I usually don’t ublish abusive and/or anonymous comments and this was both. (I just don’t understand why such bold and fierce partisand cower behind the veil of anonymity).

But this exerpt from another document on my Kasparov post proves my point (and illustrates the point I was making in the post on :The Art of intellectual Self Defense”)

Note tht for all the bluster about lying there is not a single example given. And no facts to back up the bluster. Ad hominem attacks on Kasparov don’t disprove the vicious and murderous nature of the thugocracy he opposes. (And of course he doesn’t want his family held hostage by these KGB thugs. This doens’t undermine his personal courage.).

I wish Putin had turned out differently. I initially believed his rise was a positive development. That some stability was necessary. But stability doesn’t have to mean autocracy and murder. I think the U.S. bears a share of responsibility that he (and Russia) have turned out to be enemies of their own citizens’ liberty. .

But the implication in the rant excerpted below is that Russia has no problems with democracy and human rights, it’s all lies made up by Kasparov. Anyone who believes that makes himself a laughingstock.

Sadly we’re seeing the return of the Stalinoid Big Lie.

Here’s the excerpt from the brave anonymous commenter. Read it and weep for the tragedy of history:

“Kasparov’s lies follow the same pattern:

• Putin is ignorant criminal and cannot have any arguments (at least presented on US TV); he is guilty of all crimes happened in Russia and former USSR during all times

• Any Kremlin’s statement which does not suit the theory about criminal Putin’s regime is a lie and is a part of Putin’s plot

• Kasparov has a right to consider any assumption made by himself as absolute truth and proven fact

• Any fact that does not fit into the story about evil Putin does not have any relation to the subject and is just another Kremlin’s lie

• Any fact that strengthen Kasparov’s story about bloody Putin regime is of course real and proven, even if it has been just made up by Kasparov

• Fact which Kasparov did not bother to familiarize himself with does not exist even though it is well-known to public”