By John Helmer, Moscow

In publishing on Russia, there comes a time when a writer, journalist, bank analyst, television presenter, or academic produces something so lacking in truthfulness, so replete with fawning and meretriciousness, that this website must kill and skin another goat; dry out the vellum; and have a fresh scroll inscribed with the Cat’s Paw – that’s the Personal Abasement Award (PAW).

This award is designed to encourage accountability and ethical reporting on Russia. The PAW committee decided to suspend the Cat’s Paw awards when the start of the Ukraine civil war threatened to overwhelm the supply of vellum and the goat population on which it depends. The goats who have earned the Cat’s PAW scroll have also multiplied exponentially.


By John Helmer, Moscow

Tall stories told by newspapers and their reporters generally don’t start wars. But they do justify them in advance. Afterwards they protect the officials who start them from being prosecuted for war crimes.

On August 5, 1964, there was no truth in President Lyndon Johnson’s claim – reported by every major US newspaper – that there had been “open aggression on the high seas against the United States of America” by North Vietnamese gunboats in the Gulf of Tonkin. That’s because the US Navy destroyer Maddux had been inside North Vietnam’s territorial waters to pinpoint shore targets, after US and South Vietnamese naval vessels had opened fire on North Vietnamese islands in the area several days earlier. The August 4 reports of a gunboat attack on the Maddux “appear very doubtful”, according to a secret cable sent by the Maddux commander to his headquarters at the time. In retrospect, all the available evidence indicates that no attack took place. What is certain, however, is that the fiction was good enough for Johnson to get the US Congress to enact the August 7, 1964, resolution giving the US administration the warrant to start a full-scale invasion of Vietnam by US ground forces. The outcome is well-known. The US was defeated in that war. About 50,000 US soldiers returned in body bags, and about 3.8 million Vietnamese (10% of the population) went prematurely into the ground.


July 14, 2009

Tim Whehell and BBC Newsnight for beating the English language of a UK High Court ruling into the opposite of what it said about the nature of Russian justice, its beneficiaries and victims
Sent: 17 July 2009 14:47
To: Tim Whewell
Subject: Your evidence please
Dear Tim:

In your recent broadcast on Oleg Deripaska, you make the following claim about the ruling of Justice Christopher Clarke in the Cherney v Deripaska High Court action (at minutes 0538-0550 of the tape):

“…The judge said that Deripaska had agreed a final global payment to end Mr Cherney and Mr Malevsky’s protection of his business, words used by Mr Deripaska himself in his statement to the court.”

Please provide me with your substantiation of the judge’s words, as I have searched the ruling and cannot find them; or anything approaching your interpretation of Justice Clarke’s opinion on the substance of the case. At 0526 minutes, you state: “the ruling didn’t deal with the substance of the claim”. Twelve seconds later you seem to have contradicted yourself.


May 8-July 3, 2009

Adam Waldman of The Endeavor Group, Washington, DC, for “correction” of media publications reporting that he is Oleg Deripaska’s lobbyist to recover Deripaska’s US visa, revoked by the US State Department in 2006

Registration with the US Department of Justice by Adam Waldman for The Endeavour Group, pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registratrion Act, May 8, 2009:

Reports and correspondence

Deripaska in Frantic Bid for Visa
354 words
18 June 2009
Intelligence Online
Copyright 2009 Indigo Publications All Rights Reserved

Close to Hillary Clinton, the Endeavour company has been hired to obtain a visa for Oleg Deripaska.
Since July, 2006, the chairman of the aluminum giant Rusal, Oleg Deripaska, has lacked a visa for the United States: the State Department cancelled the former visa without explanation two years after issuing it. The travel ban could play havoc with the oligarch’s finances at a moment when he needs the most help. Rusal is currently negotiating for fresh terms with its creditors who are owed USD 7.4 billion. The talks with banks were almost completed as Intelligence Online went to press.
To help persuade the State Department to give him a new visa, Deripaska retained the services of a small lobbying concern, Endeavour Group, at the end of May. Run by Adam Waldman and Ashley Allen, Endeavor specializes in providing services to billionaire and show business personalities. It is particularly known for mounting philanthropic projects on behalf of its clients but it equally acts to resolve delicate private matters.
Deripaska’s choice of Endeavor to land him a visa was dictated by the fact the firm is close to secretary of state Hillary Clinton. One of the partners of Endeavor, Lorrie McHugh-Wytkind, was Clinton’s head of communications when she was a senator for New York state.
Some of the firm’s advisers are also close to the Clinton couple, including Bill Clinton’s former secretary of the interior, Bruce Babbitt. And financier Richard Blum, husband of the influential Democrat from California, Diane Feinstein, is also a consultant of Endeavor, as is Ed Mathias, one of the founders of the Carlyle equity fund. Mathias is also an adviser to the business intelligence concern Diligence, who worked for Deripaska for years.
Before taking his business to Endeavor, Deripaska had other firms working on his visa problem. One who banged on the State Department’s door on behalf of the oligarch was Bob Dole, former Republican senator and presidential candidate. Dole works as a lobbyist for the law firm Alston & Bird.

02/07/2009 UNITED STATES
Following publication of our article “Deripaska in Frantic Bid for Visa” in our last issue, the oligarch’s public relations firm in Washington, Endeavour, contacted Intelligence Online to specify that Lorrie McHugh-Wytkind, former head of communications for Hillary Clinton and a partner in Endeavour, was not involved in the firm’s work on behalf of Deripaska . The latter’s visa was withdrawn by the State Department in July, 2006 without explanation and he has been trying ever since to have a new one issued. Elsewhere, Endeavour said that Bill Clinton’s former interior secretary, Bruce Babbit, who sits on the company’s informal advisory board, has no contact with its customers. Endeavour also pointed out that it was not a lobbying concern, as Intelligence Online stated.

—– Original Message —–
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:31 PM
Subject: From Moscow — re Oleg Deripaska visa representation


President, Endeavour Group
2001 K Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr Waldman:

I am the longest serving American correspondent in Russia. You may find background and samples of my coverage, which is published around the world, if you will go to the website address indicated in the header. My questions relate to the report of your firm’s engagement by Oleg Deripaska.

I am grateful to Ms Cooke for agreeing to convey to you, and the other appropriate members of your firm, my request for clarification of the matters arising from the recent reports by Intelligence Online

Regarding the June 18, 2009, report, and the July 2 “clarification”, would be kind enough to say:

1. Has your firm been engaged by Mr Deripaska? If so, when?

2. Is the purpose of the engagement to assist Mr Deripaska in securing State Department and other US Government endorsement for the issuance of a visa permitting him to enter the US?

3. Has your firm registered pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act? If so, when?

4. What members of your firm have been designated to work on this engagement for Mr Deripaska?

5. Are you aware of, and do you believe to be true, US reports that in relation to the US visa matter, and other issues, Mr Deripaska met together with the Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates, prior to Election Day last year, on board a yacht outside the territorial limits of the US, in Canadian waters?

6. According to your website, Edward Mathias is listed as an advisor to your group. According to Intelligence Online, Mr Mathias is “also an advisor to the intelligence firm Diligence”. Are you aware, and has Mr Mathias made you aware, that Mr Deripaska is one of the proprietors of the Diligence firm?

I shall be obliged if you would respond by email, or by telephone, as soon as possible.

Should you decline to respond, you and your firm may be reported as refusing to respond.

With my thanks,

John Helmer
Moscow Correspondent

—– Original Message —–
From: Adam Waldman
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 12:58 AM
Subject: Your July 2 Fax

Dear Mr. Helmer:

I just received a copy of your fax (and have long been a follower of your fine coverage).

I would like very much to respond to your questions, and have requested permission from my client to do so. Mindful of the time difference, what is your deadline?

Kind regards,
Adam Waldman

Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 7:54 PM
To: Adam Waldman
Subject: Re: Your July 2 Fax

Dear Mr Waldman:

Thank you for your prompt response. I’d like to offer you as much time as you think reasonable with respect to those questions your client may oblige you to obtain his permission to answer, subject to the confidentiality provisions that prevail. I take it you have been in discussion with your client on this point for at least two weeks — since June 18, the publication date of the first report by Intelligence Online.

Your second sentence, and also the July 2 response to Intelligence Online, appear to answer Q1. With respect to Q3, I suppose it is to the US statute, not to Mr Deripaska’s permission, that your duty is owed.

Qs 5 and 6 relate to matters of fact occurring before the engagement; and so I have difficulty in seeing how your knowledge, or non-knowledge, of them can be subject to non-disclosure or withholding retrospectively.

With my thanks,

John Helmer

—– Original Message —–
From: Adam Waldman
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: Your July 2 Fax

Dear Mr. Helmer:

As a general matter, the Intelligence Online piece you inquired about did not make any attempt to contact my firm Endeavor or me before running its piece; I immediately sent Intelligence Online a correction of factual inaccuracies which they agreed to run. I am not a subscriber to their service but assume they have done so at this point. I sent a similar note to Harper’s, which cited the Intelligence Online piece, and they also agreed, and did indeed, print a correction.

I do appreciate, in contrast, your request for accurate information in advance of running a piece. The following are responses to your questions in the order you presented them:

1. Although Endeavor rarely comments publicly about any aspects of its engagement with clients, it is a matter of public record that we work with Mr. Deripaska.

2. The purpose of the engagement is to advise Mr. Deripaska and entities controlled by him on a range of commercial, regulatory and philanthropic matters. We have not had any engagement with the US government about any visa matters on his behalf. Our web site is – this will provide you some feel for our work.

3. Yes, and it is a publicly available filing.

4. The answer to your question is contained in the filing; but for your convenience my colleague Carolyn Mansfield and I work with Mr. Deripaska.

5. No such meeting has ever taken place and, consequently, no such discussion of visa or other issues ever happened.

6. Mr. Deripaska is not a proprietor of Diligence, or of any other intelligence firm.

I hope these factual clarifications are helpful to you.

Kind regards,
Adam Waldman

—– Original Message —–
To: Adam Waldman
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:20 AM
Subject: Reply and follow-up questions

Dear Mr Waldman:

Thank you for taking time out of your holiday to respond, and for writing so painstakingly. At risk and with regret of interrupting your fireworks celebration, may I point out some problems that remain with your response:

Attached below is the full text of the “Clarification” published by Intelligence Online. There appears to be no “correction”, as you use the term or as you mean readers to understand it. The reference relating to Ms McHugh-Wytkind from your side clarifies what the original publication sourced to someone referring to Mr Deripaska’s intention in engaing your firm, not to what you say is your current or future “work”. I am persuaded that you are not denying the original report at all, or the implication that your firm was sought out for influence-peddling. Whether you wish to acknowledge that you accept Mr Deripaska’s idea of you (including Carolyn Mansfield) as an influence-peddler is a judgement that reasonable people are bound to be able to make if they have access to the full record.

Your two other clarifications in the Intelligence Online note — one related to Mr Babbit and one to the interpretation of the term lobbying — suggest the follow-up:

(1) Are you saying that you and Mr Babbit have gone through your list of assignments, clients, and “customers”, and have determined that Mr Babbit has had “no contact” with any of them?

(2) Are you saying that in relation to your engagement by Mr Deripaska, you and Ms Mansfield have made, and will make, no contact of any kind whatsoever with any US government official, any member of the US Congress, or anyone else connected such officials?

(3) Please clarify for me what is Ms McHugh-Wytkind’s association with your firm, and what contacts with what US Government officials she has made since she commenced with your firm, and in particular since May 8.

In relation to the wording of Question/Answer 2, you state: “The purpose of the engagement is to advise Mr. Deripaska and entities controlled by him on a range of commercial, regulatory and philanthropic matters. We have not had any engagement with the US government about any visa matters on his behalf.”

In the filing to the US Department of Justice which you signed on May 8, Registration Number 5394, at

you state: “the agreement or understanding between the registrant and the foreign principal is the result of neither a formal written contract nor an exchange of correspondence between the parties”. Please explain how you reached your understanding with Mr Deripaska, and through what persons acting for him, and what persons acting for you?

You also state: “Endeavour Group is engaged at will by Mr Deripaska to provide general legal advice on issues involving his US visa as well as commercial transactions.” You repeat this point at Box 7 of the registration form: “”Endeavour Group provides legal and advisory services to the principal Mr Deripaska around US visa issues and commercial transactions.”
At Box 8, your work on the US visa issue is explained in greater detail: “Endeavor Group assists the principal Mr Deripaska in the preparation of a US visa application and advocates for US approval of such application”.

At Box 9, you state: “Endeavour Group expects to engage with the U.S. Government regarding the status of the foreign principal’s visa application”.

If all true, please explain:

(4) How your admissions to the US Government do not belie your claim to me: “We have not had any engagement with the US government about any visa matters on his behalf”?

(5) How your “advocacy” is not “lobbying” as this term is understood in the US Code?

(6) To which officials, by name, at what US Government agencies, have you or your Firm or any person in any way connected with you and your firm made contact in relation to Mr Deripaska’s visa issue?

(7) In your registration, you state you are being paid $40,000 per month, plus expenses, by Mr Deripaska. Since Mr Deripaska as chief executive and stakeholder of Rusal, and as controlling shareholder of other companies in the Rusal and Basic Element groups, is currently the object of government supervision, bank investigation, court claims for insolvency, and public protest as a payment defaulter; and since he and his group have unpaid obligations estimated to be about $17 billion, will you please state whether you are being paid monthly in advance; monthly in arrears; or by another sum paid in advance?

(8) Do you believe it to be lawful for your firm to be representing entities that may be trading as insolvents in one or another foreign country, and lobbying for their financial interests before the US Government?

(9) In the registration, at Q8 (b), you have marked the “No” boxes to the following questions: “Is this foreign principal “supervised by a foreign government”, and “financed by a foreign government”. Do you claim to be unaware of Mr Deripaska’s obligations to the Russian state banks, including for $4.5 billion to Vnesheconombank (VEB), chaired by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin; of the state Accounting Chamber’s investigations and supervision of Rusal accounts and payment compliance: and of the intervention, supervision, and investigation by Russian state bodies, including the Prime Mibistry and the Arbitrazh courts, of Mr Deripaska’s indebtedness and lack of financial means? Do you wish to amend the meaning of your registration and file “Yes” to these questions?

(10) With respect to the lobbying assignments you have registered you and your firm as performing for Mr Deripaska relating to aluminium and “General Motor’s [sic] European operations”, what claims have you made regarding your client’s means to make good on payment commitments?

(11) With respect to the claims and evidence currently before the US courts in the Norden case — — please tell me what you advocate before the US Government regarding the value of Mr Deripaska’s contract coomitments?

(12) You refer in your Question/Answer 2 to “philanthropic matters” on behalf of Mr Deripaska. What amounts of money and for what “philanthropic” purposes is Mr Deripaska and his group giving away, subject to your expertise and advice?

Finally, and do pardon me for the detail of this follow-up, occasioned by the nature of your reply,

(13) Please explain why you think your reference in your last line to “factual clarifications” might be “helpful”, if the facts in the public record appear to be at considerable variance with your claims? And if that is so with regard to your claims regarding the US visa issue, will you reconsider and reword your claims with respect to Questions/Answers 5 and 6, relating to the meetings on board Mr. Kerimov’s boat, and with respect to direct and indirect forms of ownership and control of Dilgence? Or are you now saying you and your firm do not know, and have not investigated directly and independently, whether what you have been told of these matters is true or false.

With my thanks,

John Helmer


By John Helmer, Moscow

The Ukraine war is splitting the communist parties of Europe between those taking the US side, and those on the Russian side.

In an unusual public criticism of the Greek Communist Party (KKE) and of smaller communist parties in Europe which have endorsed the Greek criticism of Russia for waging an “imperialist” war against the Ukraine, the Russian Communist Party (KPRF) has responded this week with a 3,300-word declaration:  “The military conflict in Ukraine,” the party said, “cannot be described as an imperialist war, as our comrades would argue. It is essentially a national liberation war of the people of Donbass. From Russia’s point of view it is a struggle against an external threat to national security and against Fascism.”

By contrast, the Russian communists have not bothered to send advice, or air public criticism of the Cypriot communists and their party, the Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL). On March 2, AKEL issued a communiqué “condemn[ing] Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and calls for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of the Russian troops from Ukrainian territories….[and] stresses that the Russian Federation’s action in recognising the Donetsk and Luhansk regions constitutes a violation of the principle of the territorial integrity of states.”

 To the KPRF in Moscow the Cypriots are below contempt; the Greeks are a fraction above it.

A Greek-Cypriot veteran of Cypriot politics and unaffiliated academic explains: “The Cypriot communists do not allow themselves to suffer for what they profess to believe. Actually, they are a misnomer. They are the American party of the left in Cyprus, just as [President Nikos] Anastasiades is the American party of the right.” As for the Greek left, Alexis Tsipras of Syriza – with 85 seats of the Greek parliament’s 300, the leading party of the opposition – the KKE (with 15 seats), and Yanis Varoufakis of MeRA25 (9 seats), the source adds: “The communists are irrelevant in Europe and in the US, except in the very narrow context of Greek party politics.”



By John Helmer, Moscow

The war plan of the US and the European allies is destroying the Russian market for traditional French perfumes, the profits of the French and American conglomerates which own the best-known brands, the bonuses of their managers, and the dividends of their shareholders. The odour  of these losses is too strong for artificial fresheners.

Givaudan, the Swiss-based world leader in production and supply of fragrances, oils and other beauty product ingredients, has long regarded the Russian market as potentially its largest in Europe; it is one of the fastest growing contributors to Givaudan’s profit worldwide. In the recovery from the pandemic of Givaudan’s Fragrance and Beauty division – it accounts for almost half the company’s total sales — the group reported “excellent double-digit growth in 2021, demonstrating strong consumer demand for these product categories.”    Until this year, Givaudan reveals in its latest financial report, the growth rate for Russian demand was double-digit – much faster than the  6.3% sales growth in Europe overall; faster growth than in Germany, Belgium and Spain.    

Between February 2014, when the coup in Kiev started the US war against Russia, and last December, when the Russian non-aggression treaties with the US and NATO were rejected,   Givaudan’s share price jumped three and a half times – from 1,380 Swiss francs to 4,792 francs; from a company with a market capitalisation of 12.7 billion francs ($12.7 billion) to a value of 44.2 billion francs ($44.2 billion). Since the fighting began in eastern Ukraine this year until now, Givaudan has lost 24% of that value – that’s $10 billion.  

The largest of Givaudan’s shareholders is Bill Gates. With his 14%, plus the 10% controlled by Black Rock of New York and MFS of Boston, the US has effective control over the company.

Now, according to the US war sanctions, trade with Russia and the required payment systems have been closed down, alongside the bans on the importation of the leading European perfumes. So in place of the French perfumers, instead of Givaudan, the Russian industry is reorganizing for its future growth with its own perfume brands manufactured from raw materials produced in Crimea and other regions, or supplied by India and China. Givaudan, L’Oréal (Lancome, Yves Saint Laurent), Kering (Balenciaga, Gucci), LVMH (Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy), Chanel, Estée Lauder, Clarins – they have all cut off their noses to spite the Russian face.



By Nikolai Storozhenko, introduced and translated by John Helmer, Moscow

This week President Joseph Biden stopped at an Illinois farm to say he’s going to help the  Ukraine ship 20 million tonnes of wheat and corn out of storage into export, thereby relieving  grain shortages in the international markets and lowering bread prices around the world.  Biden was trying to play a hand in which his cards have already been clipped. By Biden.  

The first Washington-Kiev war plan for eastern Ukraine has already lost about 40% of the Ukrainian wheat fields, 50% of the barley, and all of the grain export ports. Their second war plan to hold the western region defence lines with mobile armour, tanks, and artillery  now risks the loss of the corn and rapeseed crop as well as the export route for trucks to Romania and Moldova. What will be saved in western Ukraine will be unable to grow enough to feed its own people. They will be forced to import US wheat, as well as US guns and the money to pay for both.

Biden told his audience that on the Delaware farms he used to represent in the US Senate “there are more chickens than there are Americans.”  Blaming the Russians is the other card Biden has left.  



By John Helmer, Moscow

The problem with living in exile is the meaning of the word. If you’re in exile, you mean you are forever looking backwards, in geography as well as in time. You’re not only out of place; you’re out of time — yesterday’s man.

Ovid, the Roman poet who was sent into exile from Rome by Caesar Augustus, for offences neither Augustus nor Ovid revealed, never stopped looking back to Rome. His exile, as Ovid described it, was “a barbarous coast, inured to rapine/stalked ever by bloodshed, murder, war.” In such a place or state, he said, “writing a poem you can read to no one is like dancing in the dark.”

The word itself, exsilium in Roman law, was the sentence of loss of citizenship as an alternative to loss of life, capital punishment. It meant being compelled to live outside Rome at a location decided by the emperor. The penalty took several degrees of isolation and severity. In Ovid’s case, he was ordered by Augustus to be shipped to the northeastern limit of the Roman empire,  the Black Sea town called Tomis; it is now Constanta, Romania. Ovid’s last books, Tristia (“Sorrows”) and Epistulae ex Ponto (“Black Sea Letters”), were written from this exile, which began when he was 50 years old, in 8 AD, and ended when he died in Tomis nine years year later, in 17 AD.  

In my case I’ve been driven into exile more than once. The current one is lasting the longest. This is the one from Moscow, which began with my expulsion by the Foreign Ministry on September 28, 2010.  The official sentence is Article 27(1) of the law No. 114-FZ — “necessary for the purposes of defence capability or security of the state, or public order, or protection of health of the population.” The reason, a foreign ministry official told an immigration service official when they didn’t know they were being overheard, was: “Helmer writes bad things about Russia.”



By John Helmer, Moscow

Antonio Guterres is the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), who attempted last month  to arrange the escape from Russian capture of Ukrainian soldiers and NATO commanders,  knowing they had committed war crimes. He was asked to explain; he refuses.   

Trevor Cadieu is a Canadian lieutenant-general who was appointed the chief of staff and head of the Canadian Armed Forces last August; was stopped in September; retired from the Army this past April, and went to the Ukraine, where he is in hiding. From whom he is hiding – Canadians or Russians – where he is hiding, and what he will say to explain are questions Cadieu isn’t answering, yet.



By John Helmer, Moscow

Antonio Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, is refusing this week to answer questions on the role he played in the recent attempt by US, British, Canadian and other foreign combatants to escape the bunkers under the Azovstal plant, using the human shield of civilians trying to evacuate.

In Guterres’s meeting with President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin on April 26 (lead image), Putin warned Guterres he had been “misled” in his efforts. “The simplest thing”, Putin told Guterres in the recorded part of their meeting, “for military personnel or members of the nationalist battalions is to release the civilians. It is a crime to keep civilians, if there are any there, as human shields.”  

This war crime has been recognized since 1977 by the UN in Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention.  In US law for US soldiers and state officials, planning to employ or actually using human shields is a war crime to be prosecuted under 10 US Code Section 950t.  

Instead, Guterres ignored the Kremlin warning and the war crime law, and authorized UN officials, together with Red Cross officials,  to conceal what Guterres himself knew of the foreign military group trying to escape. Overnight from New York, Guterres has refused to say what he knew of the military escape operation, and what he had done to distinguish, or conceal the differences between the civilians and combatants in the evacuation plan over the weekend of April 30-May 1.May.



By Vlad Shlepchenko, introduced & translated by John Helmer, Moscow

The more western politicians announce pledges of fresh weapons for the Ukraine, the more Russian military analysts explain what options their official sources are considering to destroy the arms before they reach the eastern front, and to neutralize Poland’s role as the NATO  hub for resupply and reinforcement of the last-ditch holdout of western Ukraine.

“I would like to note,” Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, repeated yesterday, “that any transport of the North Atlantic Alliance that arrived on the territory of the country with weapons or material means for the needs of the Ukrainian armed forces is considered by us as a legitimate target for destruction”.  He means the Ukraine border is the red line.



By Lucy Komisar,  New York*

Here’s a story the New York Times has just missed.

US politicians and media pundits are promoting the targeting of “enablers” of Russian oligarchs who stash their money in offshore accounts. A Times article of March 11   highlighted Michael Matlin, CEO of Concord Management as such an “enabler.” But the newspaper missed serious corruption Matlin was involved in. Maybe that’s because Matlin cheated Russia, and also because the Matlin story exposes the William Browder/Sergei Magnitsky hoax aimed at Russia.



By John Helmer, Moscow

In 1939 a little known writer in Moscow named Sigizmund Khrzhizhanovsky published his idea that the Americans, then the Germans would convert human hatred into a new source of energy powering everything which had been dependent until then on coal, gas, and oil.

Called yellow coal, this invention originated with Professor Leker at Harvard University. It was applied, first to running municipal trams, then to army weapons, and finally to cheap electrification of everything from domestic homes and office buildings to factory production lines. In Russian leker means a quack doctor.

The Harvard professor’s idea was to concentrate the neuro-muscular energy people produce when they hate each other.  Generated as bile (yellow), accumulated and concentrated into kinetic spite in machines called myeloabsorberators, Krzhizhanovsky called this globalization process the bilification of society.



By John Helmer, Moscow

In imperial history there is nothing new in cases of dementia in rulers attracting homicidal psychopaths to replace them.  It’s as natural as honey attracts bees.

When US President Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke on October 19, 1919, he was partially paralysed and blinded, and was no longer able to feed himself, sign his name, or speak normally; he was not demented.

While his wife and the Navy officer  who was his personal physician concealed his condition, there is no evidence that either Edith Wilson or Admiral Cary Grayson were themselves clinical cases of disability, delusion,  or derangement. They were simply liars driven by the ambition to hold on to the power of the president’s office and deceive everyone who got in their way.  

The White House is always full of people like that. The 25th Amendment to the US Constitution is meant to put a damper on their homicidal tendencies.

What is unusual, probably exceptional in the current case of President Joseph Biden, not to mention the history of the United States,  is the extent of the president’s personal incapacitation; combined with the clinical evidence of psychopathology in his Secretary of State Antony Blinken;  and the delusional condition of the rivals to replace Biden, including Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Like Rome during the first century AD, Washington is now in the ailing emperor-homicidal legionary phase.  But give it another century or two, and the madness, bloodshed, and lies of the characters of the moment won’t matter quite as much as their images on display in the museums of their successors craving legitimacy, or of successor powers celebrating their superiority.  

Exactly this has happened to the original Caesars, as a new book by Mary Beard, a Cambridge University professor of classics, explains. The biggest point of her book, she says, is “dynastic succession” – not only of the original Romans but of those modern rulers who acquired the Roman portraits in marble and later copies in paint, and the copies of those copies, with the idea of communicating “the idea of the direct transfer of power from ancient Romans to Franks and on to later German rulers.”

In the case she narrates of the most famous English owner of a series of the “Twelve Caesars”, King Charles I — instigator of the civil war of 1642-51 and the loser of both the war and his head – the display of his Caesars was intended to demonstrate the king’s self-serving “missing link” between his one-man rule and the ancient Romans who murdered their way to rule, and then apotheosized into immortal gods in what they hoped would be a natural death on a comfortable bed.

With the American and Russian successions due to take place in Washington and Moscow in two years’ time, Beard’s “Twelve Caesars, Images of Power from the Ancient World to the Modern”,  is just the ticket from now to then.


Copyright © 2007-2017 Dances With Bears

Copyright © 2007-2017 Dances With Bears

Education Template