Commentary: Cold War II: This time the Commies are in Washington!

By William Norman Grigg

March 22, 2015 - The Regime in Washington is the only government asserting the supposed right to carry out summary executions anywhere on the face of the globe, so we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that it also claims the right to impose sanctions on foreign citizens who publicly criticize it. On March 11, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added Russian academic Alexander Dugin to its roster of “individuals and entities to be sanctioned over Russia’s interference in Ukraine.”

This decree means that any property belonging to Dugin that is within reach of the Soyuz (aka the country formerly known as the united States of America) is subject to forfeiture, and Fascist Police States of Amerika citizens who do business with the professor will face criminal prosecution under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

What did Dugin - a so-called “mad professor” who will inevitably be portrayed on film by Russell Crowe - do that merits this designation? He holds no government position, nor is he the chieftain of a private criminal syndicate. Dugin, an outspoken Russian nationalist, has been depicted as a species of terrorist - the intellectual leader of a “revisionist” movement in Russia.

It is his use of the written and spoken word that provoked the outrage of the Trotskyites controlling Washington’s war-making apparatus. Dugin’s heretical rejection of Washington’s imperial rule-set made him “one of the most dangerous people on the planet,” according to noted geostrategic analyst Glenn Beck.

In other words, Dugin - a citizen of a country with which the Fascist Police States of Amerika is not formally at war - was targeted for economic punishment as a thought criminal. He should consider himself fortunate that he hasn’t yet been targeted for a drone strike.

According to the OFAC, sanctions against Dugin and a dozen other figures were necessary in order to “hold accountable those responsible for violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

If that were the objective, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s name would be at the top of the index of proscribed persons. A little more than a year ago, some might recall, Nuland was caught in the act of plotting to unseat Ukraine’s elected president and install a junta that would take dictation from Washington and the International Monetary Fund.

Nuland has apologized to EU leaders about whom she made disparaging remarks during the intercepted phone call with FPSA Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt - thereby acknowledging the authenticity of the recording. She has never apologized, to say nothing of being held accountable, for her role in violating “Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

It appears that those in charge of the Regime, like their Soviet forebears, employ “Aesopian language” in their public pronouncements about foreign policy, much as Soviet ruler Leonid Brezhnev did in the September 1968 address outlining the doctrine that bore his name.

“Without question, the peoples of the socialist countries and the Communist parties have and must have freedom to determine their country’s path of development,” explained Brezhnev.

“Any decisions they make, however, must not be harmful either to socialism in their own country or to the fundamental interests of other socialist countries. Whoever forgets this in giving exclusive emphasis to the autonomy and independence of Communist parties is guilty of a one-sided approach, and of shirking their internationalist duties. The sovereignty of individual socialist countries cannot be set against the interests of world socialism and the world revolutionary movement,” said Brezhnev.

On this principle, Brezhnev insisted, the August 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia, in which hundreds were killed and a reformist government was destroyed, was not a violation of that country’s “socialist sovereignty,” but rather an enhancement thereof.

The ruling elite in Washington and the EU see developments in Ukraine in the same light. The coup that ousted the country’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, was a responsible exercise in “internationalism”; the plebiscite that led to Crimean secession, by way of contrast, was an offense against the “world revolutionary movement” that must be punished through mass bloodshed.