PJ 97
CHAPTER 13

REC #2 HATONN

THU., JUN. 9, 1994 2:58 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 297

THU., JUN. 9, 1994

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY
How can you tell when the Elite are REALLY concerned about someone? Watch how they do a fourteen-page blast and horror trip about them in FOREIGN AFFAIRS, the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) journal. Then look to see who got commis­sioned to write the article and thus and so. In the instance we are going to utilize now we will take up Mr. Zhirinovsky and the fourteen-page article in FOREIGN AFFAIRS commissioned by the CFR and author of the article in point, Jacob W. Kipp. Won't this remind my own crew, who just got blasted in a rag-sheet from Las Vegas by one Aaron Cohen! Since the article about me was 100% about garbage and certainly not about the Trillion Dollar Lie, I have to surmise he hasn't read much of my work.

Well, I always like publicity and especially from a weekly com­pilation of all the "dirty" gamboling spots in Vegas. I am only sorry to not have made the same page with the advertisement for surgical enlargements of male penises and nipples--by up to three full inches! Now THAT is important "stuff", readers. So be it. I'm afraid the attention will ultimately hurt me no more than it has hurt Zhirinovsky!

Worried about Zhirinovsky really? Oh indeed, for the minute these Elite New World Order lame-brains blink--he will wipe them off the map!

So who is Kipp?

Jacob W. Kipp is a Senior Analyst with the Foreign Military Study Office at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas and Adjunct Pro­fessor of History at the University of Kansas. He is also U.S. Editor of European Security. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be interpreted as representing those of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense. [H: Golly, how about the Council on Foreign Relations?]

[H: Now just why would we want to waste time on this topic? Because it is evident it has a LOT to do with the rest of the global politics and perhaps survival itself. If it is this important a topic to the CFR when most of Americans haven't ever heard of the man in point--IT MUST BE IMPORTANT! We must have a REAL THREAT here--to A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE!]


QUOTING

THE ZHIRINOVSKY THREAT
DANGER TO RUSSIAN DEMOCRACY
In the ongoing drama of what Russia is to be--state or em­pire, democracy or autocracy [H: Everybody in the Elite corps of disaster makers--REPUBLIC is avoided like AIDS.], Vladimir Zhirinovsky has shouldered his way to center stage with a bellicose, attention-grabbing performance. Some Russian and Western observers have quickly concluded that this ul­tranationalist is a bit player, thrust forward less by his own de­vices than by the inadequacies of Russian reformers in the De­cember parliamentary elections. Yet it would be dangerous to dismiss Zhirinovsky, with his rash, outlandish statements to the press, as a self-destructive clown. His writings and the state­ments by key ideologues of his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), as well as his electioneering skills, make him a potent threat to Russian democracy. Post-election surveys indicate voters support his ideas, and not just as a protest against eco­nomic conditions.

Zhirinovsky and his year-old Liberal Democratic Party sur­faced in June 1991 when he drew six million votes, almost eight percent of the total election returns, to finish third in the Russian presidential election won by Boris Yeltsin. [H: Yes, and this was with the usual "fixed" election places AND TOTAL IN­ABILITY TO HAVE ANY MEDIA COVERAGE AT ALL--JUST LIKE THE LITTLE INDEPENDENT RUNNERS IN AMERICA--IN FACT THIS WHOLE THING WAS SET-UP BY THE AMERICANS--OF ZIONIST DESCENT.]
Two-­and-a-half years later, in December's parliamentary elections, his populist television campaigning garnered the LDP nearly 25 percent of the vote. Russia's political leaders and intellectuals, along with the West, were aghast to find this demagogue commanding a strategic position in the new 450-seat assembly, along with a fairly large bloc of hard-line, anti-reform Commu­nists. Although mutually hostile on a number of key issues, the Communists and the LDP are proving capable of selective coop­eration. Together they voted to release those who had led both the 1991 coup against former Soviet President Mikhail Gor­bachev and the October 1993 insurrection in the Parliament. Zhirinovsky instigated the surprise anti-Yeltsin maneuver fully aware that freeing Aleksandr Rutskoi might empower a more centrist rival for the political leadership of nationalist forces.

With hindsight it is evident that Zhirinovsky expertly organized for election success while openly portraying the effort as merely positioning himself for the next presidential election, whenever it may come. Rising discontent about Russia's declining economic condition increased Zhirinovsky's appeal be­tween the 1991 and 1993 elections and, as the economy con­tinues to falter, Russian commentators suggest that his appeal will continue to grow. His base of support consists of relatively well-educated young males from larger cities, older less-edu­cated males from smaller cities, disgruntled rural residents and numerous members of the Russian armed forces. Zhirinovsky pledged to resolve the country's problems--by granting privi­leges to Russian businessmen facing foreign competitors, in­creasing arms export sales, ending Russia's "humiliations" abroad, and even getting husbands for unwed women and cheap vodka for all.

In response, Yeltsin has shorn his government of reformers and adopted Zhirinovsky's calls for a crackdown on crime, an assertive foreign policy and strong state controls over economic and social activities. Some experts, including former U.S. State Department official Paul Goble, see the real danger not in Zhirinovsky but rather "in the way Boris Yeltsin and other Rus­sian 'reformers' are likely to exploit the Zhirinovsky vote to pressure the former Soviet republics, and in the extraordinary likelihood that the West will complacently accept whatever de­mands the Russian president makes on them".

Russian reformers and Western observers have tended to underestimate the appeal of Zhirinovsky and his party. Even as late as the summer of 1993, foreign observers played down the threat to Russian democracy and the West coming from Zhiri­novsky and other "Red-Browns". Richard Pipes, a leading his­torian of modern Russia and the Soviet Union, writing on the eve of the constitutional crisis that would pit President Yeltsin against his vice president and the Supreme Court, dismissed the Red-Brown threat as portrayed in Walter Laqueur's Black Hun­dred, a work devoted to the rise of the extreme right in Russia. Pipes spoke of fanatics seeking power and "the ravings of ex­tremist intellectuals" but concluded that Laqueur's warning was a "false alarm". As the events of the next few months would show, Russia was far less stable than Pipes' analysis suggested.

A major problem was that Yeltsin's government used its control of the media during the electoral campaign to play down the growing power of the Red-Browns in general, and Zhiri­novsky's LDP in particular. During the last week of the cam­paign, when the LDP bought 220 minutes of television time to get its message to the voters, that attitude began to change. A last-minute effort by Vyuacheslav Bragin, then chief of Ostank­ino Television, to use a program on Zhirinovsky and the LDP to "sober up" the electorate to the Zhirinovsky threat backfired. Only on the eve of elections did Russia's Choice, the top reform party, led by Yegor Gaidar, warn that it was time to stop con­sidering Zhirinovsky a "harmless clown" and to recognize him as "a threat to Russia's existence". [H: No, just to the Elite Zionist's existence! With such a man in power--Russia might just have a chance.]

There has been a strong tendency to dismiss Zhirinovsky's success as part protest vote and part personal charisma. [H: Personal charisma?? This man is a dirt-poor, hard labor one-of-the-poor-peasant people! This hardly smacks of some hierarchical political CHARISMA.] Laqueur characterized Zhirinovsky as "a fine orator-demagogue" with shrewd political instincts but no real party or program.
[H: Well, there you have IT, readers, as Mr. Laqueur just proved his own work to be totally absurd and that is what this article, likewise ab­surd, is based upon. Ah, but next we bring Mr. William Safire into the mouth-wagging equation and you can be SURE that Mr. Zhirinovsky has some good attributes, after all. Keep alert, readers, and you'll get the picture without ever being shown the ACTUAL PICTURE!] Political colum­nist William Safire dismissed the "panic over Mr. Z." as exces­sive. More recently, "60 Minutes" broadcast a feature on Zhirinovsky by Australian television entitled THE MAD RUS­SIAN. [H: Again--I'd say that is about as good as "compliment" as you can get from the controlled MEDIA!] In an interview with Zhirinovsky, the reporter asked him to comment on whether he was
"a harmless clown or an evil clown". Zhirinovsky dismissed both those characterizations a "propaganda" by his enemies. [H: Well, good reader, how would YOU answer such a complimentary question? Could Mr. Z. win either way? Why don't you just ask Sir Reno if she only murders children or actually is an arsonist who just burns them to death?]

Such commentary underplays the real threat Zhirinovsky rep­resents to Russian democracy. Were conditions to worsen, Zhirinovsky's skills at marshaling public distemper and the ap­peal of his ideas could produce additional unwanted surprises. Thus the ideas that propel him, apart from his impromptu, headline-grabbing outbursts, are worth serious examination. [H: Now I am asked, "Whose side are you on anyway, America's or Russia's"? NEITHER. Dharma happens to be an American--I AM NEITHER RUSSIAN NOR AMERICAN! Perhaps that is WHY I can be objective and point out the truth of this fine kettle of fish you have caught and can't see because the pot water is so dirty.]
WHAT'S IN A NAME?
At first glance the designation "liberal democratic" seems a misnomer. Yet Zhirinovsky's choice of the terms liberal and democratic to describe his party is no accident. It is a conscious effort to distinguish his movement from other nationalist move­ments that range from monarchist to Communist. [H: What would you expect him to call a Party, United Socialist Soviet Republic?? Wasn't something similar to that already "taken"?]

In Zhirinovsky's hands "liberal" is an ahistorical category designating his outsider status. This is necessary for his political success because it allows him to invoke a mythic past before So­viet power and to place himself outside the political process that brought about the current crisis. [H: And what does "liberal" mean in English? I see--every category claims a DIFFERENT definition?] "Liberal" in this sense is used by Zhiri­novsky to invoke the idea that his party stands in the center of the political spectrum, while the democrats and Communists oc­cupy the extremes. The party's slogan, "Through a pluralism of opinions of the superiority of the law", consciously invokes ties with past Russian liberalism.

Previously, Russian liberalism carried a notion of moderate reform and Westernization. Russian liberals sought to build a civic society under law and were hardly radical democrats. Moreover, conservative nationalists, populists and Marxists, who were at odds with one another on almost every issue, were united in their rejection of liberals. Liberalism was branded as part of a utopian dream, disconnected from Russian realities. Liberals were depicted as compromisers, spouting noble senti­ments but achieving petty deeds.

No concept was more rejected than the idea of gradual re­form. Indeed, Western scholars, in gauging the failure of prerevolutionary liberal bureaucrats, zemstvo reformers (locally and provincially elected assemblies created by the tsarist government) and Constitutional Democrats, have emphasized the dis­junction between backward Russia and the liberals' advocacy of individual freedom within a civic society. For prerevolutionary liberals, the emancipation of the individual and society from the oppression of an autocratic state could come only through a state under law. But how to create such a state in a multinational empire proved an unsolvable dilemma. For Zhirinovsky, statism is a key ingredient but, unlike the historical liberals and more like Lenin's Bolsheviks in 1917, his LDP is ready to take state power into its own hands.

STATE AND EMPIRE
For Zhirinovsky, the idea of a strong Russified state is not antithetical to empire. Rather, it is the preferred tool for recre­ating the Russian imperial reality of old.
[H: Oh, how so? Does this mean if you get rid of the Zionist Communists as brought into power by the Revolution that you long for and will have an "IMPERIAL" reality, much less assume Zhiri­novsky WANTS ONE? How dare this foolish author to even ASSUME such a stance--certainly Zhirinovsky has NEVER STATED ANY SUCH DESIRE.] Thus, he starkly rejects the 75-year-old Soviet totalitarian experiment based on federalism in form and empire in content.
[H: Good grief, the man just said he wanted an "Imperial reality"--even this amazing author cannot have it BOTH WAYS. This work is so badly done that I'm not sure, readers, I can make it all the way through it for it is difficult to let a single sentence pass un-noted. The really dangerous entities to you-the-people are ones just like this author who work for Kissinger Associates on the CFR, Trilateral Commission and other such deceivers.]

In his memoirs, Zhirinovsky speaks of going "forward bravely toward a European model of society: a free economy, the rights of the individual in first place, a civic society". But he would pursue such an objective through a revolution from above, wrought by a state that is centralized, authoritarian and expansionist. [H: Gosh, he must be talking about the United States of America.] He has only contempt for the doctrine of separation of powers: "What is needed is a strict, centralized authority, otherwise no reforms will be achieved. There must be one state, one president. But without a centralized econ­omy". Finally, there must be no challenges to Russian sovereignty and authority. For Zhirinovsky, Russia is the em­pire. "For us the main [point] is the territory of our state. Re­turn to us the historical borders and name of the state--we only want that"! [H: Are you sleepyheads ever going to ask for YOURS BACK?] He has no time for federalism and expects "small nations" to accept their fate.

While declaring that he is not, a chauvinist, Zhirinovsky speaks of a state run only for Russians and tells other nationali­ties who do not like it to leave. [H: No snit-fit? I can promise you dreamers--that there isn't anyone from any other place than my nationality that is going to run MY SHIP WHICH IS AS BIG AS YOUR GLOBE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT "HOME BASE".] An ethnically pure Russian state is his an­swer to the threat of anarchy. [H: See how slippery this old dude writer really is? He uses "nationality" as an implica­tion of no other color, creed, person, spouse or whatever. For instance, you are supposed to have "citizens of the U.S. in places of government--BUT THE ENTIRE RULING CLASS OF ADVISORS, ETC., ARE FOREIGN--MOSTLY RUSSIAN JEWS WHO WEREN'T ETHNICALLY RUS­SIAN--EITHER. Again:] An ethnically pure Russian state is his answer to the threat of anarchy. [H: In other words--the intent would be to have a "nation", not a influx of unlawful bullies and counterfeits? Or would that type of a statement make us ALL somehow "anti-Semitic"? Well, we are getting close to the PROBLEM (the REAL PROBLEM), AREN'T WE?] In place of the existing federal system, which safeguards the rights of national minorities, Zhirinovsky has proposed a return to a provincial system of local government [H: My God! What a heretic. Now, in addition, Mr. Z. wants provincial­ism--whatever happened to "Imperialism" from the last paragraph?] where the provinces, as in tsarist times, are con­trolled by the central government through the Ministry of Inter­nal Affairs. Zhirinovsky posits that the Russian empire is not a luxury but a means of national survival. Of current conditions in the federation and adjacent new states, he writes, "Russians everywhere become a national minority, gradually being de­stroyed. This will be the slow murder of the Russian nation. Because nowhere is there purely Russian territory, nowhere. ... If we follow such a path, the Russian nation will die". [H: Yep, just like the good old U.S.A. HAS DIED!]

Zhirinovsky speaks of restoring Russia to the imperial fron­tiers of 1900, when Russia included parts of contemporary Poland and Finland. He warns that denying Russia its historical borders will only lead to war. Thus the mere acceptance of the dissolution of the Soviet Union into sovereign successor states is an act of treason. The Liberal Democratic Party rejects the cre­ation of the Commonwealth of Independent States as an "illegal, anti-constitutional act". [H: I won't even TOUCH that "Constitutional" bit as relates to similarities of treason in the U.S.A.] Party ideologues refer to the commonwealth as con­sisting of "the countries of beggars and the hungry" and "a pub­lic toilet".

While he speaks of restoring Russia's historical frontiers, Zhirinovsky has also called upon Russia to expand southward. Zhirinovsky has associated this final spurt to the south with a "final division of the world". This geopolitical coup is to be done as "shock therapy, suddenly, rapidly and effectively", and will end with Russia and India sharing a common border. This would bring order from Kabul to Istanbul, eliminate the "red, Muslim, Turkic and Islamic threats", and remove the threat of a third world war. [H: Now readers, I heard that interview also--and nothing of the sort was even implied. The hope was to bring peace and working cooperation within the na­tions and become as one working region for the betterment of BOTH. What he actually said is now offered in italics and it is not what this man just implied.]

The final "thrust" to the south: As I dream of it, Rus­sian soldiers will wash their boots in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean and forever change to summer uniforms. ... We must pacify that region forever. [H: Pacify as properly defined means: PEACE AND FURTHER AS STATED HERE: PEACE IN THE REGION.]

Rejecting Communist Federalism as "a pretty Bolshevik [H: And just WHO were and are the Bolsheviks?] myth", Zhiri­novsky's supporters oppose the idea of a territorial state in which citizenship is a function of residence. They reject a multinational Russian Federation in favor or a centralized Russia of one nationality, Russian, sharing one culture and language. In short, they reject a civic state in favor of an ethnic state. [H: Say what?] According to Zhirinovsky, non-Russians would be Russified and the Orthodox religion given a "dominant posi­tion". [H: Well, remember your public law that now states you in the U.S. have a one religion country, Noahedic Law! I would guess that you do not longer have SOVEREIGN states, either, lest all those states wouldn't have to be going back into the courts to regain any semblance of sovereignty from your controlling puppets in Washington, Decidedly Criminal. If you can turn America into an "Israeli homeland", as is touted as already accomplished by Jewish lawyer Dershowitz, then is it any wonder Russia might just like to make her own decisions? Since when do YOU at any level have to butt into their business? The facts are that you have no longer a nation or any freedom--AND THAT, READ­ERS, IS A FACT!]

The new Russia is a state under law, an enlightened state. This is a powerful presidential regime, a powerful, multiparty parliament. This is legislation, which is for the ages, which we won't have to change every ten years. This is a constitution, which respects everyone from infant to elder. This is a unified symbol throughout the entire country--the black, yellow, white flag, the state flag of Russia. It must wave over all state institutions in every region of our huge Fatherland. This is the country's an­them, one anthem. This is the state language, the lan­guage of interethnic communication, Russian. This is a single monetary unit--the ruble.
[H: Seems to me, good people, that a lot of you could take some lessons.]

Zhirinovsky's LDP ideologues understand the force of such ideas in the struggle for power and note the weakness of their Communist and democratic opponents in trying to enlist Russian nationalists. Those democrats who were responsible for establishing the commonwealth and the ensuing reforms, according to the LDP's ideologues, embraced radical reform and revolution in the interests of their master, the United States. Thus Gaidar, the architect of "shock therapy," and his supporters are labeled "false democrats". With its notion of a national bourgeoisie in the service of foreign capital, Zhirinovsky's use of the term is a throwback to Marxist criticism but from a nationalist perspec­tive. [H: Oh my gosh, this dastardly man even suggests GOVERNMENT BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE. HOW LONG HAS ANYONE FOUGHT FOR YOUR GOVERN­MENT FOR AND BY THE PEOPLE? OR, DO YOU JUST GO ALONG WITH EVERY TOM, DICK AND JACOB THAT COMES ALONG ACTING LIKE SOME KIND OF AN AUTHORITY WHEN IN FACT IS BUT THE WORST OF THE WORST DESTROYERS OF YOUR REPUBLIC AND TEACHES THIS GARBAGE TO THE REST OF THE SELF-STYLED, SO-CALLED ELITE RULERS OF THE CFR, ET AL. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RUS­SIA AS YOU RECOGNIZE RUSSIA OR WITH SOMEONE CALLED ZHIRINOVSKY. THIS HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH STOPPING ANY IDEA OF UPSETTING THE ONE WORLD ORDER AND ONE WORLD GOVERN­MENT (BY THE ELITE PUPPET-MASTERS) AND YOU ARE GOING TO BE STRUCK DUMB WHEN YOU FIND OUT JUST WHO THEY ARE HEADED-UP BY.]

STOP (FOR TODAY)

It has been a long, long day and now it is past the dinner hour also. This is worth further discussion because it is so typical of the examples I search for continually to share with you readers--so that YOU can bring balance into your perceptions. This author of the above garbage is so obviously AGAINST anything that smacks of national FREEDOM as to make you toss your turkey, and that insults the "turkey".
I will grant this much--EVERYTHING in this particular journal, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, is, after study--tantamount to TREASON and yet you accuse "me" of treasonous writings and "citing to insurrection". Well, that is what the "Feds" want to pin on the Ekkers. Insurrection? I warn you that I will have no association with any of you who advocate overthrow of even this sickly and treasonous government--you reclaim through CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. I warn you about sovereignizing yourselves except for State status in all instances and I abhor even the THOUGHT of you picking up guns and weapons. Insurrection? I think not. I do not lie, cheat or steal and I abide no-one in my ranks who does. I ex­pect each to utilize his/her talents and abide by the Laws of God--and the Constitution of the United States of America which WAS the law of the land and has NEVER been legally changed--only in practice. I NEVER even though sanction the breaking of the local rules--even they be stupid and unlawfully applied or made. If awakening citizens to the truth in the midst of the trea­son is "insurrection" or "inciting to insurrection" by use of a pen, then you have proven my point for me, good Sirs--there is no longer freedom of press, speech, religion or any other form of remaining Constitutional rules OR Bill of Rights. So be it.

Good evening and thank you.

APPENDIX
THE REMAINDER OF THIS JOURNAL IS A

COLLECTION OF TIMELY NEWS AND/OR

EDUCATIONAL ITEMS

CHAPTER 14
ELECTION OF JUDGES IS MANDATORY
TO: CONTACT, INC.
RE: Nos. 90-757 AND 90-1032
RONALD CHISOM, ET AL., PETITIONERS
90-757 v.
CHARLES E. ROEMER, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER
90-1032 v.
CHARLES E. ROEMER, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

On the upper left of page six (6) it clearly states that: "If exec­utive officers such as prosecutors, sheriffs, state attorneys gen­eral and state treasurers, can be considered "representatives" simply because they are chosen by popular election, then the same reasoning should apply to elected judges".

Louisiana chose to elect its judges and to compel judicial candi­dates to vie for popular support just as other political candidates do.

California also chose to elect its judges. They 'must' be elected. They cannot be elected if they did not receive at least 'one' vote.

They cannot receive 'one' vote unless their name was on a bal­lot--thus they cannot be a judge.

If anywhere along the line at court hearings, rulings and judicial decisions were, made against a litigant by a person wearing a black robe who had not been legally elected, a link in the chain of judicial authority and jurisdiction was broken.

I have fought the corruption of the California Constitution since 1969, when Jerome Berenson, a Mishpucka shyster was a prin­cipal conspirator in this corruption. He had been an imposter Superior Court Judge for more than 20 years without once ap­pearing on a ballot.

My contention and firm belief is that anyone persecuted by one of these imposters has an absolute right to have all judicial ac­tions taken against them dismissed and reversed.

I hope that Gene, after perusing the Chisom v. Roemer decision, sees it the same as I do.

My specific contention is that a decision must be made by the Supreme Court that their rulings cannot be ignored by shyster lawyers and judges in the state of California and innocent citi­zens destroyed by their evil.

I believe that presently there may be as many as 80 to 90% of the people wearing black robes in California who were never elected.

This, of course, presents a situation of unbelievable judicial chaos in both Civil and Criminal cases, but, even so it is of no making of ours and cannot be ignored and allowed to continue just because these crooks can now scream that, 'we' are trying to destroy 'their' judicial system.

But the shyster lawyers will get over this 'Revolting Develop­ment' when they realize how much new business fees and ex­penses it will generate for them in retrying and settling hundreds of thousands of cases in which they have already made fortunes on over the last twenty years.

But this must be done at the expense of all the scum who have put this misery on us.

I have investigated and researched what they call 'The Judges Pension Fund'.

There are billions of dollars in this mysterious fund that no-one seems to want to admit exists, much less who administers it and what evil, side purposes this vast sum of money is used for.

G.W.