The Root of The Problem: Russia – Part 3

Below is Part 3 of the report compiled by Glenn’s research team for “The Red Storm”. Read Part 1 HERE and Part 2 HERE.

Vladimir Putin and his advisors have a dream. That dream is not of a great Russian Nation that once again commands respect as it used to. Their sites are set much higher. They dream of a great civilization that dominates all of Eurasia. Historically for Russians this struggle is anything but new. They’ve pursued it their entire existence. From Prince Vladimir I, to Ivan the Great and later Stalin it’s always been about Russian domination of Eurasia. Throughout history there has always been an antagonist for Russians to struggle against. The Tatars and Mongols, the Nazis from Germany and now Putin has the United States. This struggle along with their devout loyalty to the Orthodox Church has given the Russian people one of the most fiercest forms of nationalism in the world. Tapping that nationalism, historically, has had global impact.

Putin has watched the threat to Russian civilization since 2000. The ousting of Slobodan Milosevic, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine would all be viewed not as native grassroots attempts at democracy but rather a direct attack from the Unites States and the EU. From then on Moscow has been on a slow methodical plan that began with the invasion of Georgia in 2008. Those in the Eurasia Party wanted Putin to invade the entire country but he stopped short. Last year, as a result of the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime in Kiev, Moscow annexed Crimea and invaded Eastern Ukraine. Again, Putin stopped short despite cries to go all the way to the capital.

The big question is...what happens next? What’s Russia doing? What should we look out for?

The Putin regime sees two main obstacles blocking their path.

The United States and European Union alliance structure.

The dollar dominated world economy.

Moscow knows they can’t defeat the U.S. and EU militarily. Instead they’ve taken Aleksander Dugin’s philosophy in Russia and exported it to Western Europe. The message is clear. Remember what makes you unique and different. For Russians it’s the Orthodox Church and their culture. For Western Europeans, it’s the self identity of each individual nation state. To tap into this Russia has been contacting and supporting far-right groups all over Western Europe. At a time when the EU has been suffering from economic hardship, unemployment and immigration issues the far-right has made significant gains.

What’s the goal? The systematic break up of the European Union at the hands of Western Europe’s far-right. Russia, like the rest of the world, remembers what happened the last time the far-right dominated Europe...but that’s exactly what they want. Remember Dugin and the Eurasia Party’s eventual goal. Before order there must be a coming chaos. As the Kremlin continues it’s operation in Eastern Ukraine the political chaos has already begun in Western Europe.

Scotland attempted to split from the UK. The Golden Dawn party gained ground in Greece. 15,000 Nazi’s marched in Germany last month. The list goes on and on and Russia has ties to nearly every major right-wing group involved:

Bulgaria - Ataka Party (there are claims that they report directly to the Russian embassy)

Hungary - Jobbik (Dugin hosted their leader Vona at Moscow State University)

Austria - FPO

Italy - Forza Nuova (Met multiple times with the Russian Duma and Putin himself)

Greece - Golden Dawn (Dugin wrote their leader Michaloliakos while he was in prison)

Germany - Pegida

Netherlands - Freedom Party

France - National Front (In November a Russian bank donated 9 million euros to Marine Le Pen and the National Front)

Not only is the Kremlin supporting these groups at the highest levels they’re also targeting Europe’s youth. Straight from Hitler’s playbook, Dugin has created a branch of his Eurasia Party that’s sole purpose is to infiltrate Europe’s young minds. They’re called - The Eurasian Youth. Sound familiar? Like their founder Aleksander Dugin, the symbol of their movement is also the 8 pointed star of chaos.

France’s National Front has a legitimate shot at gaining power in the next election. Putin has taken a special interest in Marine Le Pen and Le Pen echoes that interest back toward Moscow. Russia doesn’t even try to hide it. A bank with close ties to the Kremlin recently donated 9 million Euros to the National Front.

If Le Pen takes power in France that could be the catalyst Russia has been waiting for. A rebirth of European nationalism and the continent reset back to the 1930’s.

Russia’s second major hurdle is the dominance the dollar has on the world economy. Putin believes that the World Bank and the IMF are agents of western imperialism. He believes they use state banks (like the Bank of Russia) to lure nations into their debt based economic model. To combat this Moscow has been gathering other like minded nations who are sick of the dollar’s dominance. They’re trying to build their own version of the IMF.

They’re also trying to emphasize an economy backed by tangible resources. That’s why both China and Russia are buying up gold in bulk. That’s an understatement. Russia and China are filling their vaults with gold by the truck load. They see an eventual collapse of the western debt based economies. When that occurs the world economy will return back to the gold standard. With the combined gold reserves of Russia and China on top of their immense natural resources their economies would be unstoppable. Even more formidable if they combined that with oil and gas from the middle east. A Middle Eastern ally is crucial to that goal and partly explains their relationship with Iran.

The problem Putin’s Russia now faces is their current economic crisis. Western sanctions and the drop in oil prices have devastated the Russian economy. Lines to ATM’s and bank tellers wrap around street corners as Russians attempt to exchange rubles for dollars and euros. The Kremlin has labeled it economic warfare from the United States. The rhetoric stops just shy of calling it an act of war.

The situation in 1941 Japan can tell us a lot when analyzing Russia today. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941. But why did they do it? On the surface the act seems irrational. Most people don’t look at the root of that problem either but doing so can help us see the world from Putin’s eyes.

Like today’s Russia Japan had become increasingly aggressive. In July 1941 Japan invaded and occupied French Indochina (present day Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos). This put Japan within striking distance of other resource rich nations like Malaysia, Singapore etc. This threatened Great Britain’s cash flow giving the Nazis an advantage.

Like the west retaliated from Russia’s annexation of Ukraine, President Roosevelt retaliated and imposed economic sanctions on Japan. One of which was an embargo of U.S. oil which the Japanese economy was critically dependent on. Rather than deterring the Japanese they got even more aggressive. They saw the sanctions as an act of war. They decided that war with the United States was now inevitable. To make up for the loss of U.S. oil and other sanctions the Japanese planned to invade the Dutch East Indies, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines. The attack on Pearl Harbor was basically a giant flanking maneuver to make sure the U.S. Pacific Fleet couldn’t intervene.

With the Russian economy under attack and the future of Ukraine and Crimea in jeopardy how will Putin react? Do the Russians see war with the U.S. now inevitable as the Japanese did in 1941?

 

The way Putin responds in the next few months may decide whether he holds on to his presidency. He now finds himself in a land where he’s unleashed monsters that he may not be able to control. The fires of Russian nationalism burn hot. Russians see themselves as under attack. Not only their culture but their religion. Putin typically is content with taking his time but there is a growing majority that, like Dugin, want action now.

On the night of February 24th 1956 the public session of the 20 Congress of the USSR came to a close. Most of the delegates went home, but Nikita Khrushchev called the most senior members back to a closed private session. This session would later be dubbed Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech”.

Stalin was dead and his closest supporters (Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich) were set to take over. Khrushchev’s goal was to show the government that Stalin and his followers were victim of “the cult of personality”. That Stalin had made the Russian cause and struggle about his own ego and not about the Russian people. The speech was so shocking and contrary to how things had been going in the Soviet Union at the time that multiple people within the auditorium had heart attacks and passed out. The speech would be a huge success for Khrushchev and lead to the de-stalinization of the USSR. Khrushchev would seize power from Stalin’s successors.

Who is going to be the modern day Khrushchev? Who is going to come forth and point out Putin’s failures if he doesn’t give the Russian people what they want?

If Putin is forced out under present circumstances the Russian people will look for direct and immediate action. They’ll look for a leader outside the current politburo. A war hero with a track record for fighting for the reclamation of Russian civilization. The next Russian leader will see Orthodoxy not as a tool for nationalism but as a treasure he must champion. He’ll be profoundly religious and dedicated to the Russian Orthodox Church.

He may be a man like Igor Girkin Strelkov.

Girkin typically just goes by his nickname Strelkov which means “shooter” in Russian. He’s basically the Russian version of a cross between Rambo, John Wayne, and the Pope. He served in both the FSB and GRU leading insurgencies in Chechnya, Bosnia, Moldova, and Georgia. 

Russians see Girkin as a sort of holy warrior defending Russian civilization from what Girkin calls “the Godless west”. Girkin’s generals and followers echo their Orthodox mission:

"As we are Orthodox Christians, this connection, this line of Orthodox Christianity goes through everything, including the awards, connection of past, future and present." Girkin’s General “Prapor” - (on the resemblance of the Novorossia medal to the cross of St George)

“A Clash of civilizations is taking place, no more no less” “one of these civilizations stands on clearly anti-christian basis” “preventing it’s triumph itself would be an enormous contribution to the Orthodox Christian cause” - Vladimir Khomyakov

According to Girkin it was he and not Putin that “pulled the trigger of war in Ukraine”. After the Maidan protests in Kiev Girkin crossed into Crimea and led the take over. After Crimea was fully annexed he crossed into Eastern Ukraine and led the uprisings in both Donetsk and Luhansk. When the ceasefire was negotiated Girkin relocated back to Russia and has been the leading organizer for Russian fighters and equipment flowing into what he calls “Novorossiya” (New Russia).

Ditching his military uniform and donning a suit Igor Girkin has been all over Russian media lately. While Putin addresses the nation and tells them not to worry about the dire situation of the Russian economy Dugin can be seen preaching the liberation of New Russia. Not stopping at Ukraine but uniting all Russian lands...by force if need be.

"The whole Russian people should merge into one Russian state...Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia must unite" - Girkin

Ivan the Terrible was the first Czar of Russia and ruled in the mid 1500’s. He believed he was chosen by God to lead the Russian people and defend Orthodoxy. During his reign the Russian Empire would see its greatest territorial expansion ever. Is Igor Girkin the modern day version of Ivan the Terrible? Is Russia at the precipice of another period of great territorial expansion with a champion of their faith at the helm? Time will tell.​

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.