[dropcap]D[/dropcap]uring his recent meeting with Putin in Helsinki, Trump, answering a question form a US journalist, said that there was no reason to suspect Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections. However, back on home soil, he said that what he meant was the opposite.

In the circumstances, there is some difficulty in assigning to either of Trump’s statements the property of truth. For the correlation between the information communicated in Helsinki and that communicated in Washington, cannot be easily established. Or rather, the correlation, if any, is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude, as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language, a heavier burden than they can be reasonably expected to bear.

Some believe that concern about linguistic matters is pedantic interference or sentimental archaism, akin to choosing land-line sets over smartphones. Perhaps the practitioners of incoherence harbor the unconscious belief that language is a natural, self-generating entity, rather than an instrument that we shape for our own purposes.

Many believe that the decline or misuse of language is due to political or economic causes, rather than to the bad influence of sundry writers. I subscribe to this view, because most newspapers are unreadable and literature is not read.

However, an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect, now stronger. A man may start to drink for feeling a failure, only to fail completely because he drinks. Similarly, language becomes ugly and inaccurate because the thoughts producing it are foolish, but slovenliness of language makes it easier to produce foolish thoughts. And the dark at the end of the tunnel of foolishness is insanity.

Unfortunately, the process is irreversible, for bad habits spread by imitation. Avoiding them requires a discipline that few politicians like to practice. And yet getting rid of bad language habits makes thinking clearer, and thinking clearly is rated as the first step for political regeneration. Assuming, but not given, that regeneration is what politicians want.

Political words are routinely abused. For example, the word ‘fascism’ has lost any meaning other than signifying something undesirable. And words like democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, etc. each has several different meanings that cannot be reconciled with one another.

On “collusion”, a word stuffed into the ears of men (1) for the last two years, not only is there no agreed definition, but an attempt to create one would probably be strongly resisted by the very people who accuse Trump of collusion (with Russia). For any definition implies a restriction of the field where the definition applies. And just as an example clarifies a definition, so evidence proves an accusation. In the instance, there being no evidence, the accusation can be endlessly sustained, for it could never be proven. Therefore a never-ending accusation renders its victim never-endingly accused, which is probably the not-so-secret objective of the charade.

  But what could have Trump replied to the question about “collusion” with Russia, posed by the MSM American journalist? He may, for example, have answered with a question, e.g. “Did you evacuate your intestine this morning?” And to whatever the journalist may have replied, Trump could have counter-replied, “Your answer is just as relevant to your readers as your question to me. Go and live unhappily ever after.” Alternatively, he could have said, “He that would keep a secret must keep it secret that he hath a secret to keep,” a ditty attributed to Francis Bacon.

But if it had been me – perish the thought – I would have answered with what the French call “le mot de Cambronne”, that is, “Merde!” a term familiar even to most non-French speaking people.

Before explaining why, here is some historical background on Cambronne’s reply to the question he was asked.

Pierre Cambronne (1770-1842) was born and died in Nantes, on the French West Coast. Destined to a career in business, he was engulfed in the fire of the French Revolution. He fought in the Vandean Civil War, distinguishing himself in the battle of Quiberon against forces landed and financed by the British, to support the counter-revolutionaries.

Cambronne had courage and quickly rose to the rank of captain. By the time of the battle of Jena (1806), fought against the Prussians, he had become a colonel and shortly later a major commanding a regiment of the Imperial Guard.

In the battle of Leipzig (1813) he was a brigade general. Faithful among the faithful of Napoleon, Cambronne followed him to his first exile in the Isle of Elba (Italy), becoming the military commander of the island.

In April 1815 he was nominated Count of the Empire. Two months later he was once more fighting in the battle of Waterloo, commanding the elite unit of the Imperial Guard.

Requested to surrender by the British, Cambronne allegedly said, “The Guard dies but does not surrender.”

---

---

The British insisted that he surrender, and it is then when he responded with “le mot de Cambronne.”

The British admired his determination and did everything they could to capture him. Seriously wounded, he was finally taken prisoner after what remained of the Imperial Guard was duly massacred.

Later, Cambronne denied the longer sentence attributed to him: “I could not say ‘the guard dies but does not surrender’, since I did not die and I surrendered.” But he did not deny the paternity of the second and more famous reply.

Cambronne’s heroic rudeness inspired a play by French actor and playwright Sacha Guitry, titled “Le Mot de Cambronne.” Since it is in verse and the word in question has only one rhyme (“perde”, conjugation of the verb “perdre”), the spectators’ ears were attuned and ready for its reception.

To conclude this brief biography, Cambronne, wounded at Waterloo, was assisted in an English hospital by a Scottish nurse, Mary Osbum, whom he married.

From England he wrote to King Louis XVIII requesting permission to return to France. The king did not reply but Cambronne returned anyway. Arrested, he was tried for treason (“for having conducted an armed attack against France”). Defended by a royalist lawyer, he was absolved in April 1816, and spent the rest of his years in his native Nantes. Where the historically curious tourist can find his statue, his apartment turned into a museum, and an avenue bearing his name.

Returning to Trump, a response with the “mot of Cambronne” to the question by the American journalist, would be appropriate. For the nebulous, vague, unproven and undefined word “collusion,” is but a verbal fig leaf for what the deep state wishes to suggest but dares not say, namely ‘treason.’ Where ‘deep state’ is recognized at large as a euphemism for Zionists by blood or interest.

And implying or accusing the US president of treason (that is, serving the interests of an enemy) is, in the circumstances, an idea stubbornly insusceptible of rational comprehension. The same applies to Russophobia, the daughter of “collusion.”

For one thing, it is common knowledge that the American public at large is generally indifferent to geography. Or rather, geographic ignorance is not a liability but an asset. For he who nurtures ideas that do not lead to profit or immediate pleasure fosters suspicion – unless he can prove that geographical knowledge has procured him ostensive and ostentatious profit (an uneasy outcome for common mortals).

All this, in the circumstances, makes the diplomatically unconventional “mot de Cambronne” an appropriate retort to questions about “Russian collusion.”

As for Russophobia, it seems clear that history is a teacher without pupils. For in recent historical times, the late 1980s, the same deep state and/or media that now preaches Russophobia, created Gorbymania. It did it when Gorbachev was not only a Russian but also a Communist.

And given that the most vociferous promoters of current Russophobia are mostly Zionists by ethnicity, interest or mainstream-media affiliation, the issue, I think, is only partially related to the classical historical reasons. That is, Communism, Bolshevism, resentment against the Czars, Russians’ long-standing uneasiness with the Jews, etc. In fact, according to knowledgeable sources, Jews are freer in today’s Russia than ever they were before.

Here are a few but meaningful examples of Russophobia,

CIA Director John Brennan, “… (Russians) try to suborn individuals and they try to get individuals, including US citizens, to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly…. Individuals going on a treasonous path often do not realize it until it is too late.”

---

James Comey, ex FBI director, “They (the Russians) are coming after America.”

James Clapper (Director National Intelligence), “The Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor.”

Senator McCain “(Russia is) a gas station masquerading as a country” (proving with six words his extraordinary geographical, historical and cultural knowledge of Russia).

A Washington Post sports columnist, referring to very questionable doping allegations, described Russian 2018 medal winners as representatives of “a shamed nation.”

A media commentator, “Treat Russia Like the Terrorist It Is.”

…. and so on.

Given that most of the quoted characters (and more unquoted of similar opinions) hold strong Zionist views and have been pilgrims at the Wailing Wall, the naive observer is driven to ask himself whether there is a correlation.

To prevent the potential and usual accusation of anti-something, the following considerations apply only and exclusively to the neo-cons and their notorious Zionist leanings.

Why? Because few Jews, for example, were involved in the business of Saddam’s inexistent “weapons of mass destruction,” the invasion of Iraq, the massacre of Gheddafi, the destruction of Libya, the orchestration of the Ukrainian coup d’etat, the Odet-Yinon plan for the territorial extension of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, the Plan for the new American Century, with the need for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’, etc. The same can be said about the vociferous peddlers of the current Russophobia.

Still, Zionist Judaism functions as a Federal Reserve Bank of sorts, but applied to the mass-psychology of Jewish Americans.

The actual Federal Reserve Bank loans “fiat” money to the government, backed by nothing, literally pieces of paper or electronic transfers. “Fiat” is the Latin impersonal imperative of the verb “fieri.” It means “let it be,” implicitly followed by “because I say so.” In the instance, fiat currency refers to the scary notion that the dollar has value only because the government says it does.

The government commits itself to pay back the loan to the Federal Reserve Bank plus the interest. Statistics and number vary somewhat, but at the moment the outstanding debt is in the range of 25 trillions. This debt will never be paid back, but the government pays every year an interest on the debt to the Federal Reserve. This interest is obtained from taxes, that is, from the proverbial sweat of those who labor (and those who pretend to work but earn more than those who actually do).

I used this example because it is no secret that the Federal Reserve is under strong Zionist influence and control. In fact, and I quote from the Jewish-American magazine, Forward, “Paul Moritz Warburg, a German-Jewish immigrant who was one of the founding fathers of the U.S. Federal Reserve, had a fervent wish that his creation (in 1913), would be seen as one of America’s great monuments — like the old cathedrals of Europe.”

Continuing with the analogy, the Psychological Federal Reserve loans to the Congress and Senate the lies that congressmen and senators are charged and expected to use, diffuse and distribute, while pretending that they are true.

And like the fiat money of the monetary Federal Reserve, the lies of the Psychological Federal Reserve are backed by a baseless fabric of insubstantial nothing.

But in exchange for the popularization of the lies, the Psychological Reserve Bank will physically finance the pliant beneficiaries of the loan.

Interestingly, the first 8 major contributors to Hillary were Zionist Jews. And one, if not the major contributor to Trump, was the king of Las Vegas gambling, the arch-Zionist Adelson (rumored to have exchanged his multi-million contribution for the commitment to transfer the US embassy to Jerusalem.)

The largest overwhelming majority of Jews, though innocent of the US political, military and genocidal crimes perpetrated worldwide, function as a kind of “collateral” for the loan of the lies.

Or perhaps, more than collateral, blackmail. Said succinctly, “Be mindful, executive, to say and do what we (the Psychological Reserve Bank) tell you to do and say. Otherwise, not only you will lose the financial collateral, but we will unleash against you the phalanx of our co-religionaries.

For a co-religionary, rich or poor, practicing or atheist, to reject Judaism equates to reneging his own blood, his own DNA. Their situation has some similarities with that of the early Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and growing state in the heart of the Roman republic.

All this, on a political-planetary level, helps explain the silence, when not the support, of the most atrocious actions of their Zionist leaders. It is as if the members of the US political machine, at the highest levels, operated with a gun at their head, “Obey or face political death.”

Evidence of the above is extant, though the Psychological Federal Reserve is so efficient as to ostracize and condemn those who dare to point it out.

As for Russophobia, it does not end here. The neo-cons accuse Trump of treason, calling for more anti-Russian sanctions, NATO’s ‘defensive’ exercises at the doors of Russia, etc.

Yet, the equivalent of the New York Times in Israel, the “Haaretz” newspaper, isn’t at all “Russophobic.” And since the sanctions do not involve Israel, Haaretz writes that the sanctions are actually an excellent opportunity for Israeli businessmen.

Besides, Netaniahou visits Moscow regularly and appears to be a good friend of Putin. A friendship that, outwardly at least, Putin seems to reciprocate.

To sum up, given the situation – as regards Russia, Russophobia, Trump, hatred of Putin by the Zionist neo-cons while he is befriended by Israel, etc. – it seems that a coherent explanation or a rational judgment are impossible. But truth and reason seldom find a favorable reception in the world.

Furthermore, taking experience into account, reason teaches us that there are things unexplainable by reason. Said more classically, there are more things in heaven and earth, dear reader, than are dreamt of in our philosophy (2).

References:
(1) King Henru IV, part 2
(2) Hamlet