I think that is the charade.
One Katarina was a KGB agent,
the other Katarina was a CIA Trojan horse inside the KGB.

parrallel stories:
Red/Tom, being imposters

LIz/Red, fining their lovers were fake

One Katarina was a KGB agent, the other Katarina was a CIA Trojan horse inside the KGB. A substitution of a woman who had KGB credentials or was a sleeper, by another operative, from the other side. A charade aided by or done with Ilya, under the identity Ilya Koslov, KGB agent, and Dom as Oleander, also KGB.

Fakerina could have been a sleeper agent, assigned to target a promising sailor in counterintelligence. And when Red realized Fakerina was a spy, instead of confronting her, he spied back. Red made Fakerina the center of his universe.

Then, he designed a charade. “You were the architect of this charade.” Used his misfortune for counterintelligence. Especially because Red knew a woman who was the spitting image of Fakerina, in fact likely a relative of Fakerina.

This woman, Dom’s daughter was named Katarina. She was a daredevil, a covert agent, already involved in a scheme to infiltrate the USSR.

So, what makes KR a figment?

The name Rostova was acquired by a cover marriage. It is likely that her entire persona, including maiden name was a fabrication, of what only her first name was real.
there were more than one woman using the name. At least two we know of: Fakerina and Katarina.
Even the OREA section of the CIA described her as a myth

Katarina Rostova was a similar concept to Edgar Legate, a fiction inhabited by many people




Katarina Rostova was no more than a name used to do intelligence or counterintelligence operations. A bit more permeant than Legate, but the same concept.

especially if Katarina was not KGB, but CIA, and Ilya, under the name Ilya Koslov had convinced Fakerina, who was a low level KGB that he was KGB and recruited her for a mission involving the use of the name Katarina Rostova, so that Katarina could become a legend and could access the USSR. Then Red could blackmail Constantin to get him to traffic in secrets or risk exposure that his wife was KGB.

the mythic spy Katarina Rostova, is an illusion, a name with flaming red hair and light eyes.

One woman who inhabits the myth is Katarina, Dom’s daughter,

The other is Fakerina, Blond Katarina, the woman Red refers to as "..."

BILOCATION IS A CONCEPT WITH CONSEQUENCES
So, what happens if Katarina, while in a cover marriage gets pregnant? The double HAS to get pregnant too, or fake the pregnancy.

OR vice versa.

If Fakerina gets pregnant and the father (RR) wants the child and threatens her with revealing she is KGB, in which case she would go to jail, and still have to deliver the baby in jail, she might reluctantly (like Hannah Hayes) deliver the child to term, but would want nothing to do with her. She might retain a basic desire not to harm the child, but none of the parental instincts to safeguard the child at the expense of her life.

And if this was the case, then Katarina would have to get pregnant too and quickly, to preserve the illusion to which she has devoted years to create. Or Katarina would have to fake a pregnancy, make believe she had to take bed rest, etc, and then procure a baby, or take Fakerina’s baby as her own.
We KNOW that Masha Rostova was legally the daughter of Katarina Rostova and Constantin Rostov, but MAY have been biologically the daughter of Fakerina and Raymond Reddington, as she knows quite well:

He’s also Keen’s father. Open it. That man is one of our agents. He’s staking out Keen’s building. Four years go, Reddington and Keen went on the run together. She was on the FBI’s Most Wanted list.

Nanny: It says here her name is Masha Rostova.

It also says she’s the daughter of a KGB agent. A notorious KGB agent named Katarina Rostova.

So, IF Liz is Fakerina’s biological child, then Katarina is her adoptive mother. The one who loved her, the one she was protecting by placing with Sam.

I think Katarina’s took this child in. Felt a bit insecure as a mother, there were secrets about who the baby was that made loving Liz a complicated matter, especially because that Rostov marriage was not real, it was a cover

And it would explain why Red might have hired Kate anonymously, just as he hired Tom Keen, to keep an eye on Liz.

And a man with a inherited disease that eventually would need a genetic donation from a descendant

So Liz was at the center of a dangerous set of circumstances with an adoptive mother married under false pretenses to a man who was a bit eccentric, enough to be willing to jump with a grandchild from a roof, in front of his presumed child, so that Raymond would not be in her life.

The coincidence of the close-in-age Jennifer and Liz, linked by Raymond Reddington. Were the girls switched?
ARE WE MISSING A CHILD, OR DO WE HAVE ONE EXTRA WOMAN?

Masha Rostova was legally the daughter of Katarina Rostova and Constantin Rostov, while Jennifer Reddington was legally the daughter of Raymond Reddington and Carla Reddington.

Liz is the biological child of a Katarina Rostova and Raymond Reddington. Carla Reddington calls Jennifer “her daughter”, and Red (assuming here he is RR) does not seem to have great interest in finding her, or even in her betrayal,

WHEN WAS LIZ BORN?

So we know Liz was born in 1985. Put those together and it seems likely Liz was born in late December 1985.

Jennifer Reddington
The identity Lillian May Roth for Jennifer was likely created near 2017, with a birth year of 1984.

So, it may be likely that both girls both born in 1985, a few months apart, as Dom suggests?

Jennifer grew up hearing her father was a danger to her

Could Jennifer’s father, the one that would be coming for her be Constantin Rostov? Even if her mother never told her so directly?

Remember that we have these facts:
3 women, Carla Reddington, Katarina Rostova and Fakerina.
2 girls, Masha Rostova and Jennifer Reddington, of approximately the same age.
2 men, Constantin Rostov and Raymond Reddington

We are missing one child, Katarina’s child, if she was really pregnant, because if Fakerina was pregnant then Katarina had to be pregnant or fake a pregnancy, OR we have one too many women.

OR there was no Carla Reddington, because Carla was the alias of Fakerina under which she had targeted Reddington, and maybe even married him by then.

In this scenario, Katarina hides her own daughter under the identity Liz had been born with, Jennifer Reddington, while Fakerina’s child grows up in the more dangerous situation of the Masha Rostova identity.

Or is Katarina who creates the Carla identity, marries Reddington, and has her child away from the dangers of being Katarina Rostova’s child.

The unlikely family is Red and Katarina (using the Carla identity), Katarina’s bio-child Jennifer (who is Red’s legal daughter), and the hidden child is Liz, Red’s bio-child and Katarina legal daughter under the Rostovas identities.

IF this scenario is what is going on, then Jennifer and Liz were switched, in reality Jennifer is the real Masha Rostova, and Liz is the real Jennifer Reddington. Liz is a replacement child in a way, but not from Red’s perspective, but from Katarina, more in reality of an added mockingbird in the nest.

blacklist midseason

katarina, traidora de la kgb y traidora de la cabal, la buscan todos
quizas engaño a kirk, quizas con Red (el real o no) y tuvo una hija
pero la empezaron a persegui y tuvo que rajarse,, dejando a liz on kate, con sam, quizas Red trato de recuperarla, quizas dejarla con sam fui idea de red..
katarina fingio su muerte,, pero reaparecio, red lo supo, domo lo supo, ylia lo supo,, y el plan de reemplazar a red no funcionò porque red seguia vivo despues de la noche de fuego en navidad,,, entonces, dom y ylia, para seguir protegiendo a katarina (y por ende a la hija) de todos, fingen que la encuentran, pero ya no es katarina, si no la rubia, que los concia a todos, desde la infancia-(tmb a red? o este en elagun punto cree q es katarina? o sabe que lo es pero siguio llamando katarina para aparentar=) y ahi tenemos el plan de belgrdo.. traicionar a la falsa rubia kata, hacerla ver como q es la real kata y que la cabal la mate, pero en el medio ella zafa y matan al nuevo marido, de ella
entonces, ella cree q la traicion dsps de ella fingir ser kata es culpa de dom, que no es su padre, y de red, y tmb de yllia
ahora sabe q la townsend la busca como si fuera la verdadera kata, y necesita su ubicacion para sacarse a la townsend de encima, y de paso vengarse dom
el secreto q protege yllia es la ubicacion de real kata, y a su amigo red, y la niña agnes, hija de liz y nieta de real kata

up to 7.9 :
So, what was Ilya trying to keep secret?

pueden ser primas, estas 2 katarinas??
what Dom and Ilya did.  They set up Fakerina to provide a dead Katarina
We concluded that Ilya, Red and Katarina grew up in the US, likely in the Midwest.
the outsider, Fakerina, whose name IS Katarina Rostova, and concluded  ashe is somewhat of an outsider.  She seemed to have had a romantic relationship with  Red and a friendly or romantic relationship with Ilya, but she does not understand why they will not help her. We examined the possibility that she might be Liz’s biological mother and yet not the mother who raised her, Dom’s daughter
considered the possibility that Ilya, Dom and Red were running a false flag operation with Dom and Ilya and Katarina as fake KGB agents, with Fakerina providing unwittingly her name and credentials.

iusnaturalismo
dercho natural, a la vida,a la libertad, a la propiedad, para poder desarrollarse
en estas base haremos un sistema etico normativo
esto es ancestral, y anterior a las instituciones del estado.. ya lo decia arsitoteles (amen de la esclavitud )

de caracter evidente casi no admiten discusion-- la propiedad es el marco separatorio entre estadios primitivos y civiliacion...apropiacion original , se recolecta con mi trabajo y con mi esfuerzo se acumula y se puede reproducir
para la supervivencia ,ejemplo de agricultura y capital: excedente para el intercambio... orden y organizacion pacifica y espontanea...el mercado

valor equitativo moral de los hombres, todos valemos--universalidad y simetria de las normas
igualdad ante la ley}y si reconocemos estos derechos, tmn debemos admitir el derecho a defenderlos, la legitima defensa
 liberalismo de s 17 y 18, los contractualistas de locke creen que el rol de defensa debe recaer en el estado,, esta idea puede ser refutada revisando la historia antigua, y la antropologia ...los primero piratas saqueabam invadian y despues exigian pagos para "defender" --teoria depredatoria, de franz oppenhaimmer   .oppenhaimmer..el contractualismo, el estado es criminal

locke vs rousseau, este ultimo se decanta mas por el estado hipertrofico agregando le el elemento de la Voluntad General. pero ninguna v g, colectivista puede anular libertades indivuduales o derechos, pero si la mayoria lo determina lo ultimo corre peligro.. entonces la presencia del estado amenza la lib. indivdual, porq este regula y gobierna en nombre de "todos" elegido por "la mayoria" ....
pero la gente no elige que el estado existe, y ademas no elige participar... el mismo voto no vincula a su voluntad co nel poder o el accionar politico... el voto no decide nada
el gobernanate/estado ostenta el monopolio de la fuerza, y por ende usurpa la supuesta voluntad general, la supuesta expresion de sus gobernado/sometidos...
si tenemos el legitimo derecho de defensa,,, a los primero indicios de avances sobre las garantias del individuo, tmb surgirà el "derecho de Rebelion". como dice juan de Mariana..si el rey se excede sobre los derechos naturales de sus subditos, estos tienen el derecho a rebelarse, lo mismo dice Spooner sobre John  Brown..en la lucha civil.. porque tenemos derecho a defendernos de los avences del enemigo, si no tmb a hacer valer los derechos de los demas.. y si reconcemos el derecho del projimo, tbm tenemos el deber moral de asistirlo ante cualquier ataque vandalico o amenaza, sea el estado u otro, asi avanzamos como especie

Dif.derecho natural /der. positivo:
el postivismo juridico considera el unico derecho cpmp el de la legislacion de lso estado, el natural no es reconocido...relacionado al escepticismo ètico de hans khelsen... ej, libertad vs igualdad economica, los dos juntos no pueden estar...como hacemos para "igualar" a todos ..?? democracia...supuestamente decantarà lo major o lo mas necesario, lo mas util (principio de utilidad, tipico del positivismo)... todo teorico, porq la gente no vota nada, hay agendas transversales en todos los gobiernos de todos lados...
entonces, es lo justo es lo util? justo para quien, y util para quien? los limites donde estàn? ..el derecho natural desmiente, logica y facticamente, los contratos positivistas, porq en realidad poco estarian disuestos a resignar parte de su libertad o su propiedad..esta resistiria incluso como de comun acuerdo entre las personas, preservasdndo su segfuridad e integridad, ante las exigencias de un tercero, o un gobierno con violencia

derechos naturales entran en conflicto con lso derechos ) con estos ultimos se necesitan recursos, y a alquien se le quita para esos recursos... ej,.vivienda, educacion, etc..algunos derechos naturales terminaran siendo avasallados... ademas si todos tienen derechos..pueden, podemos TODOS tener derecho? si todo es derecho, nada es derecho

(((( el derecho a al educacion es derecho al adoctrinamiento y a la obediencia sin cuestionamientos al Sistema)))
estos derechos creados gracias al "sustento" de sacarle recursos a otros, crea resentimientos, odia y enfentamientos social, q es la materia prima en la q se sustenta la opresion, la casta dirigente surgue como supuesta redentora y conciliadora de partes enfrentadas, nunca proponiendo uan verdadera solucion... ademas la gente enfrentada no observa al verdadero enemigo opresor, Bastiat, el enemigo es la gran ficcion donde  todo el mundo quiere vivir a expensas del projimo postivos (derechos contractuales, der, humanos, etc.. )

la division de poderes fue descartad en s 19 por los mismo liberales, la historia monopolica del estado demuestra su corrupcion y su inutilidad ... las constituciones contradicen los derechos naturales, los codigos civiles los anulen..

la div de poderes, fue anulada cuando el parlamento le onsequia el status de nueva oligarquia que detenta poder sobre el resto, y el juez es recompensado por arrodillarse al poder politico de turno 
 situacion del negocio de las leyes, los abogados, los jueces, y la construccion de las carceles,,,


Spooner y Spencer, liberales clasicos, decantan por el anarquismo, ya que ven el aparatro estatal como injusto y represor...la contitucion de, por ej, alberdi del 53, solo declamaba esos derechos pero en la practica eran maquinaria de ingenieria social...con parlamentos que rebalsan de leyes y regualciones..
el sistema global actual, es uan sintesis de comunismo y capitalismo,,este ultimo prevendario y monopolico oligarquico de beneficio para un 1 %, y un estado hiperregualdor hipertrofico sovietico para el restante 99 %
el sistema actual es liberticida


la unica libertad es el mercado negro el gris, la evacion, colgarse de servicios,,,la desobediencia civil, el faltazo al sufragio y limitar lo mas posible el uso de la red bancaria

nada ni nadie nos puede extorsionar moralmente,,, no tenemos obligacion de hacer nada

liberalismo (clasico)
tolerancia, respeto y defensa de caminso indivuduales y

del projimo y las esencias naturales
conexion con el anarquismo liberal, por su idea de

reducir la presencia opresiva del estado, defendiendo

la libertad, la propiedad privada y los derechos

naturales, evitando y combatiendo la coercion y la

coaacion
en s. 20 hubo profanacion del liberalismo, en EEUU los

liberals son los progres social democratas, y los

"libertarians" quieren ser los liberales, pero no son

los liberales clasicos...

se llega a esta postura anti estatal, anti corporativo

y controladora a la luz de examinar la historia, y la

actualidas y realidad politica

pero verdadero utopia es la  estatista, la de creer que

el estado nos cuidara, nos protegera, no nos

aleccionara, no nos robara ni estafarà..un pequeño

grupo de hombres (quien dice que son ustos o correctos)

haciendose cargo de instituciones que rigen la vida de

las personas---
ademas, no estamos viviendo en republicas o

democracias, eso es parte del engaño y las

farsas...este pais es claro ejemplo de la neo

colonizazion, de la usurpacion a traves de la social

democracia (a veces mas de derecha, a vces mas de

izquierda) para obedecer las ordenes y los designios

del nuevo orden mundial, es decir la globalizacion, o

la privatizacion del poder...instalando paulatina y

sutilmente un totalitarismo despotico, verdd esta que

esta protegida de ser cuestionada gracias a la

propaganda y la publicidad de los derechos humanos y la

correcion politica
********
el antiguo sistema "oligarquico" nunca fue liberal si

no de ingenieria social positivista"
*********
contrato social, falacia indemostrable

no defiende ningun derecho,. si no ue impone

restricciones obligaciones y resòmsabiidades en favor

de la clase politica, esta cada vez mas rica, aquella

cada vez mas pobre.. y en ultima instancia son los

lobbys corporativos, financieros, usureros e

industrialistas esclavizantes los que rigen al

mundo,...la pseudo casta politica son sus titeres y

adlateres