Dmitry Orlov

Since I mostly publish in English and in French, most of you, my readers, find yourselves living in North America or in Europe. And since I happen to be Russian, my attitude is pro-Russian — as you would expect, as you would cats to be pro-cat and dogs to be pro-dog. This is potentially a problem for you, my dear readers, since in the countries in which you find yourselves being pro-Russian is a crime. Hence, my call for caution.

I take it as axiomatic that Europe and the US are being run by genocidal maniacs who are hell-bent on killing as many Russians as possible, be they Russian Russians or Ukrainian Russians. The difference between the two is not so much cultural, religious or linguistic as it is ethical and moral. My distinctly Russian attitude is that Ukrainians are Russians who have lost their way. Russia had also lost its way, albeit briefly, and in this we have done a great disservice to the Ukrainians, causing them to once again succumb to the siren call of the west.

In any case, the Genocidal Maniacs of the West, who have been hell-bent on killing as many Russians as possible for 830 years (ever since Pope Celestine III’s call for the Northern Crusades in 1195) have taken advantage of this situation and, overcome by their centuries-old bloodlust, have funneled huge quantities of money and weapons to the losing side (the Ukrainians, that is), resulting in at least a million deaths, most of them on the Ukrainian side.

In perpetuating the fiction that this is some sort of “just war,” the Genocidal Maniacs of the West no longer feel restrained by any legal requirements or strictures. To them, anybody who is active socially or on the internet (which are the same thing at this point) and who is pro-Russian is automatically a criminal. So, here’s the choice: either you stay in North America or in Europe, or you can be pro-Russian. (Conversely, if you are in Russia and are anti-Russian, you can easily find yourself labeled as a foreign agent and face certain unpleasant consequences.) There is a war going on, you know. “The first casualty when war comes is truth,” said Senator Hiram W Johnson.

There are some people who apparently believe themselves to be magic elves to whom no evil can ever befall and who violate this cardinal rule: those who say pro-Russian things while remaining in Europe or the US. Examples include the Swiss military expert Jacques Baud and the former Iraqi arms inspector Scott Ritter, who have suddenly found their bank accounts frozen. And let’s not forget the Chilean/American journalist Gonzalo Lira who was tortured to death in a Ukrainian jail. I am sure that I am failing to mention quite a few other such people, but that is the range of negative experiences one should expect: the lightest sanction one would face is financial, the heaviest getting tortured to death.

Their predicament results from a combination of two root causes:

1. being on the wrong side physically and

2. being on the wrong side publicly

They could have avoided their predicament either by shifting sides or by keeping quiet. Taking their location as a given, the root cause reduces to UNSAFE PUBLICITY.

Some of them attempt to “fix” their problem through even greater unsafe publicity — with the help of YouTube journalists such as Tucker Carlson or judge Napolitano. By the way, some of these YouTube journalists may also turn out to be magic elves — but not all: there is also Nima. He may look like a magic elf but he isn’t one, since he broadcasts from the safety of distinctly pro-Russian Brazil.

Some also attempt to “fix” their problem by applying legal or political pressure — but the problem with this approach is that anybody who comes to the defense of someone who is pro-Russian is also automatically pro-Russian and therefore, axiomatically, a criminal. Therefore, these approaches only enlarge the problem.

The only solution to someone who has gotten into trouble by making pro-Russian statements or expressing pro-Russian sentiments in the public space in Europe or the US is EXPATRIATION. But this is not possible without considerable preparation and planning, so the only viable alternative for most people is keeping their mouths shut.

I know that many people feel that speaking the truth is somehow an impenetrable defense: how can someone accuse you of making statements that are provably true? For them, it is important to understand that concepts such as “truth” no longer apply in Europe or the US. Statements made or opinions expressed in public must fit one of the acceptable, mainstream narratives.

If you are in (no longer great) Britain, same goes for statements or opinions made or expressed in private — the walls have ears and so do the gadgets through which people now communicate. You might still get away with thinking contrary thoughts, but only because the prosecution of thought crimes is still technically challenging.

[…]

Via https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/a4eb8c02-5acf-472d-868d-a92ac8521191