September 24, 2007 — Contents

MONDAY SEPTEMBER 24 CONTENTS

(1) Annals of the Holy Russian Empire

(2) Annals of Neo-Soviet Hypocrisy, Part I

(3) Annals of Neo-Soviet Hypocrisy, Part II

(4) Annals of Neo-Soviet Failure

(5) Annals of Neo-Soviet Exploitation

(6) Annals of Svetlichnaya: Wacko Heartfield Lashes Out at LR

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of the Holy Russian Empire

The New York Times reports:

KOLOMNA, Russia — One of the most discordant debates in Russian society is playing out in public schools like those in this city not far from Moscow, where the other day a teacher named Irina Donshina set aside her textbooks, strode before her second graders and, as if speaking from a pulpit, posed a simple question:

“Whom should we learn to do good from?”

“From God!” the children said.

“Right!” Ms. Donshina said. “Because people he created crucified him. But did he accuse them or curse them or hate them? Of course not! He continued loving and feeling pity for them, though he could have eliminated all of us and the whole world in a fraction of a second.”

Nearly two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the return of religion to public life, localities in Russia are increasingly decreeing that to receive a proper public school education, children should be steeped in the ways of the Russian Orthodox Church, including its traditions, liturgy and historic figures.

The lessons are typically introduced at the urging of church leaders, who say that the enforced atheism of Communism left Russians out of touch with a faith that was once at the core of their identity. The new curriculum reflects the nation’s continuing struggle to define what it means to be Russian in the post-Communist era and what role religion should play after being brutally suppressed under Soviet rule. Yet the drive by a revitalized church to weave its tenets into the education system has prompted a backlash, and not only from the remains of the Communist Party.

Opponents assert that the Russian Orthodox leadership is weakening the constitutional separation of church and state by proselytizing in public schools. They say Russia is a multiethnic, pluralistic nation and risks alienating its large Muslim minority if Russian Orthodoxy takes on the trappings of a state religion.

The church calls those accusations unfounded, maintaining that the courses are cultural, not religious. In Ms. Donshina’s class at least, the children seem to have their own understanding of a primary theme of the course. “One has to love God,” said Kristina Posobilova. “We should believe in God only.” The dispute came to a head recently when 10 prominent Russian scientists, including two Nobel laureates, sent a letter to President Vladimir V. Putin, protesting what they termed the “growing clericalization” of Russian society. In addition to criticizing religious teachings in public schools, the scientists attacked church efforts to obtain recognition of degrees in theology, and the presence of Russian Orthodox chaplains in the military.

Local officials carry out education policy under Moscow’s oversight, with some latitude. Some regions require these courses in Russian Orthodoxy, while others allow parents to remove their children from them, though they rarely, if ever, do. Other areas have not adopted them.

Mr. Putin, though usually not reluctant to overrule local authorities, has skirted the issue. He said in September that he preferred that children learn about religion in general, especially four faiths with longstanding ties to Russia — Russian Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. But the president, who has been photographed wearing a cross and sometimes attends church services and other church events, did not say current practices should be scaled back. “We have to find a form acceptable for the entire society,” he said. “Let’s think about it together.”

Polls show that roughly half to two-thirds of Russians consider themselves Russian Orthodox, a sharp increase since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. Clergy frequently take part in government events, and people often wear crosses. But Russia remains deeply secular, and most Russians say they never attend church.

About 10 to 15 percent of Russians are Muslim, most of whom live in the south, though Moscow and other major cities have large Muslim populations. With emigration and assimilation, the Jewish population has dwindled to a few hundred thousand people out of 140 million. Muslim and Jewish leaders have generally opposed Russian Orthodoxy courses, though some say schools should be permitted to offer them as extracurricular activities. “We do not want Muslim children forced to study other religions,” said Marat Khazrat Murtazin, rector of the Moscow Islamic University. “Muslims should study their own religion.”

During imperial Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church wielded enormous influence as the official religion, and virtually all children took a Russian Orthodox course known as the Law of God. One of the scientists who signed the letter to Mr. Putin, Zhores I. Alferov, a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2000, said he feared that the country was returning to those days. He recalled that his own father had to study the Law of God under the last czar, Nicholas II. “The church would like to have more believers,” said Mr. Alferov, a member of Parliament in the Communist bloc. “But they can have their religious schools and their Sunday schools. In normal government schools, absolutely not.”

Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, leader of the church, has repeatedly asserted that to appreciate the arts, literature, heritage and history of Russia, children need to know about Russian Orthodoxy. He described the scientists’ letter to Mr. Putin as “an echo of the atheistic propaganda of the past.”

Five years ago, Kolomna, 60 miles south of Moscow, was one of the first cities to take up the curriculum. Local church and education officials noted that before the revolution, Kolomna was a Russian Orthodox center, site of many cathedrals and monasteries that were demolished or used as warehouses and the like under Communism. Given the area’s history, they asked, is it not fitting that students learn about Russian Orthodoxy? “The goal, I would say, is that all the powers that be, the church and the government, make sure that people, children, know their history and their roots,” said Father Vladimir Pakhachev, a church leader here who helps oversee the curriculum. For example, Father Pakhachev said, it would be absurd to study the Russian language without learning about Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius, the two ninth-century brothers who are credited with helping to create Cyrillic, the alphabet used in Russian. The brothers were monks and significant religious figures, and that aspect of their lives cannot be ignored, he said.

At Public School No. 3 here, in the shadow of a restored cathedral, the courses are voluntary, but occur one period a week during the school day, and are taught by regular teachers. No parents have ever asked that their children be exempted, said a school official, Anna Kikhtenko. “No rights are being violated,” she said. “Children from Muslim families, the parents often say, ‘We are living among Russian Orthodox people, we also want our children to understand what these beliefs are about.’ ”

Recently, Oksana Telnova, a sixth-grade teacher, described to her class how Grand Prince Vladimir introduced Orthodox Christianity to Russia in 988 after rejecting other religions, an event that the church calls the Baptism of Russia. Some children read aloud verses from the Bible. “Sacred orthodoxy transformed and revived the Slavic soul after becoming its moral and spiritual foundation,” Ms. Telnova said, quoting Patriarch Alexy II. “Through the ages, Christianity helped to create a great country and a great culture.”

Nearby, Ms. Donshina, the second-grade teacher, led her students in reciting the Ten Commandments before pointing to a tiny tree at the front of the room with branches but no leaves. “Faith in God is as important for every human as the root for a tree,” she said. “But our tree unfortunately has died just like a human soul can die without doing good. This is what happens to people who do not do good things and do not follow God’s laws.” She asked the children to choose from a group of flowers, some with Christian virtues written on them, some with undesirable qualities, and attach those with the virtues to the tree. She ended with a discussion of the Russian saints, saying that they “have shown us how one must live to be close to God.” With that, she dismissed the class, but not before giving a piece of chocolate to each child.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Outrageous Russian Hypocrisy, Part I: It’s a Barbaric, Uncivilized Nation

You may remember that some time ago we reported on how state-owned Russian TV had Photoshopped a false version of a British newspaper in order to create an absurdly false attack on exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Isn’t it ironic, then, that when a Russian newspaper tries the same thing on Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin threatens to shut it down and jail the staff?

The Moscow Times reports:

A Saratov newspaper is in hot water after local officials ruled that a photograph it published of President Vladimir Putin as beloved fictional spy Otto von Stirlitz was extremist. Saratovsky Reporter was issued a formal warning following a complaint by the Saratov branch of United Russia about the photograph, which was published Aug. 31, the newspaper’s editor, Sergei Mikhailov, said Thursday. Investigators are also examining whether the photograph is libelous, said Tatyana Sergeyeva, spokeswoman for the Saratov regional branch of the newly formed Investigative Committee.

The photograph shows Putin’s head pasted onto the body of Stirlitz, the hero played by actor Vyacheslav Tikhonov in the 1973 made-for-television series “17 Moments of Spring,” a staple of television programming to this day. Also in the photograph is Mikhail Isayev, a Saratov city lawmaker, whose head is on the body of Nazi official Heinrich MЯller, played in the film by Leonid Bronevoi. “Stirlitz, I ask you to stay,” Isayev tells Putin in the picture, using a famously ironic line from the film. In the film, Stirlitz is a Soviet agent who infiltrates the upper echelon of the Nazi Party in wartime Berlin. Despite numerous close calls, Stirlitz remains cool under pressure and is never discovered as a spy, contributing greatly to the allied defeat of Germany.

At issue appears to be the portrayal of Putin — who served as a KGB officer in East Germany — in an SS uniform, despite the fact that Stirlitz is an unequivocally positive character. “Any associations with fascism in a country that went through World War II are improper,” said Yevgeny Strelchik, a spokesman for the Saratov branch of the Federal Service for Mass Media, Telecommunications and the Protection of Cultural Heritage. The branch issued the warning to the newspaper based on an analysis by experts from Saratov State University, Strelchik said.

It was the second warning issued by the agency to the newspaper, meaning its registration can be revoked. Alexander Lando, the local United Russia official who filed the complaint, said by telephone that “as a citizen who voted for Putin,” he was “insulted” that the president’s face was placed on a Nazi uniform. The newspaper’s editor said they had run the photograph merely for a laugh. “We just liked the play on words,” Mikhailov said, pointing out that Stirlitz and Isayev actually have the same last name. Stirlitz’s real name is Maxim Isayev. Mikhailov said he had received the warning Wednesday.

In 2003, Putin awarded Tikhonov with an Order for Service to the Fatherland, Third Class, on the Stirlitz actor’s 75th birthday. The standoff is not the first case of journalists in trouble over purportedly insulting portrayals of Putin. Ivanovo journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov was convicted in October of publicly insulting a public official and fined 20,000 rubles ($750) for referring to Putin as “a phallic symbol.” In 2004, Andrei Skovorodnikov, a National Bolshevik Party official from Krasnoyarsk, was sentenced to six months in prison for creating a web site that included obscenities directed against Putin.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Outrageous Russian Hypocrisy, Part II: They Simply Can’t Act Human

Last Friday’s editorial in the Moscow Times:

The European Commission announced energy proposals Wednesday to create greater competition and set strict terms for foreign ownership of energy assets. The reaction from the Russian side was both swift and hypocritical. At the heart of the measures is the concept of “unbundling,” whereby power generation companies are required to sell off transmission networks to provide consumers with more choice and to attract investment for the continent’s energy grid.

Russia is actually following an unbundling policy of its own, with the difference that the state maintains ownership of transmission assets that would go to private companies under the European plan. Further undercutting hopes for liberalizing the sector has been Gazprom’s snapping up of generating assets as they become available. Both Gazprom and the Kremlin have been open about their plans to turn the company into an integrated energy giant not only within Russia, but also in foreign markets — first and foremost in Europe. These plans at least partly explain the European Commission’s proposal that foreign companies buying transmission assets not enjoy monopolist positions and must first be cleared through Brussels. If adopted, the measures will have no different effect than Moscow’s efforts to regulate entry to what it has identified as a strategic sector.

The most obvious example of the government’s approach was in the approval earlier this year of a law prohibiting any company — whether foreign or Russian — from owning gas pipelines in Russia. Transneft, the state oil pipeline operator, enjoys the same protection in the petroleum sector. Faced with Western calls for access to pipeline assets, Moscow has made it clear that foreign companies have to play by Russia’s rules in the sector.

So be it.

The Russian side, unfortunately, seems unprepared to accept that energy security is a strategic consideration for Europe as well. “Such limits are against the free market spirit of the European Union and amount to state protectionism,” Alexander Shokhin, head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, said about the plan Wednesday. Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, called for reciprocal measures, although he might find it difficult to draft legislation limiting foreign ownership of energy transmission networks to less than the zero percent already in place.

The comments were, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.

To expect the European Union to allow a foreign, state-owned energy supermonopoly to go on a shopping spree while it is trying to break up its own private energy monopolies to promote competition is simply absurd. If European companies have to play by Russia’s rules in Russia, why shouldn’t it be the same the other way around?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Outrageous Russian Hypocrisy, Part II: They Simply Can’t Act Human

Last Friday’s editorial in the Moscow Times:

The European Commission announced energy proposals Wednesday to create greater competition and set strict terms for foreign ownership of energy assets. The reaction from the Russian side was both swift and hypocritical. At the heart of the measures is the concept of “unbundling,” whereby power generation companies are required to sell off transmission networks to provide consumers with more choice and to attract investment for the continent’s energy grid.

Russia is actually following an unbundling policy of its own, with the difference that the state maintains ownership of transmission assets that would go to private companies under the European plan. Further undercutting hopes for liberalizing the sector has been Gazprom’s snapping up of generating assets as they become available. Both Gazprom and the Kremlin have been open about their plans to turn the company into an integrated energy giant not only within Russia, but also in foreign markets — first and foremost in Europe. These plans at least partly explain the European Commission’s proposal that foreign companies buying transmission assets not enjoy monopolist positions and must first be cleared through Brussels. If adopted, the measures will have no different effect than Moscow’s efforts to regulate entry to what it has identified as a strategic sector.

The most obvious example of the government’s approach was in the approval earlier this year of a law prohibiting any company — whether foreign or Russian — from owning gas pipelines in Russia. Transneft, the state oil pipeline operator, enjoys the same protection in the petroleum sector. Faced with Western calls for access to pipeline assets, Moscow has made it clear that foreign companies have to play by Russia’s rules in the sector.

So be it.

The Russian side, unfortunately, seems unprepared to accept that energy security is a strategic consideration for Europe as well. “Such limits are against the free market spirit of the European Union and amount to state protectionism,” Alexander Shokhin, head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, said about the plan Wednesday. Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, called for reciprocal measures, although he might find it difficult to draft legislation limiting foreign ownership of energy transmission networks to less than the zero percent already in place.

The comments were, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.

To expect the European Union to allow a foreign, state-owned energy supermonopoly to go on a shopping spree while it is trying to break up its own private energy monopolies to promote competition is simply absurd. If European companies have to play by Russia’s rules in Russia, why shouldn’t it be the same the other way around?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Outrageous Russian Hypocrisy, Part II: They Simply Can’t Act Human

Last Friday’s editorial in the Moscow Times:

The European Commission announced energy proposals Wednesday to create greater competition and set strict terms for foreign ownership of energy assets. The reaction from the Russian side was both swift and hypocritical. At the heart of the measures is the concept of “unbundling,” whereby power generation companies are required to sell off transmission networks to provide consumers with more choice and to attract investment for the continent’s energy grid.

Russia is actually following an unbundling policy of its own, with the difference that the state maintains ownership of transmission assets that would go to private companies under the European plan. Further undercutting hopes for liberalizing the sector has been Gazprom’s snapping up of generating assets as they become available. Both Gazprom and the Kremlin have been open about their plans to turn the company into an integrated energy giant not only within Russia, but also in foreign markets — first and foremost in Europe. These plans at least partly explain the European Commission’s proposal that foreign companies buying transmission assets not enjoy monopolist positions and must first be cleared through Brussels. If adopted, the measures will have no different effect than Moscow’s efforts to regulate entry to what it has identified as a strategic sector.

The most obvious example of the government’s approach was in the approval earlier this year of a law prohibiting any company — whether foreign or Russian — from owning gas pipelines in Russia. Transneft, the state oil pipeline operator, enjoys the same protection in the petroleum sector. Faced with Western calls for access to pipeline assets, Moscow has made it clear that foreign companies have to play by Russia’s rules in the sector.

So be it.

The Russian side, unfortunately, seems unprepared to accept that energy security is a strategic consideration for Europe as well. “Such limits are against the free market spirit of the European Union and amount to state protectionism,” Alexander Shokhin, head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, said about the plan Wednesday. Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, called for reciprocal measures, although he might find it difficult to draft legislation limiting foreign ownership of energy transmission networks to less than the zero percent already in place.

The comments were, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.

To expect the European Union to allow a foreign, state-owned energy supermonopoly to go on a shopping spree while it is trying to break up its own private energy monopolies to promote competition is simply absurd. If European companies have to play by Russia’s rules in Russia, why shouldn’t it be the same the other way around?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Outrageous Russian Hypocrisy, Part II: They Simply Can’t Act Human

Last Friday’s editorial in the Moscow Times:

The European Commission announced energy proposals Wednesday to create greater competition and set strict terms for foreign ownership of energy assets. The reaction from the Russian side was both swift and hypocritical. At the heart of the measures is the concept of “unbundling,” whereby power generation companies are required to sell off transmission networks to provide consumers with more choice and to attract investment for the continent’s energy grid.

Russia is actually following an unbundling policy of its own, with the difference that the state maintains ownership of transmission assets that would go to private companies under the European plan. Further undercutting hopes for liberalizing the sector has been Gazprom’s snapping up of generating assets as they become available. Both Gazprom and the Kremlin have been open about their plans to turn the company into an integrated energy giant not only within Russia, but also in foreign markets — first and foremost in Europe. These plans at least partly explain the European Commission’s proposal that foreign companies buying transmission assets not enjoy monopolist positions and must first be cleared through Brussels. If adopted, the measures will have no different effect than Moscow’s efforts to regulate entry to what it has identified as a strategic sector.

The most obvious example of the government’s approach was in the approval earlier this year of a law prohibiting any company — whether foreign or Russian — from owning gas pipelines in Russia. Transneft, the state oil pipeline operator, enjoys the same protection in the petroleum sector. Faced with Western calls for access to pipeline assets, Moscow has made it clear that foreign companies have to play by Russia’s rules in the sector.

So be it.

The Russian side, unfortunately, seems unprepared to accept that energy security is a strategic consideration for Europe as well. “Such limits are against the free market spirit of the European Union and amount to state protectionism,” Alexander Shokhin, head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, said about the plan Wednesday. Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, called for reciprocal measures, although he might find it difficult to draft legislation limiting foreign ownership of energy transmission networks to less than the zero percent already in place.

The comments were, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.

To expect the European Union to allow a foreign, state-owned energy supermonopoly to go on a shopping spree while it is trying to break up its own private energy monopolies to promote competition is simply absurd. If European companies have to play by Russia’s rules in Russia, why shouldn’t it be the same the other way around?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Outrageous Russian Hypocrisy, Part II: They Simply Can’t Act Human

Last Friday’s editorial in the Moscow Times:

The European Commission announced energy proposals Wednesday to create greater competition and set strict terms for foreign ownership of energy assets. The reaction from the Russian side was both swift and hypocritical. At the heart of the measures is the concept of “unbundling,” whereby power generation companies are required to sell off transmission networks to provide consumers with more choice and to attract investment for the continent’s energy grid.

Russia is actually following an unbundling policy of its own, with the difference that the state maintains ownership of transmission assets that would go to private companies under the European plan. Further undercutting hopes for liberalizing the sector has been Gazprom’s snapping up of generating assets as they become available. Both Gazprom and the Kremlin have been open about their plans to turn the company into an integrated energy giant not only within Russia, but also in foreign markets — first and foremost in Europe. These plans at least partly explain the European Commission’s proposal that foreign companies buying transmission assets not enjoy monopolist positions and must first be cleared through Brussels. If adopted, the measures will have no different effect than Moscow’s efforts to regulate entry to what it has identified as a strategic sector.

The most obvious example of the government’s approach was in the approval earlier this year of a law prohibiting any company — whether foreign or Russian — from owning gas pipelines in Russia. Transneft, the state oil pipeline operator, enjoys the same protection in the petroleum sector. Faced with Western calls for access to pipeline assets, Moscow has made it clear that foreign companies have to play by Russia’s rules in the sector.

So be it.

The Russian side, unfortunately, seems unprepared to accept that energy security is a strategic consideration for Europe as well. “Such limits are against the free market spirit of the European Union and amount to state protectionism,” Alexander Shokhin, head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, said about the plan Wednesday. Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, called for reciprocal measures, although he might find it difficult to draft legislation limiting foreign ownership of energy transmission networks to less than the zero percent already in place.

The comments were, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.

To expect the European Union to allow a foreign, state-owned energy supermonopoly to go on a shopping spree while it is trying to break up its own private energy monopolies to promote competition is simply absurd. If European companies have to play by Russia’s rules in Russia, why shouldn’t it be the same the other way around?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Neo-Soviet Failure

Readers Digest has come out with a new survey of cities ranking the “greenest, most livable places.” Neither Moscow nor any other Russian city made the 72-city list of top locations, and Russia did not make the top 50 among 141 countries surveyed. Russia was beaten out by such counties as Albania, Bulgaria, Cuba, Paraguay, Panema and Belarus.

More evidence of the brilliant success achieved by Vladimir Putin.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Annals of Soviet Exploitation

Imagine this scenario: A huge vampire bat lands on the neck of a child and drinks every drop of her blood. Then as suddenly as it came it disengages from the child and flies back to its nest, where it luxuriates in its full stomach. The child, meanwhile, collapses on the sidewalk. A man walks up to the child, wags his finger, and excoriates the child’s parents for failing to properly nourish her. What would you think of this man?

For decades, Russia sucked the blood of the Soviet slave states, from Estonia to Georgia, then Russia lost its ability to maintain its colonial empire and retreated, leaving all those states to fend for themselves with no compensation for all their decades of abuse and exploitation. The BBC reports on the results:

Millions of children in the ex-Soviet bloc have suffered a “catastrophic decline” in access to education since communism collapsed, the UN has warned. More than 14m children in the region reach adulthood each year with little or no formal schooling, a report by the UN children’s fund (Unicef) says. Education policy in many countries is inadequate and can reinforce social and economic divisions, it says. Georgia, Tajikistan and Moldova are among the worst-affected nations. Much of Central Asia and eastern and Central Europe had attained universal access to education under communism, Unicef said. But despite the transition to democracy, economic growth and an increase in education spending in many countries, access to education has fallen, the report said.

Racial inequalities

Some 12m youngsters do not make it to secondary school, and 2.5m do not even attend primary school. The report, Education for Some More than Others?, found that inequality between rich and poor families was particularly marked. Co-author Phillipe Testot-Ferry said: “Families with higher incomes get disproportionate access to pre-school. “[They] ensure good basic education for their children [and] hire the best private tutors, all paving the way to higher education and better jobs.” In contrast, children from poorer families tended to stay away from school or drop out early because they did not expect to reap the benefits of a good education. Racial inequality was also a problem in countries including Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, where a large proportion of Roma (Gypsy) children received no schooling at all. Unicef regional director Maria Calivis called the area’s progress a “story of increased disparities”. She said the problem would “undermine the capacity of governments to develop globally competitive economies based on skilled labour rather than cheap labour”. Unicef found that in the region’s poorest countries – Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Tajikistan – less than 50% of children were in secondary education. And the report warned that the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Moldova and Tajikistan are not on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goal that all children are able to complete primary school by 2015. The report, which also covered Turkey, called for an increase in education spending to at least 6% of their Gross Domestic Product – the regional average is currently about 3%.

The next thing you know, we are going to hear Russia claim that this situation is a basis for Russian to invade and reconquer these countries, “for their own good.” Just like Russia killing Alexander Litvinenko was turned into a basis to extradite Boris Berezovsky. Through the looking glass!

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Svetlichanya’s Psycho Svengali Lashes Out at La Russophobe

James Heartfield (pictured, is that one scary-looking weirdo or what?) the shadowy communist (he writes for marxist.com) who has been serving as Julia Svetlichnaya’s svengali throughout her sordid involvement in the Litvinenko affair, has lashed out at La Russophobe on his blog regarding her recent post about Aftenposten‘s reponse to Svetlichanya’s complaints about its alleged inaccurate reporting about her.

You will notice, gentle reader, two amazing facts about Heartfield’s crazy rant. First, he doesn’t even give this blog credit for having published in full both the statements of the Sunday Times and of Aftenposten in response to Svetlichnaya’s lawyer’s threats against them, yet he claims WE are afraid of the truth. If we were, wouldn’t we have simply ignored those statements, rather than publishing them for our thousands of weekly visitors to see? If he WASN’T, wouldn’t he accurately state the facts? Second, he does not provide ONE SINGLE SHRED of factual information about Svetlichnaya, much less does he even try to specifically answer ANY of the questions we’ve asked. Svetlichnaya herself, of course, keeps totally silent. We’ve said FROM THE BEGINNING that it’s possible Svetlichnaya is the unwitting pawn of forces she herself does not even fully understand, which is why it’s so important for her to come clean about how she got tied up with Litvinenko and why she came forward to speak about him only after he was murdered. Yet, she remains silent.

Before dealing with the “substance” of Heartfield’s bizarre, childish rant (looks like we really touched a nerve!), let’s pause a moment to reflect upon the breathtaking nature of his hypocrisy. Here is a weirdo who has spent his entire life so far outside the mainstream of human discourse that he might as well be a space alien. Yet, in this post he dares to attack LR for failing to accept what he views as established dogma, that Svetlichanya is totally innocent of any wrongdoing and is as pure as the driven snow where Litvinenko is concerned (and nobody’s hapless pawn either, he apparently believes) — in other words THIS GUY is attacking LR for being a contrarian??? Only where Russia is concerned do we see this kind of blatant, breathtaking hypocrisy.

Here’s what one blog says about Heartfield:

James was a militant of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain, to be distinguished from the American sect by its love of DDT, nuclear power and genetically modified crops rather than Mao’s Little Red Book. Taking some of Marx’s early writings in an extreme direction, the RCP propagandized for what amounted to better living through chemistry in their magazine LM.

And just for the record, let’s be clear: While Heartfield brags on his crazy blog about his appearances in obscure media outlets, LR is a far more significant force in in the blogosphere than this communist rat bastard. Heartfield’s crazy blog has 11 Technorati links. La Russophobe has 147. Search “James Heartfield” on Google and you get less than 25,000 hits. Search “La Russophobe” and you get nearly 90,000.

Here is his post in full (in black), with LR’s running commentary (in red):

The grumpy, Russia-hating blogger Kim Zigfeld (going by the unattractive name, La Russophobe) has been nagging on at me and Julia Svetlichnaja ever since the Telegraph published our interview with the murdered spy Alexander Litvinenko. Needless to say, everything that La Russophobe says is wrong, as one would expect of someone whose starting point is a blanket fear of all Russians.

LR: “Grumpy and unattractive”? Personal abuse? “EVERYTHING” LR says is wrong? Is that the way competent, responsible scholar who is in the right defends himself? Only in the la-la land inhabited by this crazed communist scumbag. Seems he’s definitely not one to lead by example, now is he?

La Truthophobe has been particularly exercised by the fact that Julia Svetlichnaja disputed the coverage of the two newspapers that slandered her, the Sunday Times and the Norwegian Aftenposten. ‘What about Julia’s threatened lawsuit?’, blogged Zigfeld, sarcastically. When the Sunday Times withdrew its allegations against Ms Svetlichnaja, La Truthophobe was not chastened, but even more self-righteous, dismissing the climbdown on these grounds:

LR: “Truthophobe”? We’ve been after the truth from day 1. We asked Julia a bunch of questions on the obscure and now defunct ZheZhe blog where she, bizarrely, chose to respond to the allegations against her, and she refused to answer them. From day 1, it’s been Julia who has been obstructing the truth, failing to answer questions and choosing instead to try to scare her opponents into silence with the blunt trauma of lawsuits. We still challenge Julia to sit down and answer our questions face to face, one-on-one, in front of a rolling video camera. If she satisfies us we’ll be glad to apologize and clear her name. If she crumbles like a house of cards, then the truth will be laid bare. But she’s still in hiding, speaking through this commie pinko piece of dirt. Isn’t that special?

It wasn’t the Times which reported the issues about Svetlichnaya, it was the Norwegian daily Aftenposten. If the Times did anything, it repeated what Aftenposten reported. Not only has Aftenposten not issued a correction, Svetlichnaya’s threat to sue the paper has not materialized (in fact, it hasn’t even been reported that she’s obtained legal representation in Norway). Well, OK, if Zigfeld will not take the Sunday Times’ word for it, what will dislodge her idee fixe? La Truthophobe continued to hide behind the (Norwegian) libel laws, responding to one comment of mine with this non-sequiteur [sic]: ‘he says nothing about the status of Svetlichnaja’s alleged lawsuit against Aftenposten, which has seemingly not progressed’.

LR: Heartfield himself is admitting that what the Sunday Times did was totally meaningless in resolving the question of Svetlichnaya’s accuracy. So it seems that not EVERYTHING La Russophobe said was wrong after all, doesn’t it?

But when Aftenposten withdrew its original, defamatory statements against Julia Svetlichnaja, how does Zigfeld respond?

LR: A boldfaced lie. Aftenposten never used the word “withdraw” it used the word “clarification.” What can you expect from a Marxist other than cheap, pathetic propaganda. Aftenposten did not apologize to Svetlichnaya, nor did it pay her any damages, nor did it state that she is not an agent of the Kremlin. All it said was that it cannot conclusively prove she is, not at all surprising given the Kremlin’s ability to conceal evidence. After all, it’s run by a clan of proud KGB spies.

‘The situation between the Aftenposten newspaper and Julia Svetlichnaya (click here to read our numerous prior reports on Ms. S.) appears to have resolved itself in a draw.’ (Incidentally, you cannot read La Truthophobe’s numerous reports, because, like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Zigfeld has rewritten history, taking down most of the posts quoted here.)

LR: Another boldfaced lie. All the posts are here, the same link which appeared in the original post. Moreover, at any time any reader can click the word “Svetlichnaya” in our sidebar and see all our posts about her, or put the word “svetlichnaya” into either of our two search engines. LR demands an apology from Heartfield for his slander of this blog. Hmmm . . . maybe we should hire an attorney . . .

More importantly, the “situation between Aftenposten and Julia Svetlichnaja” is nothing like a draw. The allegations that Aftenposten made against Julia Svetlichnaja have been withdrawn in full: Aftenposten clarifies that the newspaper has no basis for asserting that these claims are correct. Is there any ambiguity in those words? To a sane person, no. But Kim Zigfeld is not sane, writing.

LR: So now this ridiculous loser just starts repeating himself. EARTH TO COMMIE IDIOT: ALL AFTENPOSTEN HAS DONE IS SAY WHAT IT CAN’T PROVE. WE STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL FACTS ARE BECAUSE YOUR VICTIM SVETLICHNAYA WON’T ANSWER ANYBODY’S QUESTIONS.

It does not state that the central accusation made against Svetlichnaya was false. Rather, it merely states that it does not have the ability to independently verify that accusation Well, no, it says ‘has no basis for asserting that any of these claims are correct’. But in the Autocratic Republic of Truthophobia having no basis for saying something …only confirms that it must be true!

LR: We can’t prove God exists. Does that mean we’re not allowed to believe he does? Sure, in the eyes of this godless Marxist thug. OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury. Does that mean nobody can believe he killed his ex-wife? If Svetlichnaya hired some goons to put a gun to the head of the Aftenposten editors or kidnap their children, would that mean we have to accept what they say? This kind of “you-can’t-disagree” attitude is exactly what inspired Stalin’s gulag archipelago. You can be sure that Heartfield would like nothing better than to chuck LR into one (and everyone else who doesn’t except his drumbeat of propaganda).

In the same way we have no basis for asserting that Kim Zigfeld abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann, so ‘the whole sordid business has been swept under the carpet’.

LR: Does anyone understand this gibberish?

Zigfeld goes on to complain that Svetlichnaja did not defend her claims in court, preferring to settle ‘behind the scenes’ – except that it was Aftenposten who asked to settle before the matter went to court, just as the Sunday Times did.

LR: Where’s the proof of this statement? How dare he make a claim of this kind without sourcing it? Is this what passes for “scholarship” in the world of Marxism today? Apparently so. Aftenposten did not say this in its press release. More important, EARTH TO MARXIST IDIOT: NO MATTER WHAT AFTENPOSTEN WANTED, SVETLICHNAYA COULD HAVE INSISTED ON A PUBLIC TRIAL. Why did she give them what they wanted? Could it be because she’s afraid of the truth? Why didn’t she force them to say what the Sunday Times said (without having any basis whatsoever to do so, because it had no facts and was merely republishing Aftenposten‘s story, an act for which is is virtually impossible to sue in the U.S., simply out of a fairly craven business desire to stop the lawsuit), that she was not in fact a Kremlin agent? Why didn’t she force them to apologize? AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, WHY DOESN’T SHE COME FORWARD WITH ACTUAL PROOF OF WHO SHE ACTUALLY IS?

So it is that at every turn, Zigfeld turns her face against the truth. When the Sunday Times withdraws, she turns to (that august institution) Aftenposten; and when they in turn withdraw, Zigfeld simply refuses to believe it. Anyway, there is no need to linger with the delusions of this congenital idiot. There could be no greater punishment for her sins than being La Russophobe.

LR: Note well that this piece of filth doesn’t even try to answer any of the questions LR asked in her post about Svetlichnaya, much less the others she’s asked previously — much less does he put her forward to answer them herself. He simply ignores all of them. He doesn’t even answer the one he himself knows about, how he hooked up with her and why she needs him.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Svetlichanya’s Psycho Svengali Lashes Out at La Russophobe

James Heartfield (pictured, is that one scary-looking weirdo or what?) the shadowy communist (he writes for marxist.com) who has been serving as Julia Svetlichnaya’s svengali throughout her sordid involvement in the Litvinenko affair, has lashed out at La Russophobe on his blog regarding her recent post about Aftenposten‘s reponse to Svetlichanya’s complaints about its alleged inaccurate reporting about her.

You will notice, gentle reader, two amazing facts about Heartfield’s crazy rant. First, he doesn’t even give this blog credit for having published in full both the statements of the Sunday Times and of Aftenposten in response to Svetlichnaya’s lawyer’s threats against them, yet he claims WE are afraid of the truth. If we were, wouldn’t we have simply ignored those statements, rather than publishing them for our thousands of weekly visitors to see? If he WASN’T, wouldn’t he accurately state the facts? Second, he does not provide ONE SINGLE SHRED of factual information about Svetlichnaya, much less does he even try to specifically answer ANY of the questions we’ve asked. Svetlichnaya herself, of course, keeps totally silent. We’ve said FROM THE BEGINNING that it’s possible Svetlichnaya is the unwitting pawn of forces she herself does not even fully understand, which is why it’s so important for her to come clean about how she got tied up with Litvinenko and why she came forward to speak about him only after he was murdered. Yet, she remains silent.

Before dealing with the “substance” of Heartfield’s bizarre, childish rant (looks like we really touched a nerve!), let’s pause a moment to reflect upon the breathtaking nature of his hypocrisy. Here is a weirdo who has spent his entire life so far outside the mainstream of human discourse that he might as well be a space alien. Yet, in this post he dares to attack LR for failing to accept what he views as established dogma, that Svetlichanya is totally innocent of any wrongdoing and is as pure as the driven snow where Litvinenko is concerned (and nobody’s hapless pawn either, he apparently believes) — in other words THIS GUY is attacking LR for being a contrarian??? Only where Russia is concerned do we see this kind of blatant, breathtaking hypocrisy.

Here’s what one blog says about Heartfield:

James was a militant of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain, to be distinguished from the American sect by its love of DDT, nuclear power and genetically modified crops rather than Mao’s Little Red Book. Taking some of Marx’s early writings in an extreme direction, the RCP propagandized for what amounted to better living through chemistry in their magazine LM.

And just for the record, let’s be clear: While Heartfield brags on his crazy blog about his appearances in obscure media outlets, LR is a far more significant force in in the blogosphere than this communist rat bastard. Heartfield’s crazy blog has 11 Technorati links. La Russophobe has 147. Search “James Heartfield” on Google and you get less than 25,000 hits. Search “La Russophobe” and you get nearly 90,000.

Here is his post in full (in black), with LR’s running commentary (in red):

The grumpy, Russia-hating blogger Kim Zigfeld (going by the unattractive name, La Russophobe) has been nagging on at me and Julia Svetlichnaja ever since the Telegraph published our interview with the murdered spy Alexander Litvinenko. Needless to say, everything that La Russophobe says is wrong, as one would expect of someone whose starting point is a blanket fear of all Russians.

LR: “Grumpy and unattractive”? Personal abuse? “EVERYTHING” LR says is wrong? Is that the way competent, responsible scholar who is in the right defends himself? Only in the la-la land inhabited by this crazed communist scumbag. Seems he’s definitely not one to lead by example, now is he?

La Truthophobe has been particularly exercised by the fact that Julia Svetlichnaja disputed the coverage of the two newspapers that slandered her, the Sunday Times and the Norwegian Aftenposten. ‘What about Julia’s threatened lawsuit?’, blogged Zigfeld, sarcastically. When the Sunday Times withdrew its allegations against Ms Svetlichnaja, La Truthophobe was not chastened, but even more self-righteous, dismissing the climbdown on these grounds:

LR: “Truthophobe”? We’ve been after the truth from day 1. We asked Julia a bunch of questions on the obscure and now defunct ZheZhe blog where she, bizarrely, chose to respond to the allegations against her, and she refused to answer them. From day 1, it’s been Julia who has been obstructing the truth, failing to answer questions and choosing instead to try to scare her opponents into silence with the blunt trauma of lawsuits. We still challenge Julia to sit down and answer our questions face to face, one-on-one, in front of a rolling video camera. If she satisfies us we’ll be glad to apologize and clear her name. If she crumbles like a house of cards, then the truth will be laid bare. But she’s still in hiding, speaking through this commie pinko piece of dirt. Isn’t that special?

It wasn’t the Times which reported the issues about Svetlichnaya, it was the Norwegian daily Aftenposten. If the Times did anything, it repeated what Aftenposten reported. Not only has Aftenposten not issued a correction, Svetlichnaya’s threat to sue the paper has not materialized (in fact, it hasn’t even been reported that she’s obtained legal representation in Norway). Well, OK, if Zigfeld will not take the Sunday Times’ word for it, what will dislodge her idee fixe? La Truthophobe continued to hide behind the (Norwegian) libel laws, responding to one comment of mine with this non-sequiteur [sic]: ‘he says nothing about the status of Svetlichnaja’s alleged lawsuit against Aftenposten, which has seemingly not progressed’.

LR: Heartfield himself is admitting that what the Sunday Times did was totally meaningless in resolving the question of Svetlichnaya’s accuracy. So it seems that not EVERYTHING La Russophobe said was wrong after all, doesn’t it?

But when Aftenposten withdrew its original, defamatory statements against Julia Svetlichnaja, how does Zigfeld respond?

LR: A boldfaced lie. Aftenposten never used the word “withdraw” it used the word “clarification.” What can you expect from a Marxist other than cheap, pathetic propaganda. Aftenposten did not apologize to Svetlichnaya, nor did it pay her any damages, nor did it state that she is not an agent of the Kremlin. All it said was that it cannot conclusively prove she is, not at all surprising given the Kremlin’s ability to conceal evidence. After all, it’s run by a clan of proud KGB spies.

‘The situation between the Aftenposten newspaper and Julia Svetlichnaya (click here to read our numerous prior reports on Ms. S.) appears to have resolved itself in a draw.’ (Incidentally, you cannot read La Truthophobe’s numerous reports, because, like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Zigfeld has rewritten history, taking down most of the posts quoted here.)

LR: Another boldfaced lie. All the posts are here, the same link which appeared in the original post. Moreover, at any time any reader can click the word “Svetlichnaya” in our sidebar and see all our posts about her, or put the word “svetlichnaya” into either of our two search engines. LR demands an apology from Heartfield for his slander of this blog. Hmmm . . . maybe we should hire an attorney . . .

More importantly, the “situation between Aftenposten and Julia Svetlichnaja” is nothing like a draw. The allegations that Aftenposten made against Julia Svetlichnaja have been withdrawn in full: Aftenposten clarifies that the newspaper has no basis for asserting that these claims are correct. Is there any ambiguity in those words? To a sane person, no. But Kim Zigfeld is not sane, writing.

LR: So now this ridiculous loser just starts repeating himself. EARTH TO COMMIE IDIOT: ALL AFTENPOSTEN HAS DONE IS SAY WHAT IT CAN’T PROVE. WE STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL FACTS ARE BECAUSE YOUR VICTIM SVETLICHNAYA WON’T ANSWER ANYBODY’S QUESTIONS.

It does not state that the central accusation made against Svetlichnaya was false. Rather, it merely states that it does not have the ability to independently verify that accusation Well, no, it says ‘has no basis for asserting that any of these claims are correct’. But in the Autocratic Republic of Truthophobia having no basis for saying something …only confirms that it must be true!

LR: We can’t prove God exists. Does that mean we’re not allowed to believe he does? Sure, in the eyes of this godless Marxist thug. OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury. Does that mean nobody can believe he killed his ex-wife? If Svetlichnaya hired some goons to put a gun to the head of the Aftenposten editors or kidnap their children, would that mean we have to accept what they say? This kind of “you-can’t-disagree” attitude is exactly what inspired Stalin’s gulag archipelago. You can be sure that Heartfield would like nothing better than to chuck LR into one (and everyone else who doesn’t except his drumbeat of propaganda).

In the same way we have no basis for asserting that Kim Zigfeld abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann, so ‘the whole sordid business has been swept under the carpet’.

LR: Does anyone understand this gibberish?

Zigfeld goes on to complain that Svetlichnaja did not defend her claims in court, preferring to settle ‘behind the scenes’ – except that it was Aftenposten who asked to settle before the matter went to court, just as the Sunday Times did.

LR: Where’s the proof of this statement? How dare he make a claim of this kind without sourcing it? Is this what passes for “scholarship” in the world of Marxism today? Apparently so. Aftenposten did not say this in its press release. More important, EARTH TO MARXIST IDIOT: NO MATTER WHAT AFTENPOSTEN WANTED, SVETLICHNAYA COULD HAVE INSISTED ON A PUBLIC TRIAL. Why did she give them what they wanted? Could it be because she’s afraid of the truth? Why didn’t she force them to say what the Sunday Times said (without having any basis whatsoever to do so, because it had no facts and was merely republishing Aftenposten‘s story, an act for which is is virtually impossible to sue in the U.S., simply out of a fairly craven business desire to stop the lawsuit), that she was not in fact a Kremlin agent? Why didn’t she force them to apologize? AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, WHY DOESN’T SHE COME FORWARD WITH ACTUAL PROOF OF WHO SHE ACTUALLY IS?

So it is that at every turn, Zigfeld turns her face against the truth. When the Sunday Times withdraws, she turns to (that august institution) Aftenposten; and when they in turn withdraw, Zigfeld simply refuses to believe it. Anyway, there is no need to linger with the delusions of this congenital idiot. There could be no greater punishment for her sins than being La Russophobe.

LR: Note well that this piece of filth doesn’t even try to answer any of the questions LR asked in her post about Svetlichnaya, much less the others she’s asked previously — much less does he put her forward to answer them herself. He simply ignores all of them. He doesn’t even answer the one he himself knows about, how he hooked up with her and why she needs him.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Svetlichanya’s Psycho Svengali Lashes Out at La Russophobe

James Heartfield (pictured, is that one scary-looking weirdo or what?) the shadowy communist (he writes for marxist.com) who has been serving as Julia Svetlichnaya’s svengali throughout her sordid involvement in the Litvinenko affair, has lashed out at La Russophobe on his blog regarding her recent post about Aftenposten‘s reponse to Svetlichanya’s complaints about its alleged inaccurate reporting about her.

You will notice, gentle reader, two amazing facts about Heartfield’s crazy rant. First, he doesn’t even give this blog credit for having published in full both the statements of the Sunday Times and of Aftenposten in response to Svetlichnaya’s lawyer’s threats against them, yet he claims WE are afraid of the truth. If we were, wouldn’t we have simply ignored those statements, rather than publishing them for our thousands of weekly visitors to see? If he WASN’T, wouldn’t he accurately state the facts? Second, he does not provide ONE SINGLE SHRED of factual information about Svetlichnaya, much less does he even try to specifically answer ANY of the questions we’ve asked. Svetlichnaya herself, of course, keeps totally silent. We’ve said FROM THE BEGINNING that it’s possible Svetlichnaya is the unwitting pawn of forces she herself does not even fully understand, which is why it’s so important for her to come clean about how she got tied up with Litvinenko and why she came forward to speak about him only after he was murdered. Yet, she remains silent.

Before dealing with the “substance” of Heartfield’s bizarre, childish rant (looks like we really touched a nerve!), let’s pause a moment to reflect upon the breathtaking nature of his hypocrisy. Here is a weirdo who has spent his entire life so far outside the mainstream of human discourse that he might as well be a space alien. Yet, in this post he dares to attack LR for failing to accept what he views as established dogma, that Svetlichanya is totally innocent of any wrongdoing and is as pure as the driven snow where Litvinenko is concerned (and nobody’s hapless pawn either, he apparently believes) — in other words THIS GUY is attacking LR for being a contrarian??? Only where Russia is concerned do we see this kind of blatant, breathtaking hypocrisy.

Here’s what one blog says about Heartfield:

James was a militant of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain, to be distinguished from the American sect by its love of DDT, nuclear power and genetically modified crops rather than Mao’s Little Red Book. Taking some of Marx’s early writings in an extreme direction, the RCP propagandized for what amounted to better living through chemistry in their magazine LM.

And just for the record, let’s be clear: While Heartfield brags on his crazy blog about his appearances in obscure media outlets, LR is a far more significant force in in the blogosphere than this communist rat bastard. Heartfield’s crazy blog has 11 Technorati links. La Russophobe has 147. Search “James Heartfield” on Google and you get less than 25,000 hits. Search “La Russophobe” and you get nearly 90,000.

Here is his post in full (in black), with LR’s running commentary (in red):

The grumpy, Russia-hating blogger Kim Zigfeld (going by the unattractive name, La Russophobe) has been nagging on at me and Julia Svetlichnaja ever since the Telegraph published our interview with the murdered spy Alexander Litvinenko. Needless to say, everything that La Russophobe says is wrong, as one would expect of someone whose starting point is a blanket fear of all Russians.

LR: “Grumpy and unattractive”? Personal abuse? “EVERYTHING” LR says is wrong? Is that the way competent, responsible scholar who is in the right defends himself? Only in the la-la land inhabited by this crazed communist scumbag. Seems he’s definitely not one to lead by example, now is he?

La Truthophobe has been particularly exercised by the fact that Julia Svetlichnaja disputed the coverage of the two newspapers that slandered her, the Sunday Times and the Norwegian Aftenposten. ‘What about Julia’s threatened lawsuit?’, blogged Zigfeld, sarcastically. When the Sunday Times withdrew its allegations against Ms Svetlichnaja, La Truthophobe was not chastened, but even more self-righteous, dismissing the climbdown on these grounds:

LR: “Truthophobe”? We’ve been after the truth from day 1. We asked Julia a bunch of questions on the obscure and now defunct ZheZhe blog where she, bizarrely, chose to respond to the allegations against her, and she refused to answer them. From day 1, it’s been Julia who has been obstructing the truth, failing to answer questions and choosing instead to try to scare her opponents into silence with the blunt trauma of lawsuits. We still challenge Julia to sit down and answer our questions face to face, one-on-one, in front of a rolling video camera. If she satisfies us we’ll be glad to apologize and clear her name. If she crumbles like a house of cards, then the truth will be laid bare. But she’s still in hiding, speaking through this commie pinko piece of dirt. Isn’t that special?

It wasn’t the Times which reported the issues about Svetlichnaya, it was the Norwegian daily Aftenposten. If the Times did anything, it repeated what Aftenposten reported. Not only has Aftenposten not issued a correction, Svetlichnaya’s threat to sue the paper has not materialized (in fact, it hasn’t even been reported that she’s obtained legal representation in Norway). Well, OK, if Zigfeld will not take the Sunday Times’ word for it, what will dislodge her idee fixe? La Truthophobe continued to hide behind the (Norwegian) libel laws, responding to one comment of mine with this non-sequiteur [sic]: ‘he says nothing about the status of Svetlichnaja’s alleged lawsuit against Aftenposten, which has seemingly not progressed’.

LR: Heartfield himself is admitting that what the Sunday Times did was totally meaningless in resolving the question of Svetlichnaya’s accuracy. So it seems that not EVERYTHING La Russophobe said was wrong after all, doesn’t it?

But when Aftenposten withdrew its original, defamatory statements against Julia Svetlichnaja, how does Zigfeld respond?

LR: A boldfaced lie. Aftenposten never used the word “withdraw” it used the word “clarification.” What can you expect from a Marxist other than cheap, pathetic propaganda. Aftenposten did not apologize to Svetlichnaya, nor did it pay her any damages, nor did it state that she is not an agent of the Kremlin. All it said was that it cannot conclusively prove she is, not at all surprising given the Kremlin’s ability to conceal evidence. After all, it’s run by a clan of proud KGB spies.

‘The situation between the Aftenposten newspaper and Julia Svetlichnaya (click here to read our numerous prior reports on Ms. S.) appears to have resolved itself in a draw.’ (Incidentally, you cannot read La Truthophobe’s numerous reports, because, like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Zigfeld has rewritten history, taking down most of the posts quoted here.)

LR: Another boldfaced lie. All the posts are here, the same link which appeared in the original post. Moreover, at any time any reader can click the word “Svetlichnaya” in our sidebar and see all our posts about her, or put the word “svetlichnaya” into either of our two search engines. LR demands an apology from Heartfield for his slander of this blog. Hmmm . . . maybe we should hire an attorney . . .

More importantly, the “situation between Aftenposten and Julia Svetlichnaja” is nothing like a draw. The allegations that Aftenposten made against Julia Svetlichnaja have been withdrawn in full: Aftenposten clarifies that the newspaper has no basis for asserting that these claims are correct. Is there any ambiguity in those words? To a sane person, no. But Kim Zigfeld is not sane, writing.

LR: So now this ridiculous loser just starts repeating himself. EARTH TO COMMIE IDIOT: ALL AFTENPOSTEN HAS DONE IS SAY WHAT IT CAN’T PROVE. WE STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL FACTS ARE BECAUSE YOUR VICTIM SVETLICHNAYA WON’T ANSWER ANYBODY’S QUESTIONS.

It does not state that the central accusation made against Svetlichnaya was false. Rather, it merely states that it does not have the ability to independently verify that accusation Well, no, it says ‘has no basis for asserting that any of these claims are correct’. But in the Autocratic Republic of Truthophobia having no basis for saying something …only confirms that it must be true!

LR: We can’t prove God exists. Does that mean we’re not allowed to believe he does? Sure, in the eyes of this godless Marxist thug. OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury. Does that mean nobody can believe he killed his ex-wife? If Svetlichnaya hired some goons to put a gun to the head of the Aftenposten editors or kidnap their children, would that mean we have to accept what they say? This kind of “you-can’t-disagree” attitude is exactly what inspired Stalin’s gulag archipelago. You can be sure that Heartfield would like nothing better than to chuck LR into one (and everyone else who doesn’t except his drumbeat of propaganda).

In the same way we have no basis for asserting that Kim Zigfeld abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann, so ‘the whole sordid business has been swept under the carpet’.

LR: Does anyone understand this gibberish?

Zigfeld goes on to complain that Svetlichnaja did not defend her claims in court, preferring to settle ‘behind the scenes’ – except that it was Aftenposten who asked to settle before the matter went to court, just as the Sunday Times did.

LR: Where’s the proof of this statement? How dare he make a claim of this kind without sourcing it? Is this what passes for “scholarship” in the world of Marxism today? Apparently so. Aftenposten did not say this in its press release. More important, EARTH TO MARXIST IDIOT: NO MATTER WHAT AFTENPOSTEN WANTED, SVETLICHNAYA COULD HAVE INSISTED ON A PUBLIC TRIAL. Why did she give them what they wanted? Could it be because she’s afraid of the truth? Why didn’t she force them to say what the Sunday Times said (without having any basis whatsoever to do so, because it had no facts and was merely republishing Aftenposten‘s story, an act for which is is virtually impossible to sue in the U.S., simply out of a fairly craven business desire to stop the lawsuit), that she was not in fact a Kremlin agent? Why didn’t she force them to apologize? AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, WHY DOESN’T SHE COME FORWARD WITH ACTUAL PROOF OF WHO SHE ACTUALLY IS?

So it is that at every turn, Zigfeld turns her face against the truth. When the Sunday Times withdraws, she turns to (that august institution) Aftenposten; and when they in turn withdraw, Zigfeld simply refuses to believe it. Anyway, there is no need to linger with the delusions of this congenital idiot. There could be no greater punishment for her sins than being La Russophobe.

LR: Note well that this piece of filth doesn’t even try to answer any of the questions LR asked in her post about Svetlichnaya, much less the others she’s asked previously — much less does he put her forward to answer them herself. He simply ignores all of them. He doesn’t even answer the one he himself knows about, how he hooked up with her and why she needs him.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Svetlichanya’s Psycho Svengali Lashes Out at La Russophobe

James Heartfield (pictured, is that one scary-looking weirdo or what?) the shadowy communist (he writes for marxist.com) who has been serving as Julia Svetlichnaya’s svengali throughout her sordid involvement in the Litvinenko affair, has lashed out at La Russophobe on his blog regarding her recent post about Aftenposten‘s reponse to Svetlichanya’s complaints about its alleged inaccurate reporting about her.

You will notice, gentle reader, two amazing facts about Heartfield’s crazy rant. First, he doesn’t even give this blog credit for having published in full both the statements of the Sunday Times and of Aftenposten in response to Svetlichnaya’s lawyer’s threats against them, yet he claims WE are afraid of the truth. If we were, wouldn’t we have simply ignored those statements, rather than publishing them for our thousands of weekly visitors to see? If he WASN’T, wouldn’t he accurately state the facts? Second, he does not provide ONE SINGLE SHRED of factual information about Svetlichnaya, much less does he even try to specifically answer ANY of the questions we’ve asked. Svetlichnaya herself, of course, keeps totally silent. We’ve said FROM THE BEGINNING that it’s possible Svetlichnaya is the unwitting pawn of forces she herself does not even fully understand, which is why it’s so important for her to come clean about how she got tied up with Litvinenko and why she came forward to speak about him only after he was murdered. Yet, she remains silent.

Before dealing with the “substance” of Heartfield’s bizarre, childish rant (looks like we really touched a nerve!), let’s pause a moment to reflect upon the breathtaking nature of his hypocrisy. Here is a weirdo who has spent his entire life so far outside the mainstream of human discourse that he might as well be a space alien. Yet, in this post he dares to attack LR for failing to accept what he views as established dogma, that Svetlichanya is totally innocent of any wrongdoing and is as pure as the driven snow where Litvinenko is concerned (and nobody’s hapless pawn either, he apparently believes) — in other words THIS GUY is attacking LR for being a contrarian??? Only where Russia is concerned do we see this kind of blatant, breathtaking hypocrisy.

Here’s what one blog says about Heartfield:

James was a militant of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain, to be distinguished from the American sect by its love of DDT, nuclear power and genetically modified crops rather than Mao’s Little Red Book. Taking some of Marx’s early writings in an extreme direction, the RCP propagandized for what amounted to better living through chemistry in their magazine LM.

And just for the record, let’s be clear: While Heartfield brags on his crazy blog about his appearances in obscure media outlets, LR is a far more significant force in in the blogosphere than this communist rat bastard. Heartfield’s crazy blog has 11 Technorati links. La Russophobe has 147. Search “James Heartfield” on Google and you get less than 25,000 hits. Search “La Russophobe” and you get nearly 90,000.

Here is his post in full (in black), with LR’s running commentary (in red):

The grumpy, Russia-hating blogger Kim Zigfeld (going by the unattractive name, La Russophobe) has been nagging on at me and Julia Svetlichnaja ever since the Telegraph published our interview with the murdered spy Alexander Litvinenko. Needless to say, everything that La Russophobe says is wrong, as one would expect of someone whose starting point is a blanket fear of all Russians.

LR: “Grumpy and unattractive”? Personal abuse? “EVERYTHING” LR says is wrong? Is that the way competent, responsible scholar who is in the right defends himself? Only in the la-la land inhabited by this crazed communist scumbag. Seems he’s definitely not one to lead by example, now is he?

La Truthophobe has been particularly exercised by the fact that Julia Svetlichnaja disputed the coverage of the two newspapers that slandered her, the Sunday Times and the Norwegian Aftenposten. ‘What about Julia’s threatened lawsuit?’, blogged Zigfeld, sarcastically. When the Sunday Times withdrew its allegations against Ms Svetlichnaja, La Truthophobe was not chastened, but even more self-righteous, dismissing the climbdown on these grounds:

LR: “Truthophobe”? We’ve been after the truth from day 1. We asked Julia a bunch of questions on the obscure and now defunct ZheZhe blog where she, bizarrely, chose to respond to the allegations against her, and she refused to answer them. From day 1, it’s been Julia who has been obstructing the truth, failing to answer questions and choosing instead to try to scare her opponents into silence with the blunt trauma of lawsuits. We still challenge Julia to sit down and answer our questions face to face, one-on-one, in front of a rolling video camera. If she satisfies us we’ll be glad to apologize and clear her name. If she crumbles like a house of cards, then the truth will be laid bare. But she’s still in hiding, speaking through this commie pinko piece of dirt. Isn’t that special?

It wasn’t the Times which reported the issues about Svetlichnaya, it was the Norwegian daily Aftenposten. If the Times did anything, it repeated what Aftenposten reported. Not only has Aftenposten not issued a correction, Svetlichnaya’s threat to sue the paper has not materialized (in fact, it hasn’t even been reported that she’s obtained legal representation in Norway). Well, OK, if Zigfeld will not take the Sunday Times’ word for it, what will dislodge her idee fixe? La Truthophobe continued to hide behind the (Norwegian) libel laws, responding to one comment of mine with this non-sequiteur [sic]: ‘he says nothing about the status of Svetlichnaja’s alleged lawsuit against Aftenposten, which has seemingly not progressed’.

LR: Heartfield himself is admitting that what the Sunday Times did was totally meaningless in resolving the question of Svetlichnaya’s accuracy. So it seems that not EVERYTHING La Russophobe said was wrong after all, doesn’t it?

But when Aftenposten withdrew its original, defamatory statements against Julia Svetlichnaja, how does Zigfeld respond?

LR: A boldfaced lie. Aftenposten never used the word “withdraw” it used the word “clarification.” What can you expect from a Marxist other than cheap, pathetic propaganda. Aftenposten did not apologize to Svetlichnaya, nor did it pay her any damages, nor did it state that she is not an agent of the Kremlin. All it said was that it cannot conclusively prove she is, not at all surprising given the Kremlin’s ability to conceal evidence. After all, it’s run by a clan of proud KGB spies.

‘The situation between the Aftenposten newspaper and Julia Svetlichnaya (click here to read our numerous prior reports on Ms. S.) appears to have resolved itself in a draw.’ (Incidentally, you cannot read La Truthophobe’s numerous reports, because, like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Zigfeld has rewritten history, taking down most of the posts quoted here.)

LR: Another boldfaced lie. All the posts are here, the same link which appeared in the original post. Moreover, at any time any reader can click the word “Svetlichnaya” in our sidebar and see all our posts about her, or put the word “svetlichnaya” into either of our two search engines. LR demands an apology from Heartfield for his slander of this blog. Hmmm . . . maybe we should hire an attorney . . .

More importantly, the “situation between Aftenposten and Julia Svetlichnaja” is nothing like a draw. The allegations that Aftenposten made against Julia Svetlichnaja have been withdrawn in full: Aftenposten clarifies that the newspaper has no basis for asserting that these claims are correct. Is there any ambiguity in those words? To a sane person, no. But Kim Zigfeld is not sane, writing.

LR: So now this ridiculous loser just starts repeating himself. EARTH TO COMMIE IDIOT: ALL AFTENPOSTEN HAS DONE IS SAY WHAT IT CAN’T PROVE. WE STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL FACTS ARE BECAUSE YOUR VICTIM SVETLICHNAYA WON’T ANSWER ANYBODY’S QUESTIONS.

It does not state that the central accusation made against Svetlichnaya was false. Rather, it merely states that it does not have the ability to independently verify that accusation Well, no, it says ‘has no basis for asserting that any of these claims are correct’. But in the Autocratic Republic of Truthophobia having no basis for saying something …only confirms that it must be true!

LR: We can’t prove God exists. Does that mean we’re not allowed to believe he does? Sure, in the eyes of this godless Marxist thug. OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury. Does that mean nobody can believe he killed his ex-wife? If Svetlichnaya hired some goons to put a gun to the head of the Aftenposten editors or kidnap their children, would that mean we have to accept what they say? This kind of “you-can’t-disagree” attitude is exactly what inspired Stalin’s gulag archipelago. You can be sure that Heartfield would like nothing better than to chuck LR into one (and everyone else who doesn’t except his drumbeat of propaganda).

In the same way we have no basis for asserting that Kim Zigfeld abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann, so ‘the whole sordid business has been swept under the carpet’.

LR: Does anyone understand this gibberish?

Zigfeld goes on to complain that Svetlichnaja did not defend her claims in court, preferring to settle ‘behind the scenes’ – except that it was Aftenposten who asked to settle before the matter went to court, just as the Sunday Times did.

LR: Where’s the proof of this statement? How dare he make a claim of this kind without sourcing it? Is this what passes for “scholarship” in the world of Marxism today? Apparently so. Aftenposten did not say this in its press release. More important, EARTH TO MARXIST IDIOT: NO MATTER WHAT AFTENPOSTEN WANTED, SVETLICHNAYA COULD HAVE INSISTED ON A PUBLIC TRIAL. Why did she give them what they wanted? Could it be because she’s afraid of the truth? Why didn’t she force them to say what the Sunday Times said (without having any basis whatsoever to do so, because it had no facts and was merely republishing Aftenposten‘s story, an act for which is is virtually impossible to sue in the U.S., simply out of a fairly craven business desire to stop the lawsuit), that she was not in fact a Kremlin agent? Why didn’t she force them to apologize? AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, WHY DOESN’T SHE COME FORWARD WITH ACTUAL PROOF OF WHO SHE ACTUALLY IS?

So it is that at every turn, Zigfeld turns her face against the truth. When the Sunday Times withdraws, she turns to (that august institution) Aftenposten; and when they in turn withdraw, Zigfeld simply refuses to believe it. Anyway, there is no need to linger with the delusions of this congenital idiot. There could be no greater punishment for her sins than being La Russophobe.

LR: Note well that this piece of filth doesn’t even try to answer any of the questions LR asked in her post about Svetlichnaya, much less the others she’s asked previously — much less does he put her forward to answer them herself. He simply ignores all of them. He doesn’t even answer the one he himself knows about, how he hooked up with her and why she needs him.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Svetlichanya’s Psycho Svengali Lashes Out at La Russophobe

James Heartfield (pictured, is that one scary-looking weirdo or what?) the shadowy communist (he writes for marxist.com) who has been serving as Julia Svetlichnaya’s svengali throughout her sordid involvement in the Litvinenko affair, has lashed out at La Russophobe on his blog regarding her recent post about Aftenposten‘s reponse to Svetlichanya’s complaints about its alleged inaccurate reporting about her.

You will notice, gentle reader, two amazing facts about Heartfield’s crazy rant. First, he doesn’t even give this blog credit for having published in full both the statements of the Sunday Times and of Aftenposten in response to Svetlichnaya’s lawyer’s threats against them, yet he claims WE are afraid of the truth. If we were, wouldn’t we have simply ignored those statements, rather than publishing them for our thousands of weekly visitors to see? If he WASN’T, wouldn’t he accurately state the facts? Second, he does not provide ONE SINGLE SHRED of factual information about Svetlichnaya, much less does he even try to specifically answer ANY of the questions we’ve asked. Svetlichnaya herself, of course, keeps totally silent. We’ve said FROM THE BEGINNING that it’s possible Svetlichnaya is the unwitting pawn of forces she herself does not even fully understand, which is why it’s so important for her to come clean about how she got tied up with Litvinenko and why she came forward to speak about him only after he was murdered. Yet, she remains silent.

Before dealing with the “substance” of Heartfield’s bizarre, childish rant (looks like we really touched a nerve!), let’s pause a moment to reflect upon the breathtaking nature of his hypocrisy. Here is a weirdo who has spent his entire life so far outside the mainstream of human discourse that he might as well be a space alien. Yet, in this post he dares to attack LR for failing to accept what he views as established dogma, that Svetlichanya is totally innocent of any wrongdoing and is as pure as the driven snow where Litvinenko is concerned (and nobody’s hapless pawn either, he apparently believes) — in other words THIS GUY is attacking LR for being a contrarian??? Only where Russia is concerned do we see this kind of blatant, breathtaking hypocrisy.

Here’s what one blog says about Heartfield:

James was a militant of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain, to be distinguished from the American sect by its love of DDT, nuclear power and genetically modified crops rather than Mao’s Little Red Book. Taking some of Marx’s early writings in an extreme direction, the RCP propagandized for what amounted to better living through chemistry in their magazine LM.

And just for the record, let’s be clear: While Heartfield brags on his crazy blog about his appearances in obscure media outlets, LR is a far more significant force in in the blogosphere than this communist rat bastard. Heartfield’s crazy blog has 11 Technorati links. La Russophobe has 147. Search “James Heartfield” on Google and you get less than 25,000 hits. Search “La Russophobe” and you get nearly 90,000.

Here is his post in full (in black), with LR’s running commentary (in red):

The grumpy, Russia-hating blogger Kim Zigfeld (going by the unattractive name, La Russophobe) has been nagging on at me and Julia Svetlichnaja ever since the Telegraph published our interview with the murdered spy Alexander Litvinenko. Needless to say, everything that La Russophobe says is wrong, as one would expect of someone whose starting point is a blanket fear of all Russians.

LR: “Grumpy and unattractive”? Personal abuse? “EVERYTHING” LR says is wrong? Is that the way competent, responsible scholar who is in the right defends himself? Only in the la-la land inhabited by this crazed communist scumbag. Seems he’s definitely not one to lead by example, now is he?

La Truthophobe has been particularly exercised by the fact that Julia Svetlichnaja disputed the coverage of the two newspapers that slandered her, the Sunday Times and the Norwegian Aftenposten. ‘What about Julia’s threatened lawsuit?’, blogged Zigfeld, sarcastically. When the Sunday Times withdrew its allegations against Ms Svetlichnaja, La Truthophobe was not chastened, but even more self-righteous, dismissing the climbdown on these grounds:

LR: “Truthophobe”? We’ve been after the truth from day 1. We asked Julia a bunch of questions on the obscure and now defunct ZheZhe blog where she, bizarrely, chose to respond to the allegations against her, and she refused to answer them. From day 1, it’s been Julia who has been obstructing the truth, failing to answer questions and choosing instead to try to scare her opponents into silence with the blunt trauma of lawsuits. We still challenge Julia to sit down and answer our questions face to face, one-on-one, in front of a rolling video camera. If she satisfies us we’ll be glad to apologize and clear her name. If she crumbles like a house of cards, then the truth will be laid bare. But she’s still in hiding, speaking through this commie pinko piece of dirt. Isn’t that special?

It wasn’t the Times which reported the issues about Svetlichnaya, it was the Norwegian daily Aftenposten. If the Times did anything, it repeated what Aftenposten reported. Not only has Aftenposten not issued a correction, Svetlichnaya’s threat to sue the paper has not materialized (in fact, it hasn’t even been reported that she’s obtained legal representation in Norway). Well, OK, if Zigfeld will not take the Sunday Times’ word for it, what will dislodge her idee fixe? La Truthophobe continued to hide behind the (Norwegian) libel laws, responding to one comment of mine with this non-sequiteur [sic]: ‘he says nothing about the status of Svetlichnaja’s alleged lawsuit against Aftenposten, which has seemingly not progressed’.

LR: Heartfield himself is admitting that what the Sunday Times did was totally meaningless in resolving the question of Svetlichnaya’s accuracy. So it seems that not EVERYTHING La Russophobe said was wrong after all, doesn’t it?

But when Aftenposten withdrew its original, defamatory statements against Julia Svetlichnaja, how does Zigfeld respond?

LR: A boldfaced lie. Aftenposten never used the word “withdraw” it used the word “clarification.” What can you expect from a Marxist other than cheap, pathetic propaganda. Aftenposten did not apologize to Svetlichnaya, nor did it pay her any damages, nor did it state that she is not an agent of the Kremlin. All it said was that it cannot conclusively prove she is, not at all surprising given the Kremlin’s ability to conceal evidence. After all, it’s run by a clan of proud KGB spies.

‘The situation between the Aftenposten newspaper and Julia Svetlichnaya (click here to read our numerous prior reports on Ms. S.) appears to have resolved itself in a draw.’ (Incidentally, you cannot read La Truthophobe’s numerous reports, because, like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Zigfeld has rewritten history, taking down most of the posts quoted here.)

LR: Another boldfaced lie. All the posts are here, the same link which appeared in the original post. Moreover, at any time any reader can click the word “Svetlichnaya” in our sidebar and see all our posts about her, or put the word “svetlichnaya” into either of our two search engines. LR demands an apology from Heartfield for his slander of this blog. Hmmm . . . maybe we should hire an attorney . . .

More importantly, the “situation between Aftenposten and Julia Svetlichnaja” is nothing like a draw. The allegations that Aftenposten made against Julia Svetlichnaja have been withdrawn in full: Aftenposten clarifies that the newspaper has no basis for asserting that these claims are correct. Is there any ambiguity in those words? To a sane person, no. But Kim Zigfeld is not sane, writing.

LR: So now this ridiculous loser just starts repeating himself. EARTH TO COMMIE IDIOT: ALL AFTENPOSTEN HAS DONE IS SAY WHAT IT CAN’T PROVE. WE STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL FACTS ARE BECAUSE YOUR VICTIM SVETLICHNAYA WON’T ANSWER ANYBODY’S QUESTIONS.

It does not state that the central accusation made against Svetlichnaya was false. Rather, it merely states that it does not have the ability to independently verify that accusation Well, no, it says ‘has no basis for asserting that any of these claims are correct’. But in the Autocratic Republic of Truthophobia having no basis for saying something …only confirms that it must be true!

LR: We can’t prove God exists. Does that mean we’re not allowed to believe he does? Sure, in the eyes of this godless Marxist thug. OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury. Does that mean nobody can believe he killed his ex-wife? If Svetlichnaya hired some goons to put a gun to the head of the Aftenposten editors or kidnap their children, would that mean we have to accept what they say? This kind of “you-can’t-disagree” attitude is exactly what inspired Stalin’s gulag archipelago. You can be sure that Heartfield would like nothing better than to chuck LR into one (and everyone else who doesn’t except his drumbeat of propaganda).

In the same way we have no basis for asserting that Kim Zigfeld abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann, so ‘the whole sordid business has been swept under the carpet’.

LR: Does anyone understand this gibberish?

Zigfeld goes on to complain that Svetlichnaja did not defend her claims in court, preferring to settle ‘behind the scenes’ – except that it was Aftenposten who asked to settle before the matter went to court, just as the Sunday Times did.

LR: Where’s the proof of this statement? How dare he make a claim of this kind without sourcing it? Is this what passes for “scholarship” in the world of Marxism today? Apparently so. Aftenposten did not say this in its press release. More important, EARTH TO MARXIST IDIOT: NO MATTER WHAT AFTENPOSTEN WANTED, SVETLICHNAYA COULD HAVE INSISTED ON A PUBLIC TRIAL. Why did she give them what they wanted? Could it be because she’s afraid of the truth? Why didn’t she force them to say what the Sunday Times said (without having any basis whatsoever to do so, because it had no facts and was merely republishing Aftenposten‘s story, an act for which is is virtually impossible to sue in the U.S., simply out of a fairly craven business desire to stop the lawsuit), that she was not in fact a Kremlin agent? Why didn’t she force them to apologize? AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, WHY DOESN’T SHE COME FORWARD WITH ACTUAL PROOF OF WHO SHE ACTUALLY IS?

So it is that at every turn, Zigfeld turns her face against the truth. When the Sunday Times withdraws, she turns to (that august institution) Aftenposten; and when they in turn withdraw, Zigfeld simply refuses to believe it. Anyway, there is no need to linger with the delusions of this congenital idiot. There could be no greater punishment for her sins than being La Russophobe.

LR: Note well that this piece of filth doesn’t even try to answer any of the questions LR asked in her post about Svetlichnaya, much less the others she’s asked previously — much less does he put her forward to answer them herself. He simply ignores all of them. He doesn’t even answer the one he himself knows about, how he hooked up with her and why she needs him.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

September 23, 2007 — Contents

SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 23 CONTENTS

(1) The Sunday Photos: Love, Russian Style

(2) Viktor Zubkov: Neo-Soviet Man

(3) Annals of Russian Technology: Nobody Milks a Moose Like a Russian

(4) The Sunday Funnies

(5) The Sunday Quotation

(6) Sharapova Gets Hers

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !