Trolling The Liberasts About Khodorkovsky

I can’t be bothered writing a serious post on the recent Khodorkovsky news (prosecution seeks 14 year sentence, he makes a speech that would be awe-inspiring if it had any truth to it, etc). (Not as if I have anything more to add anyway). I think an account of how I trolled the liberasts would be far more entertaining.

A week ago, Andrey Sidelnikov – the co-organizer of the Strategy-31 Abroad protests with Alex Goldfarb, Berezovsky’s PR man – posted a propaganda tract from Khodorkovsky on Facebook, Reform must, and will, come to Russia. Unable to suppress my trolling instincts, I wrote: “He suffers from lack of free speech so much, this Khodorkovsky, he’s a true martyr of the Putin regime”(1). I honestly wondered if they’d get the sarcasm. (Based on my prior trolling, Russian liberals aren’t good at recognizing humor. A few of them had “Liked” one of my older comments about the necessity of destroying the “bloody regime” and “liquidating the Chekists”, in response to some liberast talking point about the supposed illegality of dispersing the (unsanctioned) Strategy 31 protests.)

Sidelnikov himself was the first to respond, citing the “Love it then go there” Argument (“Why aren’t you living under the Putin regime? I mean you like it so much.”) It’s a logical fallacy, but fair enough, it’s not as if this is a serious argument. I was trolling him after all. Nonetheless, I decided to go in with a serious, and rather important, question – “Regardless of your views on the “Putin regime”, why do you choose to associate yourself with the likes of Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, etc? Not only does it hurt your approval ratings, but there are no shortage of other, more deserving, victims and causes in Russia. I’m really curious, why do you liberals regard a billionaire who got his wealth through shady connections as your main hero?” And this is when the party really got going…

Irina's political party?

Irina’s political party?

One charming lady Irina Worthey barged in: “Is that how much Berkeley messed up your mind, you fucking communist? You have an opinion about Khodorkovsky, do you!? Look at ‘im here, folks! Shut your trap now, ok!” (3) Well, I’ve never made any secret of my vast legions of middle-aged female Russian-American-Russophobe admirers. There are at least five I can name, and not all of them just through the Internet… 😉

This was followed by a comment from a Randroid calling itself Serge B., who answered my original question by arguing that Khodorkovsky is the most important political prisoner in Russia – “a good business man working inside a flawed system” – and implicitly suggested I apply for a Kremlin job since “in Russia it appears to me they have a shortage of good PR men”. Thanks for the recommendation! Then Irina decided to come back in, unable to resist feeding the troll (i.e. me) some more: “It’s easy to spew all kinds of shit about Khodorkovsky from Berkeley, while he sits in a cell in that fascist Sovka”. (4)

I decided to play with Irina. “The endless self-irony of the Russian liberasts never ceases to amaze: for thieves – freedom!, for dissidents (against you) – shut up. I love you too! BTW, I really do have Marxist views”. I reckoned that would wind her up good. Then I turned my trolling wiles to the Randroid: “Of course his prosecution was politically motivated. Putin made it clear that the oligarchs who made their fortunes in the 1990’s (by robbing the state with the connivance of Yeltsin’s Family) could keep their assets – if they kept out of politics. Khodorkovsky didn’t keep his end of the bargain, fancying that a mere hyena like him could take on a wolf pack like the Russian state and win. He was wrong, and lost, and only then did his PRщики begin to portray him as an anti-corruption crusader and democracy hero. So cry me a river about his suffering, there are literally billions of people on Earth who deserve our sympathy more. If you liberals want him to use him as your figurehead, by all means do so, I even support you in that, since these stunts will only hurt you and permanently keep you from attaining any kind of political influence.”

Who is John Galt? Mikhail Khodorkovsky!

Who is John Galt? Mikhail Khodorkovsky!

True to form, the Randroid started harping on about his idol: “It’s funny how Atlas Shrugged yet again immediately comes to mind…Ayn was great in uncovering idle philosophers like you who complained about the DOers of this world. According to YOU the DOers actually either steal, cheat or get lucky in accumulating wealth, while you sit in Berkley and philosophize. In reality, they actually take nothing or a failed, bankrupt, разворованую (plundered doesn’t seem to carry the same weight) company and create everything (one of the largest and most successful companies in the world).”

I then proceeded to effortlessly pawn him, turning his own libertarian nutjob weaponry against him: “If Khodorkovsky had been a true Randian hero, he’d have blown up the YUKOS oil fields, retreated to a redoubt in Kolyma with the other oligarchs, and built a perfect society while the rest of Russia crumbled into ruin under Putinist collectivism. Which is exactly what happene.. erm, wait a sec, that’s just lunatic ravin… damn, Ayn Rand is what I meant!”

Then came even more rib-splitting entertainment from Irina, my bestest bud on teh internets. “Serge: Anatoly is a clinical idiot. He must be left alone.” But fortunately for make benefit of our entertainment she wasn’t too keen on following her own advice. “Anatoly: UC Berkeley didn’t do you any good. Your brain’s damaged. I pity your parents, because their son is a Marxist bastard; they, if they’re still alive, must be in a permanent state of what-the fuck!”

I’m really enjoying my conversation with Irina. It’s not that often, even for someone in my position, to get the thrill of being the target of so much primal animal hatred (how I envy Mark Ames!). It’s almost titillating! I proceed to fuck with her mind some more, picking my words with the care and respect a matador has to his banderilla. “As I said before, Berkeley isn’t involved. My enlightenment, my recognition of the Truth, followed my independent reading of the works of Marx and Engels. Though, one pretty big flaw, is that Marxism doesn’t pay attention to the important role of limited resources and a fragile environment. It is these Limits to Growth that will spell the final doom of capitalism! If you’re interested in discussing this further, and I know you are, I have a page on Facebook, or you could use PM. For I abhor authoritarian collectivism, and like to be surrounded by a diversity of voices!”

Mission “total freak-out” accomplished! I savored her every word, dripping with fiery rage, like a fine rare steak. “Those like Anatoly have to be liquidated. Where was the school board looking? The Komsomol? The Party organization? How did this shit putrefy out of Berkeley?” Then the rather worrying (considering she lives in Stanford): “Tolya, I’m going to Berkeley, I want to observe you… What’s wrong with you? Were you beaten too little in your childhood?” (7) Don’t worry – I’ve yet to notice any stalkers following me around. 😉

Would have only supported Khodorkovksy for (personal) кapital!

Would have only supported Khodorkovksy for (personal) кapital!

Funny thing is a (real) hardcore Marxist turned up to the discussion, though I have to say that Joerg has some rather non-standard interpretations. “Anatoly, Marx was the first person, who said that environmental pollution is the waste of resources… one has to carefully read his works in the original… And also: if Marx were alive today, he’d be defending Khodorkovsky”. Okay… Well, who knows? Since I haven’t read the “45 easily accessible tomes” of Marx’s and Engels’ collected works “three or four” times, like he claims to have done, I can’t say for certain that they don’t delve into these sustainability issues somewhere, one hundred years in advance of everyone else. The real relationship between Marxism and sustainability is certainly an interesting one. But that’s for another day, and for now, my Khodorkovsky-related trolling hasn’t ended!

The liberal newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a piece on the 14 years the prosecution is seeking, and unsurprisingly, painted the main prosecutor Lahtin in a most unflattering light – though not an undeserved one if the stories about his callous attitudes to court procedures are true.

One shoshunov_n wrote “Freedom for Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. To prison with Lahtin. Together with Putin”. I trolled under the title “Liberal Hypocrisy”: “The liberasts are openly saying that they couldn’t care less about real liberalism. God forbid they take power, they’ll be having their own purges in no time against the ‘enemies of the people'”. The liberast radical replied: “What, you’re already afraid? You’re doing the right thing then!” (A voice of reason later added, “What power will they take exactly?? Liberals are empty suits, dogs barking at the wind”.)

"The Russian liberals, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its shit."

“The Russian liberals, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its shit.”

The other conversation there was started by myself, which I kicked off: “Complete marazm. That Lahtin conducts himself in a stupid and clumsy way does not mean that Khodorkovsky is not innocent, or doesn’t deserve prison like a common criminal”. That sure got the liberast antheap at NG into a huff. I’m going to skip the early stages for their relative lack of comedy value, until the time when I asked the same question I asked Sidelnikov’s liberasts: “I’ve never understood this liberal kowtowing before billionaire robbers. If they pay you for this, as with Amsterdam & Peroff or MBK Center, they it’s all nice and clear, by the contract. But most of Russia’s “democratists” shill for Khodorkovsky without even any compensation… why don’t you go protest something like the giveaway of Russian assets under the slogan of privatization? Now those guys really do want to plunder you, to give away your money into the hands of the international financial elites! Oh… but I forgot, the liberals only love those comrades like Khodorkovsky or Soros who rob them blind!”

This elicited a response from one vedma2: “Don’t try to understand [why we support Khodorkovsky], it’s not for average minds”. (9)

I replied, “And so the liberals yet again reveal to us, that they consider themselves to be the representatives of a higher caste, like Brahmins, they they’re better than us ordinary Russians of “average intelligence”, fuck. No wonder less than 5% of the population supports them… Maybe our wisdom is “average”, but our wisdom – it is folk wisdom, that will never betray Russia.”

This concludes my pseudo-intellectual trollfest for the week. Hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed creating it! And before you ask what’s the point? It’s very simple. (1) I was bored, (2) genuinely annoyed with the Khodorkovsky-worship, (3) suspected it was a good way to demonstrate the close-mindedness and authoritarian instincts of the Russian liberasty that is feted in the West. That of course makes them extremely hypocritical given the values that they profess to espouse.

(1) Так сильно страдает от отсуствия свободы слова, этот Ходорковский, он настоящий мученик и жертва путинского режима!

(2) Не смотря на Ваши взгляды на “путинский режим”, я никогда не понимал либеральную лубовь к товарищам типа Березовского, Ходорковского, и т.д. Это Вам только вредит со стороны общественного мнения, и вообще в российских тюрьмах находятся 800,000 людей, многих из них заслужившие свое наказание намного меньше Ходора (http://goo.gl/dYuE). Действительно, почему Вы, либералы, считаете своего главного героя – миллиардера, который прихватизировал свои деньги темными, и наверняка нелегальными, методами?

(3) Anatoly Karlin: Это тебе, коммунисту хреновому, в Беркли так мозг распотрошили? Мнение у него по поводу Ходорковского есть! Поглядите, люди добрые! Чтоб пасть захлопнул, ясно?

(4) легко нести ахинею сидя в Беркли по поводу Ходоковского, который сидит в клетке в фашистском совке.

(5) Serge: Anatoly is a clinical idiot. He must be left alone.Andrey: Убери Толяна из друзей, иначе я за себя не ручаюсь.

Anatoly: UC Berkeley вам на пользу не пошел. Головной мозг набекрень. Родителей ваших жалко, что сын у них подонок-марксист, они, если еще живы, должны находиться в перманентном охренении, если вы и им подобные речи толкаете.

(6) Как я раньше горовил, Беркли не связан. Мое осознание истины исходила от независимого чтение работ Маркса и Энгельса. Правда, один довольно большой недостаток, традиционный марксизм не обращает внимание на важную роль огрениченных ресурсов и окружающей среды. Именно эти Limits to Growth возможно станут причинами гибели капитализма… Ведь я не являюсь авторитарным коллективистом (в отличие от некоторых здесь), и мне нравится находится вокруг diversity of voices.

(7) таких, как Анатолий надо гасить. куда смотрел школьный коллектив? комсомольский актив? партийная организация? как такое дерьмецо выродилось в Университете Беркли? …

Толян: еду в Беркли, поглядеть на тебя желаю. Че-то мне прям нехорошо, неважно мне как-то от марксизма этого. Че с тобой, Толя? Тебя в детстве мало били?

(8) Никогда не пойму низкопоклонство либералов перед миллиардерами-разбойниками. Если они Вам платят, как Amsterdam & Peroff или МБК-Центр, то все хорошо и понятно, все по контракту. Но большинство российской демшизы тусуется за Ходора без компенсации… почему бы Вам лучше не пойти по-протестовать очередную передачу государсвенной собсвенности под лозунгом приватизации?
http://www.rian.ru/economy/20101020/287620491.html
Вот они действительно Вас хотят обворовать, передать Ваши (российские) деньги прям в руки международной финансовой элиты! Ох,… да-х)) я забыл, ведь, либералы любит когда именно такие, товарищи типа Ходорковского или Сороса, деньги здирают!

(9) А и не пытайтесь. Это не для средних умов.

(10) Итак либералы опять показывают, что считают себя представителями высшей касты, как брамины, толкают, что они якобы лучше нас, обычных россиян “среднего ума”, бля. Не удивительно что их поддерживает менее 5% населения… Может быть мы и среднего ума, но ум наш – народный, который Россию никогда не предаст!

  • AK

    Didn’t realize the comments were off. LOL.

  • Giuseppe Flavio

    The paragraph starting with I decided to play with Irina… is repeated.

    • AK

      Thx, fixed.

  • AJ

    Anotoly, you mock these liberasts for having positions that most Russians wouldnt have, but so do you. The vast majority of Russians arent cool with legalizing weed, arent cool with gay marriage(or LGBT “rights”), and consider the resurgence of the Orthodox church a good thing.

    • AK

      This is a valid criticism, and I’ve admitted as much in my bio, that as regards Russia I’m a traitor, hypocrite, and pro-Western nihilist.

      However, my odious cultural imperialism is, I think, mitigated by the fact that I try to promote it without referencing the Western hegemony, where in any case progressive causes aren’t always far advanced either.

      I don’t mind the resurgence of the Orthodox Church as it is, in fact in many ways its a positive development. Unlike the churches of Western Christendom, it still holds firm to the concept of unto Caesar Caesar’s and unto God God’s. And it provides a far more wholesome social safety net (e.g. for orphans) than crumbled post-Soviet institutions.

      • AJ

        http://www.biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/04/26/no-more-beer-summits-tea-party-n-word-incident-didnt-happen-and-the-congressional-black-caucus-owes-america-an-apology/ Oops! I guess “progrssive causes” arent that honest, either. Well, at least you admit the part about being a Western nihilist and traitor. Could you clarify on “unto God God’s, unto Caesar Caesar’s”, how is the Russian Orthodox Church’s stance any different than Western churches? Also, it should be noted for the sake of this post, about Ayn Rand. Shes not known in Russia at all, and I doubt any of her books have been translated into Russian. So she doesnt represent typical Russian thought either. In fact, many of her ideas would be regarded as insane/stupid

        • Yalensis

          Ayn Rand is not any factor in Russian politics, true. But she is big factor in current American politics, is intellectual father (or “mother”?) of Tea Party movement. Already there have been instances of Russian emigres speaking out at Tea Party rallies in order to, e.g., tell horror stories about growing up under Communism and urging slack-jawed but angry Pindosy to get rid of “socialist” Obama. In other words, there is merger of Russian emigre “liberasti” and American Randites.

          • cartman

            So basically the American conservative movement can be traced back to a typical anti-social Russian liberal.

  • donnyess

    “like Brahmins, they they’re better than us ordinary Russians of “average intelligence”, fuck. No wonder less than 5% of the population supports them”

    When they don’t have the coke-spoon shoved up their collective noses, they support Roman Polanski too.

  • I’ve actually once had a real-life argument about Khodorkovsky with a middle-aged woman of the sort you’ve mentioned here. You’d think I’d know better than to argue about politics with women, but one comment led to another…

    I think she still hates me. She cited his charitable work to me and called him a fighter against corruption(!!!) I remember suggesting several forms of punishment for him that would have pleased me much more than a plain prison term.

    “If you liberals want him to use him as your figurehead, by all means do so, I even support you in that, since these stunts will only hurt you and permanently keep you from attaining any kind of political influence.”

    Oh, I wish they could hurt them. Does the degree of an idea’s ridiculousness ever has much effect on its popularity? From what I’ve seen the only thing that does have an effect is the amount of effort spent on propagandizing the idea.

  • Yalensis

    Ha! I just read this. You have chutzpah to bait the “liberasti” /Ayn Randites, but it makes me a little nervous, on your behalf. I don’t want to read in the paper tomorrow that this psycho-chick Irina did something to you. Remember, Anatoly, these people, especially the Randites, are truly vicious and capable of violence. According to the Randite philosophy that they so fervently believe in, they are a superior caste and therefore are permitted acts not normally allowed to ordinary mortals. (Like Raskolnikov and his Ubermensch philosophy). Did you see that bit on you-tube where a Randite goon stomped on the head of a young woman anti-Randite? She had surrendered, was lying on the ground, completely still and curled in fetal position; and he still stomped down on her spine and skull, trying to break her neck. One more stomp and the girl would have been toast, except some anonymous hero calls out: “Whoa! Stop stop stop!” and then the coward backs off, leaving her still alive.
    Believe me, these people are more wild-eyed fanatical than any Marxist ever was. Anyone who challenges their bogus version of reality is fair game. So, please be careful and make sure you have something with you at all times in case you need to defend yourself.

    • AK

      Getting killed by a Randroid would make for a good blog post.

  • iv

    Anatoly, thank you for exposing the classic Russian liberasts with their sickening holier than thou attitudes. It strikes me that these people do not understand the great disservice they are doing to the liberal idea in Russia which I support to some degree. Very intertaining read

  • Yalensis

    To your more serious point as to whether or not Marx/Engels were envirionmentalists? Dubious, I think. I am a pretty good Marxist myself, and have read the major popular works (in either Russian or English translation, not that that matters). I’m not intelligent enough to understand Hegelian dialectics or to comprehend the really heavy stuff (please cross-reference Mark’s blog as to the IQ of the average Slav), but I have read all the major works that were popularized for the layperson. Not one word in there about polar bears, global warming or protecting the environment. I think Marx/Engels were more concerned with industrial development, raising the standard of living of the industrial proletariat, and also raising the status of women. They were not fond of the peasantry, but I’m pretty sure they had a lot of good ideas about agricultural development. None of those goals was compatible with conservationism, given the technologies of the time.

    • AK

      yalensis – yes, I have the exact same impression.
      Whenever it is mentioned, Nature is regarded as an inanimate object, to be transformed and made into a factor of production. Hence my skepticism towards Joerg’s claims that Marx was the first environmentalist. Whereas Marx *might* have expounded such sentiments *somewhere* in his huge pile of works, it certainly wasn’t a pattern. But he also claims to have read all his works, and in German, many of them several times. Unorthodox interpretations. And then his claim that Marx would support Khodorkovsky… I’m not excluding the possibility (Marx was very poor & Khodorkovsky has plenty of cash to throw around), but it certainly wouldn’t have been out of ideological sympathy.

      • Yalensis

        I would be really astonished if a resurrected Karl Marx would have supported Khodorkovsky. Marx despised capitalist oligarchs. I was just rummaging around for an appropriate Marxian quote. Best match I could find quickly is this wonderful paragraph from “The Civil War in France”, penned in 1871 after the defeat of the Paris Commune.
        Can read online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm).
        One of Marx’s best works, IMHO. I wish I could read German better, because even the English translation almost spits venom. (Note the great line about Russian ex-serfowners hanging around Paris; this could be prophetic reference to Berezovsky, except switch serf-owners with oligarchs and Paris with London.) Without further ado, here is the quote:
        Wonderful, indeed, was the change the Commune had wrought in Paris! No longer any trace of the meretricious Paris of the Second Empire! No longer was Paris the rendezvous of British landlords, Irish absentees,[M] American ex-slaveholders and shoddy men, Russian ex-serfowners, and Wallachian boyards. No more corpses at the morgue, no nocturnal burglaries, scarcely any robberies; in fact, for the first time since the days of February 1848, the streets of Paris were safe, and that without any police of any kind.
        “We,” said a member of the Commune, “hear no longer of assassination, theft, and personal assault; it seems indeed as if the police had dragged along with it to Versailles all its Conservative friends.”
        The cocottes [‘chickens’ – prostitutes] had refound the scent of their protectors – the absconding men of family, religion, and, above all, of property. In their stead, the real women of Paris showed again at the surface – heroic, noble, and devoted, like the women of antiquity. Working, thinking fighting, bleeding Paris – almost forgetful, in its incubation of a new society, of the Cannibals at its gates – radiant in the enthusiasm of its historic initiative!
        Wonderful, indeed, was the change the Commune had wrought in Paris! No longer any trace of the meretricious Paris of the Second Empire! No longer was Paris the rendezvous of British landlords, Irish absentees,[M] American ex-slaveholders and shoddy men, Russian ex-serfowners, and Wallachian boyards. No more corpses at the morgue, no nocturnal burglaries, scarcely any robberies; in fact, for the first time since the days of February 1848, the streets of Paris were safe, and that without any police of any kind.
        “We,” said a member of the Commune, “hear no longer of assassination, theft, and personal assault; it seems indeed as if the police had dragged along with it to Versailles all its Conservative friends.”
        The cocottes [‘chickens’ – prostitutes] had refound the scent of their protectors – the absconding men of family, religion, and, above all, of property. In their stead, the real women of Paris showed again at the surface – heroic, noble, and devoted, like the women of antiquity. Working, thinking fighting, bleeding Paris – almost forgetful, in its incubation of a new society, of the Cannibals at its gates – radiant in the enthusiasm of its historic initiative!
        Opposed to this new world at Paris, behold the old world at Versailles – that assembly of the ghouls of all defunct regimes, Legitimists and Orleanists, eager to feed upon the carcass of the nation – with a tail of antediluvian republicans, sanctioning, by their presence in the Assembly, the slaveholders’ rebellion, relying for the maintenance of their parliamentary republic upon the vanity of the senile mountebank at its head, and caricaturing 1789 by holding their ghastly meetings in the Jeu de Paume.(2) There it was, this Assembly, the representative of everything dead in France, propped up to the semblance of life by nothing but the swords of the generals of Louis Bonaparte. Paris all truth, Versailles all lie; and that lie vented through the mouth of Thiers.

        Wonderful, indeed, was the change the Commune had wrought in Paris! No longer any trace of the meretricious Paris of the Second Empire! No longer was Paris the rendezvous of British landlords, Irish absentees,[M] American ex-slaveholders and shoddy men, Russian ex-serfowners, and Wallachian boyards. No more corpses at the morgue, no nocturnal burglaries, scarcely any robberies; in fact, for the first time since the days of February 1848, the streets of Paris were safe, and that without any police of any kind.
        “We,” said a member of the Commune, “hear no longer of assassination, theft, and personal assault; it seems indeed as if the police had dragged along with it to Versailles all its Conservative friends.”
        The cocottes [‘chickens’ – prostitutes] had refound the scent of their protectors – the absconding men of family, religion, and, above all, of property. In their stead, the real women of Paris showed again at the surface – heroic, noble, and devoted, like the women of antiquity. Working, thinking fighting, bleeding Paris – almost forgetful, in its incubation of a new society, of the Cannibals at its gates – radiant in the enthusiasm of its historic initiative!
        Opposed to this new world at Paris, behold the old world at Versailles – that assembly of the ghouls of all defunct regimes, Legitimists and Orleanists, eager to feed upon the carcass of the nation – with a tail of antediluvian republicans, sanctioning, by their presence in the Assembly, the slaveholders’ rebellion, relying for the maintenance of their parliamentary republic upon the vanity of the senile mountebank at its head, and caricaturing 1789 by holding their ghastly meetings in the Jeu de Paume.(2) There it was, this Assembly, the representative of everything dead in France, propped up to the semblance of life by nothing but the swords of the generals of Louis Bonaparte. Paris all truth, Versailles all lie; and that lie vented through the mouth of Thiers.

  • Yalensis

    P.S. I am so sorry! My quote from Marx got repeated several times during the cut-and-paste. I hope it doesn’t detract from tis wonderfulness.

  • Freegman

    Liberals like this are their own worst enemy; nothing you say could possibly paint them in a worse light than their own words do. It really does make one wonder what sort of upbringing, negative life experiences, brainwashing etc. could possibly lead to this sort of rabid, brainless fanaticism. It can’t be just a lack of intelligence…

    Ah the mysteries of life.

  • Yalensis

    On the topic of Russian exiles in Britain:
    Lugovoi recently gave an interview to Komsomolskaya Pravda. He claims Litvinenko (along with Berezovsky) had a scam going to sell British citizenship to wealthy Russians. Price was 2 million pounds per head. First they would have to cook up a story about how the client was being oppressed back in Russia for, e.g., attending opposition rallies. This explains a lot about why opposition parties would continues to hold small and meaningless rallies, despite little public support.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8120416/Alexander-Litvinenko-plotted-British-asylum-scam-says-murder-suspect.html