP but also to the complicit Democrats. It was Nixon and then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who promoted free trade with China, eventually strong-arming Congress into accepting Most Favored Nation status for a nation whose leaders openly hated us. They foolishly gambled that China could be bought with US dollars. Why China and not Russia? Because at the time, Russia was seen as the more powerful of the 2 nations. Just as we had tried to pit two foes against each other in Panama (Noriega vs Torrijos), Afghanistan (Taliban vs Russia), Chile (Pinochet vs the Allende-led Marxists), etc., we were trying to play God in China to establish a balance with Russia and it is failing colossally.
And that's not because the strategies are bad but because God doesn't countenance people usurping His role.
Oblivious to this, the GOP invented Russia bashing and found willing stooges to do their dirty work.
There's money in this booming cottage industry, from book sales and speaking engagements, and a potential share of political power.
Their narrative supports RINOs like Romney, who said during his campaign that Russia is our biggest threat and chided Obama for not "getting tough" with Assad (the last pro-Christian Arab leader) and Putin.
America's biggest threat is neither China nor Russia, but rather an ignorant, gullible populace. There is a remedy to this: learn to think independently regardless of the cost.
© Donald Hank
All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.