La Truthophobe

The grumpy, Russia-hating blogger Kim Zigfeld (going by the unattractive name, La Russophobe) has been nagging on at me and Julia Svetlichnaja ever since the Telegraph published our interview with the murdered spy Alexander Litvinenko.

Needless to say, everything that La Russophobe says is wrong, as one would expect of someone whose starting point is a blanket fear of all Russians.

La Truthophobe has been particularly exercised by the fact that Julia Svetlichnaja disputed the coverage of the two newspapers that slandered her, the Sunday Times and the Norwegian Aftenposten. 'What about Julia's threatened lawsuit?', blogged Zigfeld, sarcastically.

When the Sunday Times withdrew its allegations against Ms Svetlichnaja, La Truthophobe was not chastened, but even more self-righteous, dismissing the climbdown on these grounds:

it wasn't the Times which reported the issues about Svetlichnaya, it was the Norwegian daily Aftenposten. If the Times did anything, it repeated what Aftenposten reported. Not only has Aftenposten not issued a correction, Svetlichnaya's threat to sue the paper has not materialized (in fact, it hasn't even been reported that she's obtained legal representation in Norway).

Well, OK, if Zigfeld will not take the Sunday Times' word for it, what will dislodge her idee fixe? La Truthophobe continued to hide behind the (Norwegian) libel laws, responding to one comment of mine with this non-sequiteur: 'he says nothing about the status of Svetlichnaja's alleged lawsuit against Aftenposten, which has seemingly not progressed'.

But when Aftenposten withdrew its original, defamatory statements against Julia Svetlichnaja, how does Zigfeld respond?

'The situation between the Aftenposten newspaper and Julia Svetlichnaya (click here to read our numerous prior reports on Ms. S.) appears to have resolved itself in a draw.'

(Incidentally, you cannot read La Truthophobe's numerous reports, because, like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Zigfeld has rewritten history, taking down most of the posts quoted here.) 

More importantly, the "situation between Aftenposten and Julia Svetlichnaja" is nothing like a draw. The allegations that Aftenposten made against Julia Svetlichnaja have been withdrawn in full:

 Aftenposten clarifies that the newspaper has no basis for asserting that these claims are correct.

Is there any ambiguity in those words? To a sane person, no. But Kim Zigfeld is not sane, writing:

It does not state that the central accusation made against Svetlichnaya was false. Rather, it merely states that it does not have the ability to independently verify that accusation

Well, no, it says 'has no basis for asserting that any of these claims are correct'. But in the Autocratic Republic of Truthophobia having no basis for saying something ...only confirms that it must be true! 

In the same way we have no basis for asserting that Kim Zigfeld abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann, so 'the whole sordid business has been swept under the carpet'.

Zigfeld goes on to complain that Svetlichnaja did not defend her claims in court, preferring to settle 'behind the scenes' - except that it was Aftenposten who asked to settle before the matter went to court, just as the Sunday Times did.

So it is that at every turn, Zigfeld turns her face against the truth. When the Sunday Times withdraws, she turns to (that august institution) Aftenposten; and when they in turn withdraw, Zigfeld simply refuses to believe it.

Anyway, there is no need to linger with the delusions of this congenital idiot. There could be no greater punishment for her sins than being La Russophobe.