NATO member questions Stoltenberg’s stance on Ukraine
RT | April 21, 2023
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has cast doubt on NATO’s purportedly universal support for accepting Ukraine into the US-led bloc.
Orban took to Twitter on Friday to share an article by Politico on NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s visit to Kiev, where he proclaimed Ukraine had a “rightful place” within the bloc.
Commenting on the article, Orban simply wrote: “What?!”
Stoltenberg made a surprise appearance in Kiev on Thursday, in a first visit to the country since the beginning of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022.
During a joint press conference with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, Stoltenberg praised the continuous military aid flowing from NATO member states to Ukraine. He also insisted a multi-year support initiative for Kiev was “testament to NATO’s long-term commitment” to the country.
“Allies are now delivering more jets, tanks, and armored vehicles, and NATO’s Ukraine fund is providing urgent support… All of this is making a real difference on the battlefield today,” Stoltenberg asserted. He further claimed that Kiev has a “rightful” place within the bloc.
Ukraine’s rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help to make this possible.
However, the secretary-general failed to provide a specific timeframe for Ukraine’s potential accession into the alliance. Zelensky, for his part, urged Stoltenberg to “overcome the reluctance” of some NATO members to supply long-range rockets and modern fighter jets to Ukraine.
Hungary has repeatedly said it will not support Ukraine’s applications to either NATO or the EU. Budapest has refrained from providing military aid to Kiev, as well as refusing to allow such shipments to travel through its territory and onto Ukraine.
Budapest and Kiev have long been at odds over the latter’s attitude towards the ethnic Hungarian minority in Ukraine. Some 150,000 ethnic Hungarians live in modern Ukraine, primarily in the Transcarpathian region. Kiev’s efforts to crack down on Russian speakers following the 2014 Maidan coup have affected other minorities as well, including Hungarians. Kiev, meanwhile, has repeatedly accused Budapest of meddling in its internal affairs, particularly by granting citizenship to Ukraine’s ethnic Hungarians.
Head of Norwegian Shipyard Denies Presence of Spy Equipment on Russian Trawlers
Sputnik – 21.04.2023
Greger Mannswerk, head of Norwegian shipyard Kimek located in the town of Kirkenes, which borders Russia, said on Friday that the shipyard’s employees did not find any spy equipment on board Russian trawlers, commenting on recent reports from Norwegian media.
“We have a pretty good understanding of what’s on board and we have never found anything to indicate that they [Russian seamen] are engaged in intelligence gathering. We cannot know if there are any [Russian] intelligence officers on board today, but no fisherman enters a Norwegian harbor without the [Norwegian] police and armed forces having a full idea of who is on board,” Mannswerk was quoted as saying by the broadcaster.
This week, the media published the results of an investigation, which said that up to 50 civilian Russian ships could be involved in intelligence operations against Norway.
Russia has no plan to ruin Western unity, Kremlin tells WaPo
RT | April 21, 2023
The Washington Post says it has obtained secret Russian documents detailing a plan to bring anti-establishment political parties together in Germany in an effort to sow discord in the West. The Kremlin has responded that it does not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations.
The purported Russian documents, largely dated from July to November last year, were obtained by an unidentified European intelligence service, the US news outlet said on Friday. It did not explain how it gained access, but it also interviewed some German politicians for the story.
The article said Moscow’s plan was “part of a hidden front in Russia’s war against Ukraine” and an attempt “to undermine Western unity.” The Soviet Union harnessed anti-war sentiment in the same way, an anonymous German security official told the Post.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the alleged Russian plan “100% fake.” He told the Post : “We never interfered before and now we really don’t have time for this.”
The strategy, as described in the article, involves “marrying” Germany’s far-left Die Linke with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Sahra Wagenknecht, an MP from Die Linke, would have a chance of winning the chancellorship with such backing, the plan suggests.
The Post spoke to Wagenknecht’s former husband, Ralph Niemeyer, who assessed her electoral chances as high. He claimed that Russian officials told him that such an outcome would be in Moscow’s interest.
But Wagenknecht would never accept any support from Moscow, Niemeyer added, and the idea of a union with AfD did not sit well with her either. The politician herself told the Post that there would not be “any cooperation or alliance” between her “and elements of the AfD in any form.”
The Post claimed that the effort was led by Sergey Kirienko, the deputy head of the Russian presidential administration, along with unnamed “political strategists” tasked with executing it. The documents do not show any attempts by the Russian government to communicate the strategy to German politicians or potential allies, the report said.
The article cited instances of Die Linke and AfD holding protests against Berlin’s involvement in the Ukraine conflict and the damage caused by anti-Russian sanctions to the national economy. Members of AfD interviewed by the newspaper said being on the same side of the issue was the result of an intersection of values rather than any Russian influence campaign.
CDC director gives misleading testimony to Congress
Walensky misled Congress on vaccine effectiveness against viral transmission and on Cochrane review of face masks
BY MARYANNE DEMASI, PHD | APRIL 20, 2023
This week, CDC director Rochelle Walensky provided witness testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations responsible for overseeing the funding of various federal programs related to labour, health, education, and other related agencies.
But serious questions have been raised about the veracity of Walensky’s testimony.
Congressman Andrew Clyde (R-Ga) asked Walensky if her March 2021 public statement on MSNBC, in which she unequivocally said that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus, they do not get sick” was accurate.
“At the time it was [accurate]” Walensky replied confidently.
She then proceeded to explain, “We’ve had an evolution of the science and an evolution of the virus” and that “all the data at the time suggested that vaccinated people, even if they got sick, could not transmit the virus.”
However, there was no such evidence at the time and it prompted criticism from scientists who said there weren’t enough data to claim that vaccinated people were completely protected or that they could not transmit the virus to others.
One of those critics was Jay Bhattacharya, professor of health policy at Stanford University School of Medicine.
“Back then, Walensky didn’t know if it was true. It was just an irresponsible use of a bully pulpit as a CDC director to say something that she did not know for certain to be true at the time,” said Bhattacharya.
“Unfortunately, people used that information to discriminate against unvaccinated individuals and would certainly have been used as fuel for very destructive policies like vaccine mandates,” he added.
Notably, only days after Walensky made that statement to MSNBC, a spokesperson from her own agency had to walk back the comments saying, “Dr Walensky spoke broadly in this interview” adding that it was possible for fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19.
Walensky missed the memo
Walensky should have known that when mRNA vaccines were first authorised in 2020, the FDA listed critical ‘gaps’ in the knowledge base. One of them was the vaccine’s unknown effectiveness against viral transmission.
Also, in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s original pivotal trials, there were 8 and 11 people respectively, who developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine group, proving the vaccines never had absolute effectiveness, like Walensky had claimed.
Several months later, the FDA’s evaluation stayed the same. In a clinical review, the FDA wrote, “remaining uncertainties regarding the clinical benefits of BNT162b2 in individuals 16 years and older, include its level of protection against asymptomatic infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, including for the delta variant.”
Even today, the FDA remains clear that efficacy against transmission is unproven. The FDA’s website states, “While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if Comirnaty will reduce such transmission.”
Walensky says Cochrane summary ‘retracted’
Another astonishing falsehood made by Walensky was her response to Congressman Clyde’s question about the Cochrane review which found that wearing face masks in the community “probably makes little to no difference” in preventing viral transmission.
Walensky enthusiastically stated, “I think its notable, that the Editor-in-Chief of Cochrane, actually said that the summary of that review was…[stumble]..she retracted the summary of that review and said that it was inaccurate.”
However, the summary of the review was not retracted, nor have the authors of the review changed the language in the summary.
Misleading statements by New York Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci has likely led to this falsehood being repeated (which I cover in a previous article).
In response to Walensky’s comments, Tom Jefferson, lead author of the Cochrane study said, “Walensky is plain wrong. There has been no retraction of anything.”
“It’s worth reiterating that we are the copyright holders of the review, so we decide what goes in or out of the review and we will not change our review on the basis of what the media wants or what Walensky says,” remarked Jefferson.
Bhattacharya was also stunned by Walensky’s comments. “It’s irresponsible for her to claim that the Cochrane review [summary] was retracted when it was not. It damages her credibility and harms the scientific process, which requires public officials to be honest about scientific results,” he said.
Did Walensky lie to Congress or is she poorly informed?
Witnesses at these hearings are expected to provide truthful and accurate information to the committee and may be subject to legal penalties if they provide false information or knowingly make false statements.
But will Walensky be held accountable for misleading Congress? Unlikely.
Facebook Censors Seymour Hersh’s Article About US Involvement in Nord Stream Pipeline Attack
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | April 20, 2023
Facebook is censoring Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s story about US involvement in the destruction of Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines using a ‘fact checker’ with links to the Norwegian government in what represents a clear conflict of interest.
Earlier this year, Hersh published a report asserting that the pipelines were destroyed by the US as part of a covert operation which was organized with the aid of the Norwegian government, Norwegian Secret Service and Navy.
Journalist Michael Shellenberger first noticed the issue when he tried to post Hersh’s article to Facebook, but saw the social media giant had slapped a warning label on the link stating, “False information. Checked by independent fact-checkers.”
Except the ‘fact-checkers’ in question aren’t independent at all.
As Shellenberger notes, “Hersh is infinitely more independent than Facebook’s Norwegian fact-checker. The fact-checking organization is a partnership with a Norwegian government-owned media company, NRK, which has a direct self-interest in censoring the story.”
By censoring the article with a dubious ‘fact check’, Facebook is preventing it from reaching a much wider audience, relegating it in the algorithm.
This is yet another example of how the ‘fact-checker industrial complex’ serves to censor legitimate information at the behest of governments by posing as an independent, non-bias actor when in reality it is merely a front for state control.
Facebook’s claim, made a few years ago, that it cannot act as “the arbiter of the truth” for any contentious issue, has been proven dishonest once again.
“Whether Hersh is wrong or right, his reporting should be debated publicly, not censored. Facebook’s actions are antithetical to America’s tradition of free and open debate and its rejection of secretive, authoritarian censorship,” writes Shellenberger.
“The American people have given Facebook broad liability protections under Section 230 that other media companies don’t get. And yet Facebook is acting like a media company, not a platform. As such, Facebook is putting its Section 230 protection at risk. And censoring Hersh may only attract more attention to it.”
Former Director Of National Intelligence Admits That Fauci Lied About Gain Of Function Research
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | April 19, 2023
Only two years ago numerous alternative media sources including Zero Hedge were accused of spreading “conspiracy theories” and false information relating to the origins of the Covid-19 virus. Specifically, anyone who dared to suggest that the Level 4 virology lab in Wuhan, China (right across town from covid ground zero) might be the source of the outbreak, faced outright censorship on social media. The question many people should have been asking is: “Why?” – Why was the censorship so aggressive over clearly reasonable investigations into Wuhan lab operations?
Not only that, but why were the denials and spin from officials like Anthony Fauci so swift? Why not simply examine the evidence instead of dismissing it out of hand?
The real reason for the campaign to silence discussion on the Wuhan lab becomes evident as the connections between Fauci, the NIH and the lab are revealed. Elements of the US government including Fauci were in fact bankrolling gain of function research on coronaviruses at Wuhan, and shielding it from government oversight. It is undeniable. If one accepts that the most likely source for the covid pandemic was the Wuhan laboratory then one must also accept that Fauci and his associates helped to create the pandemic.
Fauci lied about these connections incessantly under oath. Here is Anthony Fauci defending his initial lie to Congress using further lies during questioning by Sen. Rand Paul:
Evidence of the research includes documents from the Department of Defense (obtained by Project Veritas ) which confirm that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in 2018 about gain of function research on bat borne coronaviruses under a proposal called Project Defuse. DARPA rejected the proposal on the grounds that it did not outline the risks of such experimentation and violated a moratorium on gain on function research. EcoHealth then went to Fauci and the NIH for funding, and Fauci was quick to support it using the labs in Wuhan.
Documents from the NIH itself also show that the group engaged in gain of function research at Wuhan focusing on developing coronaviruses that could be transferred from animals to humans. Fauci was aware of this research by at least 2021 (and was likely involved from the very beginning) and yet continued to lie about NIH involvement.
Meanwhile, the National Pulse – which has done multiple deep-dive investigations on the topic, uncovered in May of 2001 that the WIV scrubbed all mention of its partnership with the NIH from their website.
Scrutiny over Fauci’s disinformation campaign may be too little too late, and we have to wonder if the man will ever face consequences for his actions. However, the exposure of Fauci and the NIH is so overwhelming that the former Director of National Intelligence now admits that Fauci misled Congress and the American public.
Hopefully, this revelation will help to discourage people from blindly following the claims of government bureaucrats during the next manufactured global crisis.
THE PLANNING OF THE UKRAINE INVASION FROM THE RUSSIAN POINT OF VIEW (MAYBE)
By Gaius Baltar | SONAR | April 19, 2023
Recently I heard an “expert” offer the opinion that Putin and the Russian Army had made a serious mistake when they organized the “special military operation” (SMO) in the Ukraine the way they did. It would have been far better to just send the army into Lugansk and Donetsk to defend them rather than make an ill-advised dash toward Kiev.
Instead of following this belated advice from that expert, the Russians chose to move fast into northern and southern Ukraine. Why did they do that? There are many theories; some good, some illogical, and some completely incoherent. I thought it might be a good idea to step back and look at the situation before the SMO from the Russian point of view. Russians tend to be practical and logical people and the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces probably more so than most. Their plan must have had logical reasons based on what they saw at the time. So, how did the Russians see the situation before the SMO, at the end of 2021? Let’s put ourselves in their shoes and come up with a theory. Note that this is not a theory of what did happen, only of what the Russians may have thought that might happen when they planned their SMO.
The defensive lines and the siege of the Donbass
The first thing the Russians must have noticed was the construction of the massive Ukrainian defensive lines around the Lugansk and Donetsk republics. The Ukraine Government had made no secret of their plan to capture the republics and the Ukrainian Army should have had an “offensive posture” rather than defensive. It makes perfect sense to construct defensive lines while planning an attack to prevent disruptive counterattacks, but the Ukrainian defenses went far beyond that. They were truly massive and built over a period of 8 years. We know how strong they were because it has taken the Russians more than a year to break through them.
The Russians must have taken a look at those defenses and reached the following conclusion: Their purpose is to contain the Russian Army if necessary – even if a large part of the Russian Army is used against them.
The second thing the Russians must have noticed was the absolute determination of the Ukrainians to attack the republics, even if this ensured a Russian response. We saw that determination when the Russian Government recognized their independence just before the war started. According to the OCSE artillery monitoring map, Ukrainian artillery attacks on the republics decreased right after the recognition of independence, but then increased again – most likely after having received orders from Kiev to keep going. At that point in time Russian involvement was ensured, but the Ukrainians still kept attacking the republics.
The Russians would have connected those two things; the determination to attack and the massive defenses. They must have come to the following conclusion: “They want us to attack through the Donbass, and then they are going to use those defensive lines to contain us. Why?”
The trap
Having observed all this the Russians must have started to think about the Ukrainian plans. They would have assumed that those plans were not just Ukrainian plans, but NATO plans as well. So, what were the Ukrainians and NATO planning?
The Russians must have made the following deduction: “The Ukrainians and NATO want us to attack through the Donbass and clash against those lines. Why would they want that? It must be because it is a precondition for some kind of plan on their part – some kind of larger plan. What is that larger plan?”
Then they must have thought about what it would take to confront the Ukrainian army in the Donbass and take on the defensive lines. What would that require? It would require a large force and a lot of time. That would mean that a considerable part of the Russian Army would be tied down there for quite some time. Was that perhaps the precondition for the larger Ukrainian/NATO plan? Was the whole thing perhaps about forcing the Russian Army to attack through the Donbass and taking on the defensive lines – specifically to tie it down – to keep it busy while the Ukrainians and NATO carried out the rest of their plan?
After having considered this, the Russians must have asked themselves the following question: “What do the Ukrainians and NATO want more than anything?” And since it’s actually the Americans and the British running the show: “What do the Americans and the British want more than anything?” The question isn’t hard to answer. What the Americans, the British, and the Ukrainians want more than anything is Crimea. Crimea is the key to “dominating” the Black Sea, and capturing it would be a dagger into the belly of Russia.
After having run through this logic, the Russians would have come to the conclusion that the Ukrainian attack on the Donbass republics and the defensive lines was a trap to tie them down. Then they started planning countermoves.
The Russian plan
The first thing the Russians may have thought about when planning the countermove was timing. How long after the war started would the Ukrainians move on the Crimean peninsula? They wouldn’t do it right away because they would want the Russian Army to be well and truly engaged in the Donbass before making a move. They would also not want to tip the Russians off by assembling a big force near Crimea before the Russians engaged the defensive lines in the Donbass. This would mean that the area north of Crimea, i.e. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, would be lightly defended for a while.
After having reached this conclusion, the Russians put together a plan to preempt the Ukrainian/NATO plan. The plan had one main objective and two secondary objectives.
Objective 1 (main objective): To capture Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts to create a buffer zone between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine. This objective had to be reached extremely fast while the area was still lightly defended. This operation was all-important at that point in time, far more important than anything happening in the Donbass or the Kiev area. Capturing Kherson was not enough to create the buffer zone because the Ukrainians had to be prevented from attacking the Crimean Bridge. The Zaporizhzhia coast line is only 150 kilometers from the bridge so Zaporizhzhia oblast had to be taken immediately as well.
Objective 2 (secondary objective): While a large part of the Ukrainian Army was positioned in the Donbass, there was still a large force kept back, possibly for the Crimean operation. This part of the Ukrainian army would have to be kept from engaging the Russian forces going after Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. The only way to do that was to threaten something that had to be defended at all cost, even at the cost of the Crimea plan. There was only one location the Ukrainians would defend at all cost outside the Donbass – Kiev itself. The Russians therefore decided to advance on Kiev in an extremely threatening manner. The forces they used were not sufficient to take Kiev outright but enough to hold the area north of the city and seriously threaten it. The Ukrainians would have no choice but to take the threat seriously and move forces toward Kiev, including the forces intended for the Crimean operation. This would prevent the Ukrainians from responding to the Russian occupation of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.
Objective 3 (secondary objective): To force Ukraine to negotiate peace on Russian terms. The Russians most likely assumed that if the Kherson/ Zaporizhzhia buffer operation was successful the Ukrainians might want to negotiate. They would want to negotiate not only because Kiev was threatened, but primarily because their main objective, the capture of Crimea, had been thwarted. This part of the plan was partly successful because the Ukrainians were ready to sign a treaty before the Americans and the British intervened.
The conclusion from this (perhaps dubious) mind-reading of the Russian General Staff is that the main objectives of the initial Russian operation were Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, not Donbass, Kiev, or a treaty with the Ukrainians. When the negotiations fell through, the Russians moved back to their contingency plan with the main objective of destroying the Ukrainian Army.
It is important to keep in mind that this is not a theory intended to explain what happened. It is only a theory to explain the Russian plan based on what the Russians may have been thinking at the time. It’s highly speculative and perhaps wrong, but it explains a lot nevertheless – including Ukrainian and Western reactions to the Russian operation.
The Ukrainian plan
Let’s describe the theoretical Ukrainian/NATO plan before moving on. The plan, according to this hypothetical Russian pre-war theory, had three main objectives:
- To tie down the Russian Army in the Donbass using the massive defensive lines and a good part of the well-trained and well-equipped Ukrainian Army.
- To carry out a surprise attack on the Crimean peninsula, occupy it and turn the Black Sea into a NATO-controlled area – and putting massive pressure on Putin as a bonus. For this a significant part of the Ukrainian army was held back from the Donbass.
- To bog down and bleed the Russian Army in the Donbass with the goal of engineering a regime change in Russia. The sanctions blitz was planned as an integral part of that goal.
It’s April 2023 and so far none of these objectives have been achieved. Let’s assume that this theory is correct and this was actually the plan – and let’s look at what the Ukrainians and the West have been up to since it failed. Again, this is highly speculative.
The obsession with the plan
If we look at what the Ukrainians and the West have been doing in this war, a pattern seems to emerge: They still seem to be carrying out the initial plan, even though it failed. Almost every decision they make seems to be in accordance with the plan, or more specifically, in accordance with a pathological denial of the failure of the plan. Let’s look at a few examples:
The obsession with Crimea: The Ukrainians and the West are still planning to take Crimea, even though it is impossible. Still, the capture of Crimea is alive in their minds and a realistic option. Zelensky even at one point said that the Ukraine had started the liberation of Crimea … “in their minds.” Occupying Crimea was a part of the plan and abandoning Crimea means that the plan has failed.
The attack on the Crimean Bridge: Destroying the bridge was a part of the plan, and even after the Crimea was out of Ukraine’s grasp and the Russians had secured a land corridor to Crimea, the bridge was still a priority. It had to be attacked because that was a part of the plan. Now that itch has been scratched and they have, so far, not had the need to try again.
The obsession with Bakhmut: The Ukrainian Army has probably lost close to 40,000 soldiers defending Soledar and Bakhmut. The enclosed area is a kill zone for Russian artillery which the Ukrainians supply with endless cannon fodder. Even the Americans have doubts that hanging on to the city is the right option and the Ukrainians may even be willing to sacrifice their spring offensive to hold on to it just a little bit longer. More and more military experts are shaking their heads and talk about Bakhmut as a Ukrainian obsession, which it is. Holding Bakhmut prevents the last part of the plan from failing, i.e. to hold the Russian army on the other side of the defensive lines. If the Russians break through, the plan will have failed completely. Therefore Bakhmut must be defended.
The obsession with the sanctions: One of the biggest shocks of the war was the failure of the Western economic sanctions. The response of the West to the failure has been interesting. They didn’t cancel the sanctions or freeze them or rethink them. Instead they keep on sanctioning everyone and everything even though it is clearly pointless and even counterproductive. The situation is becoming increasingly surreal but they can’t stop. If they stop, the plan will have failed.
The initial panic
There is one other issue which the failure of the Ukrainian/NATO plan may explain. Every significant person in the West expected the Russians to invade the Ukraine before it happened. This was, in fact, what many of them wanted. One would have expected them to show indignation, to condemn the brutish Russians, and so on and so forth. The initial reaction in the West went far beyond that. There was extreme anger, panic and hysteria. There were even threats of using nuclear weapons. I always thought these reactions were far more extreme than the Russian invasion warranted. Why completely lose your mind over something you knew was going to happen? I suspect all the anger, the panic and the threats were because the Russians thwarted the Western Crimea plan. They were going to trick the Russians but the Russians tricked them instead. The Westerners were humiliated and nothing motivates anger and threats of nukes more than humiliation.
The anger and obsession with the failed plan in the Ukraine and the West are without doubt the result of the psychology and personality of the incredibly uniform Western and Ukrainian leadership class. They don’t accept personal failure easily, or the intrusion of reality into their plans. But that is a matter for another essay, and a long one at that.
Finally, remember that this is all speculation – a thought exercise if you will – but who knows…
Via col Vento in the United States of Amnesia: Whistleblowers, Leaks and Fratricide
Michael Hoffman’s Revelation of the Method | April 19, 2023
Fratricide is Satanism
Satanic activities are not the domain of one political wing. One of the most wicked black magic sacrifices occurred in the early 20th century, in a mass immolation known as the First World War, a useless fratricide, tantamount to an open air Satanic ritual, placating the devil with human sacrifices and approved by the churches.
Each church hierarchy among the belligerents declared that God was on the side of their army, and then dispatched young men in the flower of youth to cross oceans and trenches and butcher other young men in the flower of youth.
World War I was fought between traditional monarchies and conservative governments deeply entrenched in Christendom and nonetheless behaving diabolically. It was Churchianity in charge, not Christianity, and it reflected a self-deception that is quintessentially demonic.
In Ukraine at this moment another fratricide is underway—a civil war between Slavic people. It would be an understatement to say that the Cryptocracy is not generally fond of Slavs. The Cryptocracy’s aversion to Slavic people is one of the destabilizing facts that remans secret in what is otherwise the age of the Making Manifest of All that is Hidden (Revelation of the Method).
In 1941 Adolf Hitler stated, “The Slavs are a mass of born slaves who feel the need for a master” (cf. Manfred Henningsen, “The Politics of Purity and Exclusion” in Björn H. Jernudd (ed.), The Politics of Language Purism, [1989], p. 48). Hitler proceeded to kill millions of Slavs in combat in the course of his invasions of Slavic nations (Poland and later Russia).
Hitler’s occult beliefs (documented in our book, Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People) were partly the result of his initiation into “Theosophy,” an occult system that taught a “root races” ideology in which the “Aryan race” was held to be superior.
There are exceptions to Nazi racial animus toward Slavs. Hitler was an admirer of Józef Pilsudski (1867-1935), the Polish leader who vanquished the Bolshevik army in 1920. These individual cases do not however, nullify the fact that Hitler killed more Slavic people than any other leader of the 20th century, an act whose theurgic dimension is overlooked.
The Nazis’ post-war plans for Eastern Europe entailed deportations to gain “living space” for German settlers, with Poles, Russians and “western” Ukrainians targeted for mass extrusion to Siberia (cf. Czeslaw Madajczyk, “Vom ‘Generalplan Ost’ zum ‘Generalsiedlungsplan,” in Rössler, Der “Generalplan Ost”: Hauptlinien der nationalsozialistischen Planungsund Vernichtungspolitik [1993], p. 13).
As Hitler was useful, so too are Putin, Zelensky and Biden. The current fratricide in Ukraine is exceedingly pleasing to hidden forces beholden to esoteric doctrines and the very public Neocon element in the United States which, in spite of being wrong about every war the U.S. has fought in the 21st century, continues to drive foreign policy in Washington, under both Democrats and Republicans, feeding cash and war materiel to Zelensky’s regime in pursuit of maximum carnage between the Ukrainians and the Russians.
NATO’s Unsung Crimes
Prior to the anti-Slav abattoir in Ukraine, beginning with the Clinton administration, US General Wesley Kanne Clark commanded NATO forces in Slavic Serbia, bombing trains, buses and civilian centers in cities and killing thousands of civilians. Forces under his command also destroyed ancient Serbian churches and monasteries. There was no war crime trial because Clark attributed the killing and destruction to “collateral damage.” That’s the magic wand our government waves to dispense with prosecution by the International Court of Justice where the US is determined to prosecute Putin and absolve Zelesnsky.
On April 23, 1999 Clark’s NATO forces intentionally bombed a Serbian radio and TV station in Belgrade, killing 16 reporters and staff members. NATO excused the attack by asserting the barbaric doctrine that killing journalists is justified if they engage in propaganda: “NATO defended the air strike by saying the TV station was a legitimate target because of its role in what NATO called ‘Belgrade’s campaign of propaganda” (BBC, October 24, 2001).
These facts are down the Memory Hole’s greased chute. The New York Times and the corporate media generally don’t report crimes like those of NATO as part of any annual “This Day in History” memorial. To learn about them the enterprising researcher has to dig, and the American people are too distracted by digital and televised phantasmagoria to take up the spade.
Jack Teixeira’s Intel Leak and the Disclosure of Ukraine War Secrets
The recent disclosure of secret U.S. government files has resulted in reporting almost exclusively confined to the question of how the government’s security was breached. The secrets themselves contained have been mostly ignored or underplayed. The two most substantive revelations are the fact that US combat troops are stationed in Ukraine and the US intends to ensure that the fratricidal slaughter continues throughout 2023.
Glenn Greenwald: “There will be no negotiations, there will be no diplomatic settlement, there will be nothing but ongoing grinding, endless war that you will pay for beyond the $100 billion already authorized.”
The leak of NSA and CIA secrets has been treated as a grave criminal act by the media who were chiefly responsible for the apprehension of 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira, as the result of a report published in the Washington Post of April 12, which led the FBI directly to the leaker.
The New York Times in an April 16 article, “Finding the Pentagon Leak Suspect,” also boastes of its role in assisting law enforcement in apprehending the whistleblower.
These facts should in the future dissuade any whistleblower gullible enough to trust that the Post and the Times will keep secret their revelations of government-perpetrated felonies.
“Why… would self-proclaimed journalism outlets do the job of the FBI and hunt down the leaker and boast of the fact that they were the ones who found him even before the FBI did?…
“There aren’t many ways to define the function of a free press and what journalism is without referencing the way in which journalists are supposed to bring transparency to the most powerful institutions… The idea of journalism, ostensibly, in theory, is to bring transparency to what the most secretive and powerful institutions are doing in the dark. Exactly what this leak did…
“One of the ways, arguably the only real way, that we, as journalists, now have to show the public what these institutions of power are doing in the dark is through leaks. Leaks of the things that they don’t want you to see, oftentimes being classified information.
“Classified information is not some sacred text. Classified information is nothing more than a document or a piece of information that the government has stamped on that word “classified” or “top-secret,” because they want to make it illegal for you to learn about it. That’s the effect of calling a document classified or top secret. And one of the things I learned in working with many large archives of government secrets and classified material is that, more often than not, when the government calls something classified or top secret, it’s not because they’re trying to protect you. It’s because they’re trying to protect themselves.
“They’re trying to make it illegal for anybody to show what it is that they’re saying and doing in the dark because what they’re saying and doing in the dark is composed of deceit, corruption, or illegality. And that’s why the most important journalism over the last 50 years…the Pentagon Papers, through the WikiLeaks reporting, the Snowden reporting… have taken place when people have been able to show you, the public, documents and other information that people inside the government wanted you not to see and made it illegal for anyone to show it to you”.
The spin-doctoring about leaks and the “need” for the Deep State to keep the truth about their treacherous machinations from the public, is an exercise in the artifice of political theater. The media, when it suits their purposes, appropriate to themselves the illustrious appellation of “patriot.” With the Federal government in the hands of tyrannical social engineers who keep the Cryptocracy’s esoteric grand design for the subjugation of our nation on schedule, leaking government secrets is now derided as unconditionally iniquitous—almost—though not quite.
We qualify our observation due to the fact that the media routinely leak the secrets the Deep States wants revealed. They pretended that an “unauthorized” CIA leaker revealed that Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation,” when in fact the CIA ordered CNN to make the information public, disguised as an unauthorized leak. There are good leaks and bad leaks. The ethical metric is decided by determining whether the leak favors the Deep State or undermines it. The contents of Hunter’s laptop was anathema to the ruling class so their intelligence arm ordered the media to brand it a fake conjured by Putin. The media can’t confess that they take orders from government intelligence agents hence, their subservience is disguised as a report about a clandestine fact disclosed without permission; in other words a “good” leak. There were many of those while Trump was president.
Young Jack Teixeira is a whistleblower who sounded an alarm about the propagators of World War III who occupy the US government, which seems somewhat newsworthy apart from the debate about leaks, yet it is not. Furthermore, to anticipate a criticism, the documents he released do not endanger our men and women in uniform. No sensitive intelligence on personnel in harm’s way was disclosed.
The facts about the gradual introduction of US special forces into Ukraine are incendiary; so too the knowledge that the Biden administration has no peace plan or ceasefire in mind, only more slaughter in the Slavic civil war’s ever larger butcher’s bill.
“Land of Felony”
If the American people were not so distracted and alchemically processed the revelation that Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and President Biden both declared the Nordstream Pipeline would be destroyed as indeed it was, by US agents, as well as the secrets contained in Mr. Teixeira’s leak, would awaken them and cause them to rise and work for the prosecution of the criminals in the District of Corruption.
Yet, as we take the occult pulse of programmed Americans we discover that they are exhausted rather than energized by the steady stream of shocking revelations of crime and corruption that flood our TVs and computer screens in this era.
Nineteen children were killed in Uvalde, Texas while the cops stood around and let it happen a few yards from where they stood.
Ho-hum.
Then there’s the Nashville massacre. It’s been nearly a month since a trans-gender individual shot to death three children and three adults at a Christian school in that city. Prior to the massacre the perpetrator reportedly issued a manifesto which we the people have not been allowed to see. Notice that not one sentence of that document has been leaked. It’s locked down tighter than Joe Biden’s soul.
It has in the interim however, been dismissed as a nothingburger by David B. Rausch, Tennessee’s top cop. Rausch, director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, said that what police found isn’t so much a manifesto spelling out a target, as a series of rambling writings indicating no “clear” motive.
Nothing to see here folks, you can go back to sleep.
Sooner or later the manifesto will be released, possibly in redacted form, at some point in time sufficiently distant from the March 27 killings to dull the edge of public outrage.
Moreover, the delay of the release may itself be a psychological warfare ruse to discredit conspiracy theorists—and anyone else who is skeptical toward government. If the manifesto really is a “nothingburger,” why wouldn’t the authorities release it within a few days after the shootings? By suppressing it they build tension among the masses over the suspicion that some substantial secret is being withheld. If, when it is released, it is found to be a tissue of trivia, every skeptic from Elon Musk to Tucker Carlson will be made to look overwrought and foolish.
Tennessee news media have added the following concerning the alleged analysis and investigation of the manifesto: “The writings remain under careful review not only by Metro police, but also by the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit based in Quantico, Virginia.”
The FBI’s “Behavioral Analysis Unit” has legendary status for discovering the mental secrets of monstrous murderers. This detail of their “crime-fighting” expertise exerts as much star power as did J. Edgar Hoover’s one-time polished image as a nemesis of the Mafia. Both are myths. The “Behavioral Unit” is a reference to miscreants inside the FBI who manipulate the behavior of Americans by directing, as we document in Twilight Language, ritual and mass murders subsequently blamed on the “lone nut” patsies who people “Arlington Road.”
One historical datum that is via col vento in the United States of Amnesia is the truth that the FBI was a participant in the terrorism it grouped under the title it concocted, “University and Airline Bomber” (“Unabomber”), crimes which were wholly attributed to LSD-experiment victim and scapegoat Ted Kaczynski. The details are in our book, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare.
Ambrose Bierce, a Union veteran of the Civil War battles of Shiloh and Kennesaw Mountain, was a columnist for the San Francisco Examiner, renowned for his caustic wit. In Mexico to cover Pancho Villa’s rebel army he wrote home, “If you hear of my being stood up against a Mexican stone wall and shot to rags, please know that I think it is a pretty good way to depart this life. It beats old age, disease, or falling down the cellar stairs.” He disappeared in Mexico in 1914.
It would take a wordsmith of the caliber of Bierce to adequately account for the criminal politics in which our nation is at present sunk, and which would probably not have surprised the man who wrote, “My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of felony.”
Copyright ©2023 by Independent History and Research
Scandinavia’s Fake News About Russia Is Meant To Distract From Sy Hersh’s Nord Stream Report
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | APRIL 19, 2023
A joint “media investigation” by the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden just claimed that Russia has been using at least 50 civilian ships to spy on the North Sea for the past decade in speculative preparation of possibly carrying out acts of sabotage sometime in the future. Kremlin spokesman Peskov denied these allegations and accused those countries of trying to distract from last September’s Nord Stream terrorist attack.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh cited unnamed US administration sources to report in early February that Biden personally authorized that attack, which most folks already figured but it was nevertheless extremely newsworthy for this to come from someone as reputable as Hersh. Around a month later, the New York Times (NYT) ran a story claiming to have uncovered the alleged culprit, which they said was a rogue group of people who weren’t connected to any government.
“The US’ Latest Disinfo Campaign About The Nord Stream Terrorist Attacks Was Preplanned”, however, since the argument can compellingly be made that the US planted the seeds of an alternative narrative to rely upon as a backup plan in the event that the truth started leaking out like it did in Hersh’s report. It’s within this context that the Scandinavian states’ “media investigation” was published, thus extending credence to similar concerns that it’s also nothing more than a distraction from that journalist’s work.
After all, those outlets claimed that Russia has supposedly been spying on the North Sea through these means for the past ten years, and it’s extremely unlikely that they suddenly stumbled upon relevant “evidence” in support of that conclusion at this particular point in time. Rather, they were almost certainly fed this information by those countries’ intelligence services, with possible input from NATO as a whole and/or its US leader.
It’s unclear whether there’s any truth to their report, but it wouldn’t be surprising if there’s at least a kernel thereof since it’s a clever way to spy on the NATO-controlled North Sea. That, however, doesn’t mean that this was being done in speculative preparation of possibly carrying out acts of sabotage there sometime in the future. This part of their report was probably included purely to revive the completely ridiculous narrative that Russia was the one responsible for the Nord Stream terrorist attack.
Whatever the purpose of Russia’s alleged spying in those waters may have been, it’s highly unlikely to have concerned sabotage except as an absolute last resort in the event of a conventional war with NATO. The reason behind this assessment is that only a state-level actor or a false flag “non-state” one connected to a state actor is capable of carrying out such acts, especially in waters that are completely controlled by and under the total surveillance of that US-led bloc, and doing so would be an act of war.
It’s with this in mind that Peskov’s denial should be taken seriously since it’s unrealistic to imagine that Russia is plotting impending acts of sabotage there that it would definitely be caught committing red-handed in the fringe scenario that this is attempted. This doesn’t mean that Moscow wasn’t possibly spying on NATO’s naval activities in the North Sea, but just that this wasn’t done for the purpose of plotting sabotage except as an absolute last if it ever formally went to war with that bloc.
Considering this, Scandinavia’s fake news about Russia was released at this particular point in time and specifically included the claim that Moscow is considering acts of sabotage in NATO-controlled waters so as to distract from Hersh’s report and revive the false story that the Kremlin blew up Nord Stream. Just like the NYT’s report from last month, this latest one from a collection of Northern European media outlets is therefore also nothing more than an information warfare provocation.
Featured Video
Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Greatest Threat to World Peace? A Review of Daniele Ganser’s ‘USA: The Ruthless Empire’
Review by Marilyn Langlois | November 10, 2023
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
If you scoff at the notion that the US, a republic founded on principles of freedom and democracy, has morphed into a world empire, perpetrating assassinations, coups d’état, acts of terror and illegal warfare . . .
If you want to promote peace but haven’t yet explored deceptive events that precipitate US warmongering . . .
. . . here is a volume that will clear the air and paint an honest picture of the significant, not-so-rosy impact US foreign policy and actions have had in the world around us.
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser, is the newly published English language translation of his book Imperium USA, originally written in German and published in 2020. Here is a summary of key points — including some lesser-known ones — along with remedies for a more peaceful future, that are covered in the book. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel
- Putting Nukes in Finland Won’t Make Country Safer, Finnish Politician Cautions
- Ukrainian drone strike kills worker at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant
- What the West Hides About Soviet Role in De-Colonization
- Villains of Judea: Douglas Feith
- US pension fund invests hundreds of millions in weapons firms supplying Israel
- US bill to grant Americans serving in Israeli army same rights as US troops
- What a president, a movie star, a congressman, and a cell phone all dared to say
- ‘An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership’: Merz
- Pakistan Throws Open Its Gates for Iran’s Transit Trade to Third Countries
- If Americans Knew
- Palestinians in Gaza Want to Rebuild Food Systems. Israel Isn’t Letting Them.
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- Sheep Theft Sent Shockwaves Through a Palestinian Village. Then, a 12-year-old Boy Was Shot Dead
- Trump alum helps Israel mount AI influence campaign
- Dispatches From Catastrophe
- Despite Denials, AIPAC Is Now Funding Campaign of Ala Stanford In Philadelphia
- Israel’s neighbors are irate about its treatment of religious sites
- Israel escalates in Gaza: killing, torture, hunger – Daily Update
- Six Months into Gaza Ceasefire, Setting the Record Straight About Aid
- ‘Silent suffering’: Why children in Gaza are losing their ability to speak
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
Aletho News 