This is the funniest thing that’s happened in several hours.
RT:
Amnesty International, a human rights NGO, has withdrawn its designation of the recently jailed Russian activist and blogger Alexey Navalny as a “prisoner of conscience” due to xenophobic statements he has refused to retract.
The group said it “is no longer able to consider” Navalny a prisoner of conscience because he “advocated violence and discrimination,” in the past. Notably, the opposition figure has been given opportunities to apologise for the far-right positions he advocated, in his 30s, but he has declined.
Amnesty maintained, however, that it still believes that his latest imprisonment was linked to his anti-government activism and demanded his “immediate release,” a letter published by Grayzone journalist Aaron Mate shows.
The decision was confirmed by Amnesty’s Russia and Eurasia media manager Aleksandr Artemyev.
“Yes, we will no longer use the phrase ‘prisoner of conscience’ when referring to him, since our legal and political department studied Navalny’s statements from the mid-2000s and concluded that they qualify as hate speech,” Artemyev told Mediazona.
However, he added that the organization will continue its calls for his immediate release since it considers Navalny’s arrest political.
Basically, we live in a world of such abject nonsense, that it is an extreme chore to just try to explain what’s going on, on the most basic level of events.
Let me just try to bullet point this out.
The Western system is based on female and anal dominance of society. However, Russia is a hard place to promote feminism and man-on-man anal sex. They just generally are not that into either.
Alexi Navalny began in the 2000s as a third rate neo-Nazi leader. Not even a Richard Spencer, but basically a handsome, non-obese version of Matt Heimbach.
Navalny opposed Vladimir Putin on the basis of there being too many Chechens, Dagistanis, Uzbeks and Kazakhs in Moscow.
At some point, Navalny linked up with Western intelligence to serve as official opposition to Putin. I assume the Mossad and the CIA were involved, but we now have been given literal video evidence of Navalny’s right-hand man soliciting money from British intelligence.
These intelligence groups don’t care what he believes, because the goal is to overthrow Putin. Once Putin is overthrown, there will be total chaos, and they can insert whatever kind of regime they want, using already established influence networks. (We saw this in the Ukraine, where the neo-Nazis led the 2014 revolution, then as if by magic, the revolutionary government was all Jews, promoting feminism and homosexualism.)
Navalny was not a very popular opposition figure. The best analog would be that Juan Guaidio guy in Venezuela. He’s got all this Western intelligence backing, an entire established network supporting him, but he just doesn’t have much charisma. That is always going to be the problem when you’re using shills, who don’t really care about whatever it is they’re supposed to be promoting – they’re not strong characters, and they’re not passionate.
Alexi Navalny was also not well-known internationally, and it is useful to have the masses of Western countries supporting a shill.
Navalny was then poisoned in some kind of staged event by Western intelligence. The official story is that Putin ordered someone to put a chemical weapon in his tea, with the plan to kill him, but they got the dose wrong. (I’ve gone through why this is retarded many times, but just briefly: 1.) Putin had no reason to kill him – if you are an open society, and you are considered an enemy of the US, you’re going to have an active opposition movement attempting to overthrow the government. It is ideal to have an inept opposition, which is what Navalny was. 2.) Russia is still a violent country, and Navalny was involved in organized crime. He easily could have just been shot on the street, and there would have been full plausible deniability from the Kremlin. 3.) It would really be a major bungle to not use enough chemical weapons to poison someone. In fact, the opposite would be true – you’d have to use intense calculations to use a dose that wouldn’t kill someone.)
Navalny was flown to Germany, and became a global cause celebré as the democracy-loving victim of the evil dictatorial Putin government. He was 100% presented as a “democracy fighter.” In a very few publications, for the few intellectuals who were actually following internal Russian politics, it was admitted that he had “ethnonationalist tendencies,” but it was claimed that he was “evolving.” (It is certain that if the average Western leftist were to put Putin’s politics next to Navalny’s, outside of this situation, they would choose Putin’s politics. Some people might also feel uncomfortable realizing that this media event is completely staged, like a Hollywood production.)
Navalny’s recovery from the poisoning in Germany was a heavily intensive spectacle widely, almost obsessively, covered by the Western media. Every article and CNN bit about him said that he was fighting for democracy and was poisoned by an evil dictator.
Navalny made a return to Russia, knowing that he’d be imprisoned, in order to become a martyr for the discontents to rally around (these are: neo-Nazis, homosexuals and women, as well as general “soy” type people that have been nurtured on Western social media and via Hollywood). Russia is now in the midst of a full-on color revolution, the figurehead of which is a neo-Nazi, and the Western media continues to refuse to report the details.
Amnesty International coming out and saying he is no longer a prisoner of conscience because he’s a neo-Nazi obviously won’t be reported on by the mainstream Western media, as they are forming this entire fake narrative about what is going on in Russia.
Nonetheless, the statement is funny on a number of levels. Firstly, if neo-Nazism is his conscience, then why isn’t he a prisoner of conscience? I don’t think he actually is a political prisoner at all, given that he’s an actual criminal who pled guilty to multiple embezzlement and fraud schemes, but if Amnesty is saying he’s locked up for his beliefs, then what does it matter what his beliefs are?
Apparently, they are saying it is impossible for someone with right-wing views to be a prisoner of conscience. Is this because right-wing views are “unconscionable”? Or because right-wingers don’t have consciences?
It’s a very silly thing. I actually giggled when I saw it.