Russia Insider Out

“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.” -Voltaire

Long time readers and Russia watchers know that one of the most odious pro-Kremlin sites in existence is Russia Insider. Rather than create original content, most of their articles consist of material reprinted from other sources, typically Kremlin media outlets but also including sites featuring ideological racism and Holocaust denial. What better sources for a site that still uses the “Kiev Nazi junta” trope?

As if that weren’t bad enough, when they reprint something they usually tack on this commentary at the top, to make sure you get the message they want you to get. In this way, if an author doesn’t sufficiently espouse their line the RI staff “corrects” them. The effect of this is that the reader can be prejudiced against the actual ideas contained in the article, or miss them entirely thanks to someone else’s creative “interpretation.” Of course the most ridiculous thing about all of this is that Russia Insider tells us to be “media skeptics” and claims it is countering Western propaganda with real journalism. Sure. In Fantasy Land that’s happening.

Well guess what- it looks like the Russia Insider debacle is on its last legs. Peter Lavelle of RT, an initial supporter of Russia Insider, has apparently blown the whistle about Russia Insider’s funding. It began with a simple Facebook post, but then another pro-Kremlin bullshit factory, Fort Russ, went even further and examined the accusations in detail.

The “investigation” is led by Joaquin Flores. If you’ve never heard of him, here he is in a video explaining with confidence that there’s plenty of “evidence” that MH17 was the same plane that disappeared earlier that year (MH370), and there is “evidence” that Ukraine shot it down with a Buk or an air-to-air missile. As such, we can pretty much dismiss Mr. Flores as another armchair crank, but what he has to say about Russia Insider seems mostly plausible. It’s amazing how quickly some people will become critical thinkers when they realize they’re getting screwed out of money.

In Bausman’s defense, I doubt that he really set out to defraud people, though is true that con-men tend to target communities with fringe views. It seems to me that Bausman probably sincerely believed in his idea, but may not have thought the whole thing through or organized it properly. Apparently the idea was to build up a big audience and then either rake in ad revenue or somehow sell the site for a large amount of money like in the case with The Huffington Post. On that note, one can definitely fault Bausman of asking people to work for free, but then again working for free is becoming more and more popular in Russia these days.

Truly Bausman’s “crime” in this case was trying to get people to write for free (and apparently succeeding at it). To be sure, he was promising the writers rewards once the site hit it big and sold, and by so doing placed himself slightly above Ariana Huffington, but he was still acting like an “unfinanced entrepreneur.” He should have at least offered a piece rate. I know some of my readers might ask why I should care about Putin-worshiping fanboys writing for free? Well first of all there’s basic principle, and secondly, it doesn’t seem to me like any of these people had any real writing talent. See the reason the writer or artist should always get paid is that they have this thing called craft. They make it look easy but they spent years refining whatever it is that they do. So when you want to tap that talent or free it’s an insult to them. On the other hand, if you’re just going to publish any word salad consisting of key phrases such as “BRICS alternative, Kiev Nazi junta, Western MSM, color revolution,” and “neocons,” who cares if you pay or not? You don’t charge your kid to pin their “drawing” to the fridge, do you?

No I think Bausman basically had an idea, one which he thought was a good but which just fell apart for one reason or another. Yes, Bausman’s hopes seem to be very unrealistic and his efforts a bit incompetent, but that only argues towards his “innocence.” Take a look at this screen cap from the Russia Insider site, which supposedly explains where the money goes:

fortruss

“What Russia reads.” LOL WUT

 

Yes, that graph is laughable to anyone who’s ever read Russia Insider, but that’s just the point- if he wanted to just con people, we should expect something more convoluted. Or not. I don’t have experience in the con game. Still, to me it seems like Bausman really wanted to account for every penny, but foolishly said that it would be 100% for the journalists. He could have killed two birds with one stone and paid his “journalists” piece rates per article while saying that the rest of the donations would go toward site maintenance and maybe expanding capabilities or features. I don’t really think your avid Russia Insider donor really expected much more.

And if you don’t buy my “incompetence not malice” theory and believe I’m “defending” Bausman because we’re both CIA operatives working a long operation to hobble Russia’s heroic information war forces, you can basically read a similar theory from Anatoliy Karlin, “Da Russophile” himself and an occasional past contributor to Russia Insider. Of course in that case, you could always allege that he’s a secret CIA/Soros agent too- nothing’s too far-fetched when you’re actively trying to keep reality from seeping in. Seriously though, it’s worth noting in passing that Karlin’s blog solicits donations, which he explicitly states go toward sustaining his site. That’s what I do when I solicit donations, and Bausman could have saved himself a lot of trouble by just saying the same thing.

Finally, Bausman’s own defense is to be found here. It’s basically flat out denial, with rather curious statement about having 15 paid staff people. This contradicts my information on the subject, and it’s possible he’s just pulling this out of his ass out of desperation. But again, this reaction doesn’t mean he deliberately set out to defraud people. I’ve had one experience with a definite con-man before, and in that case the dude basically avoided communication as much as possible, disappearing once it became clear that too many questions had been raised.

As for Bausman’s supposed idea itself, i.e. turning Russia Insider into a popular aggregator worth seven figures, he made one fatal mistake- it was about Russia. People make millions, billions collectively, off of viral “alternative” (AKA bullshit) media. Just ask Alex Jones. But in order to get that audience, Jones focuses on things that are most relevant to them, typically American issues. Your average disenfranchised fringe thinker will dabble in some Putin ass-kissing from time to time, but if Jones retooled his websites and his show so that Putin worship and the Russian foreign ministry’s line became 90-95% of his material, he’d lose all but that smaller fringe that puts all their hopes into Russia for their salvation. I know from personal experience that this is a very small group. I can’t believe I’m giving advice on something like this, but Bausman should have just copied other alternative news sites while working the Russian stories in from time to time.

The Kremlin Fan Klub is clearly up in arms over this bout of infighting, and naturally they’re upset that some outsiders are watching this little spat while presumably scarfing down handfuls of popcorn. Well as Bellingcat’s Aric Toler put it: It couldn’t have happened to a nicer site. Pro-Kremlin media from Russia Insider to RT in recent years has been engaged in numerous personal attacks against journalists who challenge their hero’s narrative. Their arguments are twisted and distorted, they’re labeled “Russophobes” even if they lived in Russia for many years or they are actually Russian, they’re lumped in with neocons, and of course they’re often said to be paid by some foreign intelligence service or the evil George Soros. Of course the inherent problem with communities of people who act this way is that they inevitably turn on each other. What is more, the paranoid way of thinking that is so common in such circles guarantees there will be more accusations and counter-accusations, because to people like these nothing happens by accident and nobody just makes a mistake. Everything is a deliberate plot.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I find it amusing and ironic that the person to kick this off seems to have been Peter Lavelle. Bausman solicited voluntary donations. Well okay, Bausman solicited the shit out of voluntary donations if you look at the main page of Russia Insider. But the key word here is voluntary, and as I understand he only managed to make something like $60,000 before these accusations arose. By contrast Lavelle is one of RT’s highest-paid foreigners, working in a state-owned company that is infamous for being the least transparent and the least accountable when it comes to how it spends its funds- funds it gets from Russia’s national wealth. The hypocrisy of Lavelle decrying Bausman’s lack of transparency is right up there with Putin talking about not interfering in other nations’ internal affairs or Kerry expressing concern over civilians being killed by airstrikes.

Sure, you can say Russia Insider is a crude, laughably ridiculous propaganda website which almost borders on self-parody. At worst, Russia Insider bilked donors out of small amounts of money and aspiring “journalists” out of their time. But whatever money Bausman raked in, it is mere pocket change compared to RT and Sputnik’s staggering budget, and needless to say, those donations were neither voluntary, nor were they given by people in highly developed nations who had sufficient disposable income to donate. These involuntary donors are Russia’s citizens.

 

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Russia Insider Out

  1. carma

    It’s funny, “holocaust denial” groups should be AGAINST RUSSIA, because Russia existance depends on them being less evil than the nazis. The most interested party in exagerating or making up nazi crimes were the Russians, this way they could sell themselves to the West as “the less evil”, like they do with Assad and the Islamic State (which they created!).
    The concentracion camps were mostly in Poland and areas controlled by the Soviets, one of the main researchers/”deniers” a translator, Carlos W. Porter even titled with book “holocaust made in Russia” for that, the West never examined the disputed gas chambers, they were all in Soviet camp. WW2 wasn’t exactly a great War for the West, let’s be honest, the only winner was Stalin, he took half of Europe and survived a deadly invasion, thanks to half of West that attacked the back of the other half, to protect Stalin. Poland, the cause of the war… ended in Soviet hands… so, a complete disaster… the only way to sell it in the West was… to blame it all on the Germans.. like they did in ww1, and exagerate or invent terrible crimes that justify the war… so the public would accept a war to stop a genocide… obviously, if it were true.. but not one to help Stalin… as it was…So, Nobsrussia, I dare you, if you are as critical and reseach-minded as you claim, check the “deniers” (ohh..) arguments, watch some documentaries, hear their side. Thanks. Hide this comment if you want, just be honest with yourself.

    Reply
    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      Oh don’t worry, I won’t hide your comment. I’ll grant you the right to make a fool of yourself here.

      In case you weren’t aware, I’m very familiar with a whole range of Holocaust denial “arguments,” documentaries, books, etc. I’m also familiar with this thing called the historical record, so I can easily debunk these claims as well. I’m very familiar with the lies and distortions Holocaust deniers use.

      You claim Stalin was the only winner of WWII? Most of the Soviet Union’s vital agricultural land and its major industry was destroyed during the war.Literally thousands of villages had been burned, millions displaced, and between 25-27 million Soviet citizens killed, causing demographic problems we still feel to this day.

      By contrast, the US experienced the biggest economic boom in its history and became a superpower since all its competitors had either been destroyed or bankrupted.

      Yeah…Only Stalin won.

      Next you talk about “selling” the war in the West. What nonsense are you babbling about here? The British public rallied to the colors after 3 September 1939. Tens of thousands of Americans happily volunteered for the armed services after Pearl Harbor.

      Nobody had to “sell” them a war they’d already fought. Certainly nobody was talking about some kind of genocide to get people to support the war. Nothing of this sort is mentioned by Chamberlain in his declaration of war, nor in that of FDR. We’re talking basic historical facts here.

      Also, the Holocaust as we know it wasn’t widely talked about or taught for long after the war, as more trials occurred and more evidence became clear. How can you say it was a hoax to justify what was a very popular war if they weren’t even bothering to talk about it much until decades afterward?

      As for responsibility for WWII, that is Hitler’s fault and the situation is not analogous to WWI. If you actually believe that Hitler was against going to war you clearly know nothing about Hitler and never read his writings or well-known quotes to confidants.

      There is only one thing you said that makes any sense whatsoever- yes, it is odd that Holocaust deniers side with modern-day Russia, because as of late the Russian government has been trying to monopolize and claim the “victory over fascism,” which of course hits at Nazi Germany. They’re also always accusing Ukraine of being full of Nazis.

      But alas, Putin’s Russia will tolerate all sorts of contradictory ideologies so long as you stupidly advance their geopolitical goals.

      Reply
  2. carma

    Oh hey what’s the matter? I’m giving you a perfect opportunity to air your “arguments.”

    You already have your opinion and are happy with it.
    Why should I interfere? You are like a kid with a toy, why would I take away your happy dreams and moral comfort and superiority?
    Why should I teach you for free?
    Do you want the troubles, the pain, the cost of being a “negationist” and a “pro-nazi”? No you don’t.
    Criticizing Russia today gets you some support, and maybe work and respect. But criticizing Russia allies in WW2… oh.. that’s taboo.
    Do you know there are librarians in jail in Europe for selling “negationist” books right?
    Do you know there are 90 year old grandmas in jail in Germany for debating the soviet accusations against Germany?
    Why isn’t America “the free”, the “1st Amendment leader” pushing Europe to have free expression and debate on this issue, WW2?
    Don’t you get any red flags from having a subject like ww2 forbidden and it’s researchers threatened with jail? Maybe they’re hiding something?
    Oh don’t worry, I won’t hide your comment. I’ll grant you the right to make a fool of yourself here.

    The fool were the allies, AIDING STALIN, and then crying “oh, cold war, russians are evil, they’re coming” duhh… you build their war machine, their industries, you gave them thousands of planes, tanks, half a million trucks… you firebombed to ashes the europeans who were fighting the soviets… you gave half of the world to Stalin at Yalta, even giving him white russian refugees, to be shot immediately…
    WW2 is the biggest shame in history, from the Western point of view.
    And for that reason you lie to yourselves.. “Oh… but… we did something good.. we… stopped the fascist!”
    At what cost? The invasion of Italy was UNDER THE MAFIA, Musolini was putting mafia bosses in jail. When the americans landed, with mafia help in Italy, they released the mafia, and put them into power, and they called that “democracy”, and “liberation”.
    90.000 were killed (and tortured) without trial by the “liberators” and the uncontrolled “militias” in Italy, mostly communists.
    The same in France.
    The French Army surrendered very fast, and the rest didn’t fight much, because THE FRENCH POPULATION AND ARMY DID NOT WANT WAR.
    They were well treated, the German had no revenge plans, no territorial demands, it was the British lobby, the Jews, the banks and the commies who wanted war, a minority.
    And Spain? Well, Franco won the war against the communists, stood neutral in WW2, when he could have changed history by letting the Germans took Gibraltar and cut the British, possibly changing the course of the war, he didn’t do that.
    The payment? A hunger blockage by America and the allies, to starve Spain and force Franco out. It didn’t worked thanks to the Argentinians brothers who sent food and the real and massive popular support for Franco.
    What about Poland? The cause of the War, officially, protect the integrity of Poland… it ended as Soviet. It was invaded by Stalin too, but the British only declared war on Hitler, not on Stalin.
    It was all economics and imperialism for Britain and America.
    The Soviets well, were about to INVADE ALL OF EUROPE with a massive army, Hitler defended himself, and all of Europe, when he attacked first, as last resort, against a massive incoming army, leading A DOZEN OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
    And War isn’t started or stopped, it’s a constant in this world, it’s just politics and economics, and culture, and influence, tanks are just the tip of the iceberg, the mushroom that is seen at some times, but conflict is always underneath.
    Communism was and is CONSTANT ETERNAL WAR, the Soviets had INVADED SPAIN, Stalin portraits were hanging in Madrid and Barcelona, with Soviet commissars saluting the troops, the soviet tanks, airplanes, artilleries and red brigades.
    In case you weren’t aware, I’m very familiar with a whole range of Holocaust denial “arguments,” documentaries, books, etc. I’m also familiar with this thing called the historical record, so I can easily debunk these claims as well. I’m very familiar with the lies and distortions Holocaust deniers use.

    Bla bla, cite the errors of the revisionists please, oh, you didn’t, because you can’t.
    –Is the International Red Cross Report false? After the war the Red Cross published less than 300.000 deaths in the camps, and for illness and hunger.
    –Are there forensic evidence of the “gas chambers”? Any autopsy? Is the Leuchter report incorrect?
    — Are there any pictures taken from the surveillance planes on the camps showing any gassing?
    — Is it incorrect that neither Churchill’s, Roosevelt’s or De Gaulle’s “memoirs” or books on the war have a single word on the “holocaust”?
    — Isn’t it true that the Nuremberg trial was not a legal trial and just a farce with no legal defense?
    If they were so sure of their proof, why not have a normal, correct trial?
    Why is it illegal to question the holocaust or investigate it? Why is it the only event in history forbidden to be questioned?
    — How can you accept “evidence” from Soviet generals and prosecutors, knowing how they have been faking everything for 30 years in their purges, checkas, gulags and genocides?
    I’m amazed I have to explain simple public facts like this… Incredible…
    You claim Stalin was the only winner of WWII?

    He was, he was attacked deadly but managed to get half of the stupid naive world to rush go save him.
    The British even lost their Singapore because military supplies were rerouted to the Soviets via Iran, their priority was to protect Stalin.
    The Soviets got land and lease, Yalta, half of Europe, became a super-power, destroyed the only ideology and power that knew what communism was and how it could be defeated (by force and another better socialism, national-socialism), they managed to install liberalism as the key and only discourse and policy of the West, therefore securing for themselves and open and weak target, “open society” that would be easy to subvert, as Yuri Bezmenov showed.
    They got away with their massive crimes and got in front of them a stupid naive NATO that never had the smallest offensive plans, only defensive.
    They had as “enemies” an America that collaborated with them in Space, as they still do.
    They got to control half of the UN, with seats in the Security Council.
    They even managed to launch an invasion of Spain after ww2 with thousands of guerrillas (maquis)…
    They got massive technology, patents, scientists from the Germans…
    They managed to bullshit the West with their fake death toll, twenty million or some other crazy number, lies, it was much, much smaller, and many because of Stalin’s policies or executed directly by the commies and dumped as “nazi deaths”.
    ..
    Now, to America…
    It’s true America increased it’s influence, but compared to the Soviet situation their gains were smaller.
    The Soviets changed from being about to be conquered to superpower.
    America was in no danger, it sold destroyers to the British in exchange for their naval bases, ok, it just a change of name in ownership, from British Empire to American Empire, but they had everything to become a superpower, it was just a matter of time, even remaining neutral they would have gotten lots of brains from refugees, they took some advantage of the situation.
    Most of the Soviet Union’s vital agricultural land and its major industry was destroyed during the war.Literally thousands of villages had been burned, millions displaced, and between 25-27 million Soviet citizens killed, causing demographic problems we still feel to this day.

    That’s not important, they got grain from the US and I think Argentina too. They got LAND AND LEASE, and GERMAN TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENTISTS, and through their alliance, THOUSANDS OF SPIES IN THE WEST, hello, Harry Hopkins? And thousands more.
    The “demographic” problems started way before that, hello holodomor? Soviet massacres? Cannon fodder “tactics”?
    By contrast, the US experienced the biggest economic boom in its history and became a superpower since all its competitors had either been destroyed or bankrupted.

    Not all their competitors, hello Soviets!!
    Now they even have China as enemy, and Japan as ally! How ironic! And the same in Europe, Germany as ally and Russia as enemy!
    How can’t you see the karmic joke?!
    Yeah…Only Stalin won.

    He forced secret treaties on the American cowards, who only attacked when they are superior, like fire-bombing civilian cities from the sky as the main enemy is away, distracted, fighting somebody else (Germans in the East, and Japaneses fighting russian armed communist chinese).
    Next you talk about “selling” the war in the West. What nonsense are you babbling about here? The British public rallied to the colors after 3 September 1939. Tens of thousands of Americans happily volunteered for the armed services after Pearl Harbor.

    No they didn’t, that’s why there was an order 18B, to detain even politicians who were against it, that’s why they took down the previous king, because he would not approve that war.
    That’s why for the first year it wasn’t a war, with few fights.
    That’s why Hitler let the British go home in Dunkirk, to have peace.
    And that’s why the British media censored the numberless peace proposals by Hitler.
    That’s why Churchill bombed German cities, so that Hitler would retaliate against British cities, because Churchill needed that, without it he would have been pushed out and peace achieved. He wanted the Germans to bomb, it gave him the popular support for the unpopular war.
    He, and his buddies make a fortune with fake insurance claims, “and u-boat sunk our boat, and our cargo, please pay insurance company, thaaanks, hahaha!”
    Buchanan correctly titled his book “Churchill Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World”
    Britain should not have entered WW2. It lost it’s whole empire, it failed to protect Poland, it got an even bigger threat, the Soviet Empire.
    It was a disaster.
    But British financiers needed the war, the economic system of Hitler was a threat to their monopoly.
    And Pearl Harbor… so much “democracy and will of the people”, both US Presidents won promising no wars in Europe, and both lie, both were actively trying to enter, the US Navy had been attacking u-boat for almost a year before Pearl Harbor, it was a known secret in all political and military circles that Roosevelt was technically in war with Germany, pushing for Germans to react, to defend themselves instead of running, it didn’t happened.
    Pearl Harbor was a joke, sorry for the innocent sailors who died, but the attack was as weak as possible.
    – It left the fuel reserves untouched, impossible for any real enemy.
    – It sunk the ships in low depth water, they were raised and repaired very fast. A worthless attack, they should have bombed the docks.
    – The best ships of the fleet were out, how “lucky” of them…
    – And it was stupid from the Japanese point of view, they should have attacked Russia from the East, when it was weak, and together with Germany they could have won, and in fact, the guerrilla they were fighting in china, the commies were armed by Russia, and there were many, many millions of chinese, an impossible task to stop them all, as it was, it was logical to go to the root of the problem, the Kremlin.
    Russia had captured japanese planes in Manchuria, it was a russian op with captured japanese planes, and militarily designed to damaged little, because the US were their allies.
    Nobody had to “sell” them a war they’d already fought. Certainly nobody was talking about some kind of genocide to get people to support the war. Nothing of this sort is mentioned by Chamberlain in his declaration of war, nor in that of FDR. We’re talking basic historical facts here.
    Also, the Holocaust as we know it wasn’t widely talked about or taught for long after the war, as more trials occurred and more evidence became clear. How can you say it was a hoax to justify what was a very popular war if they weren’t even bothering to talk about it much until decades afterward?

    You dig your grave here.
    I know very well that, I had Churchill memoirs in my library, and Roosevelt’s, and De Gaulle’s three tome crusade, not a word on the holocaust.
    But they were lying about German crimes way before that, as they did in WW1, they claimed Germans stabbed belgian babies in their piked helmets, and many more things.
    The War was because Hitler lead another type of civilization, another type of economy and values, and the status quo, jewish-anglo elites and commies didn’t like that.
    It’s widely known the British wanted war with Germany, and Americans, well, they jumped on weak preys, like Spain in 1898.
    The “German war-crimes” are a hoax, or done by Soviet troops disguised as German troops, as thousands and thousands of russians did, and british special forces too. Nuremberg is the biggest disgrace of the century.
    And I’ve been to Germany, Poland and Russia, many times, I’ve seen the differences in the orders from above, Saint Petesburg/Leningrad was barely touched, few bombs damaged the city, Hitler could have took it or destroyed it, but didn’t want to damaged such historical and important western achievement. The same in their retreat from Paris and Rome, they left the city so it would not be bombed, when they could have barricaded themselves and forced the allies to kill millions in bombings or street to street leningrad style battles.
    As for responsibility for WWII, that is Hitler’s fault

    I’ll pray for you. I didn’t want to answer you out of compassion, you may work directly or indirectly for the government, and I didn’t want to push you and force you to acknowledge a difficult politically incorrect truth that surely destroys careers.
    You can be a traitor, a russian agent, and that’s good, but if you want respect for the dead German soldiers and respect for the West by criticizing Nuremberg and defending free speech against the holocaust inquisition, then you are done, an evil terrible menace who… wants us to acknowledge “mistakes” and errors of the past and apologize… we can’t have that.
    and the situation is not analogous to WWI. If you actually believe that Hitler was against going to war you clearly know nothing about Hitler and never read his writings or well-known quotes to confidants.

    You know nothing, I’ve been reading NS stuff for 9 years, of all kind, you are surely fast to judge those you don’t know.
    Hitler made ENORMOUS SOCIAL REFORMS, he didn’t want to risk all his social changes for a dangerous war, he wanted peace so he could change Germany, in fact, the more years in power he got, the stronger he got, like SS, and the kids groups. The German economy was rising like a star and pro-german or “fascist” governments were taking root everywhere.
    They had a revolution in academia, kicking “jewish science” (materialist, darwin, freud, petrol-based), even by official american documents they had gained technological superiority, and the Americans themselves were afraid of what they could achieve. The prototypes and patents they stole from the defeated Germans were astonishing.
    War was wanted by Stalin, Britain and the US. Britain was loosing power, the US was safe there and could attack and steal without reprisals, and the Soviets already had an almost ready war-machine.
    When Hitler attacked his army was incredibly weak, very few tanks and of low quality compared to the soviet ones. Many horse-power logistics…
    The moral and the tactics were good, that’s how he won.
    The polish army itself was bigger in number than the Germans.
    There were a million foreign volunteers in the SS, Hitler was LOVED, had WON ELECTIONS, HONESTLY, WITH HIS BOOK EXPLAINING EVERYTHING. He didn’t lied to go to war in foreign countries like Churchill or Roosevelt, there were millions of Germans in Poland under attack.
    The Americans were way more evil than the Germans, Americans had concentration camps for Japanese and stole illegally German boats, goods, accounts way before the war, when they were supposed to be “neutral”.
    But the american(jewish-british) hate against Germans is a long story, in WW1 Americans destroyed German books in Public libraries, attacked German shops, and managed to take down German language newspapers.
    It’s a fact that NS Germany was boycotted in 1933 by Jews, how “legal and democratic”.
    I bet you haven’t read pro-German stuff for more than a few days here and there. I dare you teach yourself, or are you afraid?

    Reply
    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      Here’s a tip, if you’re going to try to stomp off all haughty and ask why you should “interfere,” don’t then go on to write a couple pages worth of babbling rants trying to support your laughably idiotic position. It also might help if you learn the difference between opinions and historical fact. That might be the root of your problem. Well, this problem regarding history this is.

      I’m just going to pick out some of the most entertaining nonsense you wrote here and debunk it for the entertainment of my readers. In the mean time I would suggest you read this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect It might help you finally stop humiliating yourself in public. Might.

      “Do you know there are librarians in jail in Europe for selling “negationist” books right?
      Do you know there are 90 year old grandmas in jail in Germany for debating the soviet accusations against Germany?
      Why isn’t America “the free”, the “1st Amendment leader” pushing Europe to have free expression and debate on this issue, WW2?”

      I don’t give a shit. I’m not German, I don’t live in those European countries. This says nothing about the accuracy of a historical theory. And if America DID condemn these practices in those European countries, wouldn’t this just be condemned as the US telling other countries how to run things? You can’t claim that America is “interfering” in internal affairs of other countries when it criticizes the lack of democracy in Russia and then claim it should do the exact same thing about freedom of speech in other countries.

      There are plenty of open venues to “debate” the Holocaust on the internet, and the deniers consistently lose because they are peddling a conspiracy theory.

      “WW2 is the biggest shame in history, from the Western point of view.
      And for that reason you lie to yourselves.. “Oh… but… we did something good.. we… stopped the fascist!””

      Nope, it was totally awesome. We need to do it again some time. My favorite part was when the Red Army raised the red flag above the Reichstag.

      “The same in France.
      The French Army surrendered very fast, and the rest didn’t fight much, because THE FRENCH POPULATION AND ARMY DID NOT WANT WAR.”

      No it didn’t. This is a myth spread by ignorant morons who never even bothered to study the basic history of the campaign in France. The French fought on after the British had fled, and then they fought on as the resistance and the Free French Army. They were crucial to the liberation of their own country from Normandy to Paris. Basic historical facts here and you fucked that up. You couldn’t even get that right.

      “What about Poland? The cause of the War, officially, protect the integrity of Poland… it ended as Soviet. It was invaded by Stalin too, but the British only declared war on Hitler, not on Stalin.”

      The Soviet Union invaded Poland on 16-17 September 1939, a full one to two days after the Polish government had fled the country and the Germans were advancing on Lviv (not according to the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact).The territories that the USSR took were Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Lithuanian- this is why Britain and France did not declare war. They did, however, make arrangements to fight against the USSR in Finland, even as they were refusing to make war on Germany. The British organized an expeditionary force while the French drew up plans to destroy the Baku oil fields from the air.

      “Bla bla, cite the errors of the revisionists please, oh, you didn’t, because you can’t.”

      Here you perfectly demonstrate your basic critical thinking problem. You’ve read more denialist literature than historical literature, and forgot that it is the claimant’s burden of proof to show why the consensus is wrong, not the other way around.

      “–Is the International Red Cross Report false? After the war the Red Cross published less than 300.000 deaths in the camps, and for illness and hunger.”

      It is well known that the Germans did not allow the Red Cross full access to their camps. If the report actually said that, then it is wrong.

      “–Are there forensic evidence of the “gas chambers”? Any autopsy? Is the Leuchter report incorrect?”

      Yup, there sure is. If you’d really researched this you would have known that. And yes, the Leuchter report was incorrect. There’s a whole documentary explaining that. As for an autopsy, could you explain how someone does an autopsy on ashes? Victims of the gas chamber were cremated or burned. Basic history here, folks.

      “— Are there any pictures taken from the surveillance planes on the camps showing any gassing?”

      Why would aerial photography show something that takes place inside basements? And I should point out that even today, with our drones, satellites, etc., the US military still misses things happening OUTSIDE in plain view.

      “— Is it incorrect that neither Churchill’s, Roosevelt’s or De Gaulle’s “memoirs” or books on the war have a single word on the “holocaust”?”

      The term was not in use then. I have read many memoirs written much later that don’t touch on the Holocaust. I have read memoirs that only confine themselves to events on the Western front or the Pacific theatre. Does that mean the Battle of Stalingrad never happened?

      “— Isn’t it true that the Nuremberg trial was not a legal trial and just a farce with no legal defense?
      If they were so sure of their proof, why not have a normal, correct trial?”

      No, that claim is not true. Since your premise is not correct, your second question doesn’t follow.

      “Why is it illegal to question the holocaust or investigate it? Why is it the only event in history forbidden to be questioned?”

      It’s not- it is legal to do so in many countries. You are doing exactly that right now, and failing at it I might add.

      In several Eastern European countries, the most recent being Ukraine, there are laws banning Communist symbols, rehabilitation of Communism, etc. Ukraine also legally forbids condemnation of “fighters for Ukrainian independence,” which is about the UPA, a murderous collaborationist organization that simply claimed to be fighting for Ukrainian independence when in fact they opened the doors to a state that wanted to destroy Ukrainians and seize their land. But of course that wasn’t their “intention,” so we’re supposed to treat the UPA like heroes. Intentions matter more than results, apparently.

      “— How can you accept “evidence” from Soviet generals and prosecutors, knowing how they have been faking everything for 30 years in their purges, checkas, gulags and genocides?”

      This statement makes no sense. Literacy, get some. The evidence of Nuremberg did not come solely from the USSR. In fact, some things presented by the USSR were rejected by the court.

      I think it’s clear from the rest of your rant that you are basically a person of very low intelligence with poor critical thinking skills, and you believe you are clever because you know some secret, esoteric knowledge. In reality, you are just a dupe of a collection of frauds, and you blame Jews for your personal failures.

      I’m not impressed by your supposed “reading,” because in your rants it is evident that you adhere to a conspiratorial mindset, where you dismiss any facts that contradict your little conspiracy theory. Here’s a good example of this:

      “The “German war-crimes” are a hoax, or done by Soviet troops disguised as German troops, as thousands and thousands of russians did, and british special forces too. Nuremberg is the biggest disgrace of the century.”

      This is the kind of mental gymnastics you need in order to keep the facts out of your bizarre little world view. It takes effort to remain this stupid.

      “There were a million foreign volunteers in the SS, Hitler was LOVED, had WON ELECTIONS, HONESTLY, WITH HIS BOOK EXPLAINING EVERYTHING. ”

      Hitler was not elected to power. You claim to have read so much on this topic and yet you keep making the most basic mistakes.

      “It’s a fact that NS Germany was boycotted in 1933 by Jews, how “legal and democratic”.

      Is it illegal for people to boycott things? Is it somehow undemocratic for people to choose not to buy certain products from a certain country because they disagree with its policy? Are you actually this stupid? Did you actually think this is a good argument?

      “I bet you haven’t read pro-German stuff for more than a few days here and there. I dare you teach yourself, or are you afraid?””

      I’ve read plenty of that crap. You haven’t shown me a single argument here that I haven’t read before and seen smacked down by the weight of evidence. And the cool thing is that I don’t have to rely on a worldwide conspiracy spanning several decades in order to explain away any deficiencies in the historical record. You do, apparently.

      Once again we see your Dunning-Kruger syndrome at work here, when you say “teach yourself.” See your education, based on the works of intellectual conmen, is worthless, yet you hold it in high regard.

      Now as for the rest of your rant, I could write pages upon pages debunking every idiotic, ahistorical claim you make there, so if you want to continue this pathetic “debate,” you will do so only on one condition. You will answer MY questions:

      1. How do you explain the Max Taubner verdict?

      2. How do you explain Goebbels diary? No denier I’ve ever known has managed to come up with a coherent explanation for this, and claiming it was forged simply doesn’t add up.

      3. Who were the hoaxers? Who made the hoax? I want names. “The Communists” or “the Jews” doesn’t suffice. Give me some names.

      4. How did the hoaxers know that WWII would end exactly as it did, with Poland and much of Eastern Europe behind Soviet lines? How did they know that the wartime alliance would definitely break up and a Cold War would occur? How did they know that Germany wouldn’t sue for peace in 1942 or 1943? When would they have to start planning this “hoax?,” and if it was earlier than 1941 how would they know that Germany would lose the war? How could they be sure that the governments involved wouldn’t start leaking info so as to discredit one another?

      5. Since the USSR did have a lot of the evidence for the Holocaust, how is it possible that not only the USSR, but also the Russian Federation and the former Soviet Republics never leaked anything about this hoax, even after their governments went through many changes? The USSR took an anti-Zionist policy after 1953- releasing info on the Holocaust would have seriously hurt the US-Israeli cause while aiding the Arab states. It is well known that Soviet politics during this period could often resemble straight-out anti-Semitism, so why wouldn’t they leak out some documents that put the Holocaust into question? Why didn’t this happen after the fall of the Soviet Union? The Soviet archives have been open in Russia and other republics since 1991, and yet to date nobody has found so much as a note that tells someone to fake an atrocity, build a gas chamber, or whatever.

      6. How do you explain German train records which accurately count numbers of people sent to certain camps, but then when the train arrives the increase in camp population is far lower than the number of people that arrived on the train? Where did those missing people go?

      Reply
  3. carma

    The French resistance is a myth, highly exaggerated, and they were not French, but SPANISH VETERANS, from the Spanish civil war.

    Reply
    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      While many veterans of the Spanish Civil War did fight in the resistance, no, the resistance was not a “myth” and they weren’t all Spanish.

      I’m very sorry but at this point you’ve proven yourself to be so disconnected from reality that there is really no point in “debating” with you. Your claims are frivolous, lacking any historical merit.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s