Teach your child censorship!
By Niall McCrae | Unity News Network | March 9, 2022
As any critically thinking parent knows, schools are a hotbed of state propaganda, from subversive gender ideology to prophecies of doom on climate change. But this has worsened significantly in the past two years, with the official covid-19 narrative pushed in every possible way (whether the schools were open or in online learning). An important strategy is to teach children to avoid contrary viewpoints and controversial assertions on the internet.
Yesterday my 5-year-old brought home a booklet handed out to her class, titled Digital Parenting (sponsored by Vodafone). The contents are in tune with the Online Safety Bill: the focus is not on preventing exposure to violence, terrorism or pornography, but on suppressing inconvenient truths.
Featuring in the pamphlet is Nicky Cox MBE, editor of First News newspaper and producer of FYI on Sky News channel, both presenting current affairs to children. According to Cox, ‘as adults we have the experience to question what we read, but children are not so savvy’. The gullibility of the adult populace, duped by bought mainstream media into fearing a killer virus, fraudulent testing, wearing useless facemasks and taking a series of experimental genetic engineering injections, suggests otherwise.
Cox warns that fake news isn’t always obvious: ‘more confusingly there are stories with a kernel of truth which have biased reporting’. Shouldn’t children be taught to understand and critically appraise bias, rather than pretending it is just a tool of opponents? Shouldn’t they be shown different perspectives, and how the likes of the BBC and Guardian project their own prejudices and political agenda? These outlets become more like Pravda, the mouthpiece of Soviet totalitarianism, by the day. Audaciously, Cox congratulates her news as ‘balanced’: does she allow a smidgen of counter-narrative alongside shilling for covid vaccines or war with Russia?
The most egregiously censorial part of this guide is ‘5 terms every parent should know’. First is ‘deepfakes’, which apparently means doctored images. However, the Ukraine theatricals have shown that video or photographs do not need to be manipulated; they can simply be taken from another context, whether from a past war in another continent or from a movie.
Second is cancel culture, which you and I may see as a real problem. No, the booklet casts this as a positive, meaning ‘withdrawal of support for public figures or companies we disagree with’. This is teaching children that it is justifiable to ‘unperson’ someone who thinks differently to them; it is an affront to a free, democratic society. Children should be encouraged to tolerate and listen to other opinions, not to silence them. And resilience should be nurtured, not vulnerability.
Next are misinformation and disinformation. The former is unintentional or careless falsehood, while the latter is deliberate untruth. An example of a misleading message is ‘sharing a covid-19 “miracle cure” without knowing if it’s genuinely effective’. Well, that would be enough to put a health warning on all covid vaccine promotion. But of course the booklet authors are thinking of ivermectin, typically misrepresented by compliant broadcasters as ‘horse dewormer’.
Finally there is digital activism. Like cancel culture, this is something to encourage. It means ‘using digital platforms to encourage social or political change, as seen during the US election and Black Lives Matter movement’. Could it also include supporting the Canadian truckers’ convoy or informed choice on vaccinating kids? Don’t be silly. The establishment and its paid helpers are now nakedly discriminatory, and they don’t care. If you are angered by their hypocrisy and bias, all the better for them.
I would summarise this as a glossy guide to teaching children censorship. Using its own language – a deepfake.
Who Changed the Scientific Conclusions of a Paper that Could Have Saved Millions? At Last, We May Have a Name.
FLCCC Alliance | March 8, 2022
This is a scandal of immense proportions that warrants an immediate investigation.
First, let’s set the stage:
— Over one year ago, there were ample peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials that provided strong evidence on ivermectin’s efficacy as a treatment for COVID in every disease phase.
— A paper considering these many studies was written by lead author Dr. Andrew Hill at the University of Liverpool for the World Health Organization’s COVID Guideline Development Group. Hill was an early and vigorous proponent for ivermectin. His paper showed that ivermectin could reduce deaths by 75% if used throughout the world.
— Inexplicably, just days before its publication, the paper appeared on a pre-print server, with its conclusions changed. Instead of concluding that ivermectin—one of the world’s safest and most inexpensive drugs— should be rolled out globally, it now concluded that more studies on ivermectin were needed before it could be recommended worldwide. Given the totality of scientific evidence for ivermectin, it was a stunning—actually shocking—reversal by Dr. Hill.
—In an urgent Zoom call to Dr. Hill initiated by Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy, Dr. Hill admitted to her that one of his study’s sponsors, Unitaid, had a say in the conclusions of his paper. But he would not divulge the name(s) of those who altered the paper’s conclusions.
But now, “The Digger” on Substack (aka producer/director Phil Harper) has revealed the name of the person who could have edited the paper’s conclusions—which led to the WHO’s non-recommendation of the use of ivermectin. That decision could have led to the unnecessary deaths of millions across the world.
GASP.
Mr. Harper studied the PDF of the paper, wanting to learn the identity of its “ghost” author. “The hope was that some artifact on the PDF would reveal something, maybe a font was different, maybe there was a hidden comment, maybe some tracked changes had been saved to the document,” said Harper. “None of those lines of inquiry came to anything.”
Then it came to him. Was it in the PDF’s metadata? “Sometimes it’s the most obvious of things,” Harper writes. “The ‘v1_stamped’ version of the paper did indeed have metadata. It even had author information inside the metadata. Expecting to see Andrew Hill listed as the author, instead, I saw a name I recognized. Andrew Owen.
“Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper.”
Professor Andrew Owen is the person who allegedly edited the critical Andrew Hill paper on Ivermectin. He was also in receipt of consultancy fees from pharmaceutical companies with competing products.
As it turns out, Andrew Owen is a Professor of Pharmacology & Therapeutics and co-Director of the Centre of Excellence in Long-acting Therapeutics (CELT) at the University of Liverpool. He is also scientific advisor to the WHO’s COVID-19 Guideline Development Group. Just days before Dr. Hill’s paper was to be published, a $40M grant from Unitaid, the paper’s sponsor, was given to CELT —of which Owen is the project lead. “The $40 million contract was actually a commercial agreement between Unitaid, the University of Liverpool and Tandem Nano Ltd (a start-up company that commercializes ‘Solid Lipid Nanoparticle’ delivery mechanisms)— for which Andrew Owen is a top shareholder,” says Harper.
Furthermore, Harper writes that, “Andrew Owen is prolific in the art of receiving money from pharmaceutical companies. He’s received research funding from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Tibotec, Roche Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Myers Squibb.”
GASP.
Read the entire essay HERE. In it, Harper reveals much, much more. This is just the latest in a series of postings on ‘The Digger’ exposing the machinations and the backdoor wheeling and dealing to prevent ivermectin from saving lives so that other, more profitable (and scientifically proven more dangerous) designer drugs could take center stage and make bank.
Ukraine faces defeat
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | MARCH 8, 2022
Belying the predictions of western media, Russia’s special operation in Ukraine is entering a successful endgame on the political and diplomatic track much sooner than one would have thought.
A close reading of the outcome of the 3rd round of peace talks in Belarus last night is that the Ukrainian negotiators have sought some more time to come up with a full response to the Russian terms for ceasefire.
Ukraine has signalled willingness to be a neutral country ruling out NATO membership. The main sticking points narrow down to: a) recognition of Crimea as part of Russia; and, b) sovereignty of Lugansk and Donetsk.
They are non-negotiable demands. But they are a bitter pill for the Ukrainian leadership to swallow. The Ukrainian stance is that these demands are “practically” impossible.
But, as Vladimir Medinsky, leader of the Russian team, told RT, “In my opinion, there is a big difference between impossible and ‘practically impossible’… I hope that eventually we will find a solution.”
The Russian side feels encouraged albeit yesterday’s talks produced no tangible results. They are in no hurry to rush into major military offensives.
Indeed, the pattern throughout has been that the Russian generals would apply coercive military power to create synergy to kickstart a parallel political / diplomatic track to attain Moscow’s objective (which is not about territorial conquest.)
The western analysts who expected the Russian generals to behave like Patton or MacArthur with a massive attack on Kiev instead witnessed a confusing Russian strategy — slow, halting operations, without excessive force and with a distinct preference to avoid fighting by encircling and bypassing pockets of resistance, and avoiding set battles.
Putin revealed yesterday that “conscripts aren’t and won’t be taking part in hostilities, and there will be no additional call-up of reservists from the reserve… Missions are carried out only by professional troops.”
The Ukrainian side realises that the Russian strategy is winning, as Russian forces are encircling Kiev from the northwest, west and east, Black Sea ports are no longer accessible, and the forces in the east are entrapped. Yesterday, Zelensky acknowledged the grim situation.
After the third round in Belarus, he hastened to assure that talks will continue until a settlement! In his words,
“Today the third round of negotiations took place in Belarus, and I would like to say ‘the third and final one,’ but we are realists. Therefore, we will talk, we will insist on negotiations until we find a way to tell our people, ‘this is how we will come to peace.’”
Russians are in no tearing hurry. They eschew triumphalism, and instead allow enough space for the Ukrainian side to take some really hard decisions on surrender — while military pressure is kept up on Kiev. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said yesterday, “We keep the door open to diplomatic options. As soon as there are corresponding signals, we will be acting on them.”
Importantly, the two sides have agreed on a roadmap for creating humanitarian corridors and Russian side has announced a ceasefire. Also, these corridors will be operated in close coordination through a hotline.
The Russian statement says that a “continuous communication link shall be established between the Russian and Ukrainian sides for mutual exchange of information about the preparation and implementation of the evacuation of civilians and foreign citizens.”
The Russian side since conveyed all relevant details to foreign embassies, appropriate UN and OSCE agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other concerned international organisations. The humanitarian corridors will be:
- from Kiev and adjacent regions to Gomel (Belarus);
- from Sumy along two routes to Poltava (central Ukraine) and to Russia;
- from Kharkov to Russia or to Lvov, Uzhgorod and Ivano-Frankovsk (all three in western Ukraine); and,
- from Mariupol along two routes to Russia and Zaporozhe (on the Dnieper river in southeastern Ukraine.)
This joint work and the lull in fighting sets the stage for the crucial meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Ukrainian counterpart Kuleba in the Turkish resort of Antalya on Thursday. The very fact the talks have been elevated to foreign minister level signals hope that a critical mass may be accruing.
Thoroughly disillusioned with the betrayal by the US and NATO, Zelensky is inching toward an agreement with Moscow. It is futile to pre-judge the outcome, but there is a game changer. The major European countries — UK, France, Germany, Netherlands — have rebuffed Washington’s hawkish proposal to impose sanctions on Russia’s oil exports.
Oil exports are Russia’s principal source of income, therefore, this is a strong rejection of Washington’s efforts to isolate Russia. French President Macron captured the zephyr in his remark yesterday:
“It is impossible to build a lasting peace if Russia doesn’t participate in building a comprehensive security architecture on our continent, because history and geography mandate this. Our responsibility is to preserve all the ties that we can preserve. We must continue to talk with the Russian and Belarusian peoples. We need to do this with help from representatives of the world of culture, the scientific and technical community, non-governmental organisations.”
On Sunday, in an op-ed in the New York Times, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson also wrote: “We have no hostility toward the Russian people, and we have no desire to impugn a great nation and a world power. Ukraine had no serious prospect of NATO membership in the near future. This is not a NATO conflict, and it will not become one.”
Meanwhile, major European countries, especially Germany, are ruling out EU membership for Ukraine, either — which, ironically, was the issue that had precipitated the US-backed coup in Kiev in 2014 triggering the catastrophic slide toward conflict involving Russia.
The climate scaremongers: BBC’s campaign against fossil fuels
By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | March 4, 2022
As political pressure mounts for the UK fully to exploit North Sea oil reserves and begin fracking, the BBC is doubling down in its campaign to fight fossil fuels.
There is nothing new in this, of course: we have become used it down the years. But now they don’t even attempt to disguise it, so convinced are they of their moral superiority in the matter.
Last week they published two articles attacking critics of Net Zero. The reports were full of the opinions of the BBC’s chums in the Green Blob, such as Greenpeace, Carbon Brief and the Committee on Climate Change, but gave scant mention of opposing views.
The first report, ‘Climate change: Can the UK afford its net zero policies?’ was an attempt to take down the arguments of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group (NZSG), made up of about 20 Conservative MPs, who have perfectly legitimately drawn the public’s attention to the very real costs of Net Zero.
The article begins by portraying the NZSG as a tiny bunch of ultra Right-wing Brexiteers – you know, the ones who should be ignored!
The rest of the article carries on in the same one-sided vein, with grossly misleading and inaccurate comments and a failure to present the other side of the argument.
It starts by claiming that our energy bills are only £159 a year higher on average because of climate policies. But this does not reflect the full cost of those policies, which in total are estimated to cost £17.6billion this year. That is not £159, but £650 per household.
Much of this cost is paid by the public sector and industry/commerce, meaning higher taxes and prices. Either way, the public end up paying.
The BBC then go on to claim that we should be building wind farms, because they are cheaper than gas power stations.
They imply that you can simply swap wind for gas, ignoring the fact the former is highly intermittent. Currently we need reliable, dispatchable generation, such as gas, to turn on when wind power fails to meet demand. When this is factored in, wind power is nearly double the cost of gas power.
Next the BBC turns its attention to claims that fracking will reduce energy prices in the UK. They argue that we cannot affect global prices of gas, which totally misses the point. Even if UK gas is sold at world prices, the country will still benefit hugely, and in particular government revenues will be boosted. Moreover it will greatly enhance our energy security.
The NZSG have rightly raised the question of how much we will all have to pay for Net Zero, something which the public has been kept in the dark about. The BBC’s response quotes the ultra optimistic calculations of the Committee on Climate Change, which have already been proved to be false and give a cost of ‘only’ £344billion by 2050.
Anybody who claims what the economy will look like three decades hence is a charlatan. But what we do know about is the crippling cost being imposed on the public in the short term. Things like heat pumps, insulation and electric cars will cost us tens of thousands of pounds. The new hydrogen networks being proposed will drive our energy bills up yet further.
For some reason, the BBC makes no mention of any of this.
But won’t the costs of climate change far outweigh all of this? The BBC think so:
‘The UK government’s latest report into the risks of climate change warns that based on a conservative estimate of a 2C temperature rise by 2100, flooding for non-residential properties across the UK is expected to increase by 27 per cent by 2050 and 40 per cent by 2080. At 4C this increases to 44 per cent and 75 per cent respectively.’
Leaving aside the fact that these claims are pure make-believe, does the BBC really think that eliminating the UK’s 1 per cent of world emissions will have the slightest effect on the climate?
The second BBC article, ‘Government climate advisers say cut fossil fuels to lower energy bills’ is by our old friend Roger Harrabin, ‘BBC environment analyst’. Again it does little but report the views of the Committee on Climate Change and others in the Green Blob, who are campaigning for more renewable energy.
As in the first article, it repeats the claim that energy prices won’t drop if we develop shale and North Sea gas reserves as the amounts are so insignificant. However, a recent study by the Warwick Business School estimated that our shale reserves could easily supply a quarter of the UK’s gas consumption over the next twenty years – a hardly insignificant amount at a time when North Sea gas output is expected to halve.
But for ideological reasons, the Committee on Climate Change would like to throw this all away!
John Kerry worries about Ukraine war’s effect on emissions
Joe Biden’s Climate Tsar, the gaffe-prone John Kerry, put his foot in it again last week. In an interview with a Middle East TV station he said he was worried that the Ukraine war would have ‘massive emissions consequences’, and that it could divert the world’s attention away from climate change.
This is the same John Kerry who flew in a private jet to Iceland last year to collect an Environmental Award. When asked why he chose private jet, he responded it was ‘the only choice for someone like me’.
It was only the other day that Kerry was full of praise for India’s climate efforts, despite the fact they continue to burn more and more coal. He was impressed by Prime Minister Modi’s promise to build lots of solar farms, which Kerry claimed would make India compliant with the 1.5C goal set at Glasgow, a goal which requires global emissions to be cut in half in this decade.
Evidently arithmetic is not John Kerry’s strong suit!
While Modi’s plans would increase wind and solar output tenfold by 2040, this will not be enough to even meet the rising demand for energy in India, which is projected to increase by 69 per cent by then. This means that fossil fuel consumption will continue to grow as well.
Even with all of this investment in renewables, wind and solar together will still only be supplying 20 per cent of India’s energy in 2040.
BP Energy Review & International Energy Agency Outlook
While John Kerry strolls around with his head in the clouds, the Indian Government have long realised that you cannot run a modern economy just on the wind and the sun.
Selling the UK steel industry down the river
As I explained a few weeks ago, the UK operates an Emissions Trading Scheme, a cap and trade system, applying to electricity generators, energy intensive industry and domestic aviation.
The scheme is designed to cut the use of fossil fuels by forcing companies to purchase carbon allowances if they dare to use them.
As a direct consequence of government policy, the price of these allowances has in effect quadrupled in the last couple of years. (Although the UK system was only introduced last May, it directly replaced a similar EU scheme, which it now tracks.)
Higher carbon prices have not only pushed electricity prices through the roof, but they are also hitting industry hard as well, not least the steel industry.
According to the Telegraph, steelmakers are now facing the prospect of cutting production thanks to a doubling of the carbon price in the last nine months.
Steel companies receive a set number of free allowances each year, but this quota is reduced each year. Once they have used these up, they must buy them on the market, which adds £175/ton to the cost of the steel produced. This amounts to a third of the price they sell the steel for, which is quite clearly unsustainable.
Indeed, so high are the carbon prices that firms can often be better off selling their allowances and producing nothing!
Cutting production however has its own problems for the steel industry, because its fixed costs are so high. In the real world, steel plants need to run at near to full capacity to be profitable. It makes no financial sense shutting down furnaces and rolling mills for days at a time.
In other words, they are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Furthermore there is little that steel firms can do to cut fossil fuel use. By definition, making steel is a highly energy intensive process. From personal experience I know that steel works have forever been looking at ways to reduce energy use on a daily basis.
It is true that electric arc furnaces, which melt scrap steel, don’t need the colossal amounts of coke required in blast furnaces, but higher electricity prices have already crippled their viability.
The inevitable result of government policy is that we will end up importing more steel instead of making it ourselves. It will be made in countries like China and India, where carbon emissions will be much higher than here. And more emissions will arise from shipping it halfway around the world.
The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever.
It is just another senseless sacrifice to the Great Green God.
One Word Sums Up “Public Health” in 2022
By James Lyons-Weiler | Popular Rationalism | February 15, 2022
There are a lot of words that could characterize “Public Health” in 2022.
Some that come to mind:
-Not credible
-Misleading
-Wrong-focused
-Myopic
The one word that sums up “Public Health” in 2022?
“Untrustworthy”
“Public Health” has suffered from increasing and now severe vaccine myopia since the “prevention” program rose to power in the CDC.
Their one-sided thinking was fairly restricted to pediatrics but now has infected allopathic medicine.
Why are they untrustworthy?
For me, it’s because they willfully ignore evidence that challenges their policy positions. Worse, they work to destroy it (targeting papers for retraction, and peoples’ reputations).
They lie to themselves.
Their disdain for evidence that runs counter to their narrative places them outside of the demarcation zone of Science.
Here’s an example:
In the UK, the triple vaccinated now account for the majority of Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations & deaths (See DailyExpose.uk ).
This should be on the front page of Public Health England’s webpage. Oh, wait, that’s right, PHE was “Public Health England was replaced by UK Health Security Agency and Office for Health Improvement and Disparities”.
And they want us to accept school mandates in places like Washington State.
The public trusted public health with their lives and their livelihoods. There are still people in “Public Health” defending lock-downs.
And they want us to trust them and support them in their quest for a “Universal COVID Vaccine” – one that targets “all variants” – an impossible task given the rate of evolution of RNA and how widespread SARS-CoV-2 is across the globe (See: Washington Post ).
They are untrustworthy because have turned a blind eye to the full balance of the data.
Here are some synonymous that might help you in your communications today
Dishonest, deceitful, not to be trusted, double-dealing, treacherous, traitorous, two-faced, janus-faced, unfaithful, duplicitous, dishonorable, unprincipled, unscrupulous, corrupt, shady, shifty, underhanded.
See how many of the following characteristics apply to “Public Health” from an article on five characteristics of untrustworthy people from Inc.com (5 Ways to Tell if Someone Is Untrustworthy):
1. They lie to themselves
2. They project behaviors on you that are clearly not ones you are exhibiting
3. They breach confidentiality
4. They show a lack of empathy
5. Their emotional state is volatile, and they have a pattern of inconsistency and fickleness in their decisions
The byline of the Inc.com article reads “Trust is the superglue of relationships, but if you spot these behaviors, it’s time to find a new partner to do business with.”
Exactly.
Moscow explains how it’ll do business with firms from ‘unfriendly states’
The Ministry of Finance has set up a special subcommittee to control foreign investment
RT | March 7, 2022
Russian companies wishing to work with firms from countries which oppose Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine will have to receive government permission for the deals, the press service of Russia’s Ministry of Finance said on Monday. Permission will be granted by the Government Commission for the Control of Foreign Investments. It includes representatives from Russia’s Central Bank (Bank of Russia) and the presidential administration.
According to the resolution establishing the procedure, which was signed by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, a Russian resident company or foreign company from an “unfriendly state” must apply for permission for any business deal.
“[The application] should contain comprehensive information about the applicant, including information on the beneficial owners of the company. Based on the analysis of the documents received and the nature of the future agreement, a decision will be made to approve or refuse to implement it,” the press service said, stressing that “the main goal of this work is to ensure the country’s financial stability in the face of external sanctions pressure.”
The government on Monday also unveiled an updated list of countries which have been deemed “unfriendly states” for their positions on the Ukraine conflict. It includes the United States and Canada, the countries of the EU bloc, the UK (including Jersey, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, and Gibraltar), Ukraine, Montenegro, Switzerland, Albania, Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, San Marino, North Macedonia, and also Japan, South Korea, Australia, Micronesia, New Zealand, Singapore, and China’s self-ruled territory of Taiwan.
The countries and territories were added to the list after they imposed or joined the sanctions against Russia in connection with the ongoing military operation of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine.
According to the government decree, Russian citizens and companies, the state itself and its regions and municipalities will now also have to pay for obligations to foreign creditors from countries on the list in rubles. The new temporary procedure applies to payments exceeding 10 million rubles per month, or a corresponding amount in foreign currency.
The measures have been introduced by Moscow to support the Russian economy after Western states placed Russia under heavy sanctions over the past 10 days. A number of Russia’s largest banks have been cut off from SWIFT and had their foreign assets frozen, restrictions were placed on certain Russian exports and imports, and a growing number of companies from all sectors have been shutting down operations in the country.
They lied about everything else, but believe them about this war
By Frederick Edward | TCW Defending Freedom | March 5, 2022
HOW long until we get reports of people pelting Siberian huskies on the street?
Probably not too long. Already there are videos of Russian food shops being vandalised such as this one in Germany.
A friend who runs a Russian language school in Britain has received threats, including that all Russians should leave the UK. That the school employs mostly Ukrainians and the owner’s wife is from Kiev is neither here nor there when you’re caught up in the latest tide of moral righteousness.
Having forgotten utterly about the preoccupations of yesterday – Covid, Partygate (whatever happened to Sue Gray’s report?) – we are now fully at work with our latest, all-consuming passion. War. Lots of it. Each detonation of a mortar round more titillating than the last. I haven’t seen this much unanimity since the first days of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Do you believe what you read in the media? Plucky Ukrainians, incompetent Russians. After a few days, claims that ‘Russia has lost the war’ abound. Stuck in the mud and stranded without fuel. That wars are rarely decided on the opening day seems lost to a world obsessed with only the present moment. There is plenty more time for Ukraine to fall.
But not without additional, unnecessary bloodshed, all encouraged by our politicians and media. Those wishing to volunteer for Kiev are sent away on a bandwagon of positive vibes and profile pictures with superimposed Ukrainian flags. That they are being sent to a probable death is neither here nor there.
The Russians are evil. The West never puts a foot wrong. Ignore the wars of the past – Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya – we are geopolitically chaste and without sin. That Ukraine is of approximately zero geostrategic interest to us does not matter. The forward march of Western hubris in its institutional form cannot be impeded.
Why would Nato not just say Ukraine will remain a buffer state? That nation’s entry into the alliance was so clearly a red line for the strategists of Moscow, nevertheless we courted its favour, assuming that being on the ‘right side of history’ would be enough. When Russia finally did invade, our ignorance leads us to throw our hands up and scream ‘bully!’ at Putin. I do not care much for Putin, but it is for the birds to assume that the West is entirely without blame.
Having been systematically lied to about every imaginable topic, I cannot simply buy our government’s line. Warrior Truss, whose unfamiliarity with the geography of the area should set alarm bells ringing, solemnly plays her role as a second-rate Thatcher-at-war. Johnson, who until yesterday was on the ropes of various scandals, is recast as a latter-day Churchill.
We’re fighting for democracy and freedom. Fighting for it in a corrupt eastern European state, cleft in two by a linguistic and ethnic fault line, and whose elites have bought the ear of the American President and his family.
We’re fighting it from the high horses of the West, which has just spent two years imprisoning its own citizens and demanding they undergo forced medical procedures. From the same West which would not dare comment on Trudeau’s totalitarian seizure of the bank accounts of those who dared disagree with him, nor on the dictatorial powers used daily in the Antipodes.
Forget all of that. We are the good guys. They are the bad guys. The world is black and white. We are not to blame, not one iota. Cheerlead for war and let the stakes get higher. Assume that Russia’s interests are invalid and to be ignored. We’re back to the gilded age of liberal democracies beating the drum of war.
Whatever you do, don’t look back or think about the recent past. Let your minds be firmly occupied by the indulgent orgy of violence, peddled by the same people who conned you so many times before, and who seek to keep us in a perpetual state of crisis. And certainly, never think about the law of unintended consequences.
Featured Video
US journalist reveals role of Jolani regime’s Washington envoy in her 2016 kidnapping
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Hitler, Churchill, the Holocaust, and the War in Ukraine
Mike Whitney Interview with Ron Unz • Unz Review • July 17, 2023
Question 1: Hitler
In the West, we’re taught that Hitler is the embodiment of all evil, but it’s more complicated than that, isn’t it? The more I read about Hitler, the more convinced I am that his views about the Versailles Treaty were fairly commonplace among Germans living at the time. It seems to me that if Hitler hadn’t emerged as the leader who promised to restore Germany (to its original borders), someone else would have taken his place. The real problem was the injustice of the treaty itself which exacted reparations that could not be repaid along with the partitioning of the German state. It was the onerous settlement of Versailles that ensured there would be Second World War not Hitler.
Am I wrong about this? And would you agree that our over-simplified “cartoonish” portrayal of Hitler prevents people from understanding the events that led to WW2?
Ron Unz—You’re correct on all those points, but the true history is even worse than that. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- How NIH Silenced Its Critics Without Telling Them
- American journalist reveals role of Jolani regime’s Washington envoy in her 2016 kidnapping
- Israeli army suicides rise again as two female soldiers die, bringing this year’s total to 16
- The Death Count Trap: Why Tallying Victims Won’t Stop Israel’s Genocide
- Israel rules out withdrawal from occupied Lebanon, wants ‘freedom of action’
- Iran demands ‘restitution’ for Kiev’s deadly attack
- Iraq cancels PM’s Riyadh visit after US-Saudi aggression amid calls for response
- US conjoins the wars in Eurasia, West Asia
- The Second Circuit Again Violated the Rights of the Amish
- Ukraine using mobilization threat to pressure journalists – media
- If Americans Knew
- Zelensky’s big idea for Trump: Ukraine is the Israel of Europe
- In Michigan’s Primary, Abdul El-Sayed Puts AIPAC on the Ballot
- Trump and Netanyahu’s Meetings: A Trail of Broken Promises
- ‘A disaster for America First’: Trump allies fear Netanyahu meeting will pull US deeper into war with Iran
- 97% of Gaza mosques damaged or destroyed; settlers ravage West Bank – Daily Update
- ‘Hell on Earth’: Roger Waters on Palestine, Apartheid and the Cost of Speaking Out
- ISRAELI MEDIA: Israelis Fight Over Framing of West Bank Attacks. But Settler Violence Is an Israeli Strategy (2 articles)
- Attacks on Mamdani Prove Israel’s Supporters Can’t Even Tolerate Criticism of Netanyahu
- Integrated Israeli Policies Fast‑Track Israeli Annexation of Palestinian Land
- ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan dared to hold Israel to account – that’s why he was brought down
- No Tricks Zone
- ECMWF Models Throwing Cold Water On Extreme Germany Heat Wave Forecast Next Week
- Greenland’s Ice Sheet Was Supposed To Be Rapidly Melting Away. It Hasn’t Been.
- Global Temperature Trend Has Cooled Over The Past 6500 Years, Scientists Have Found
- Wind Energy Means Going Back To The Middle Ages, Says German Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
- New Study: A 40-Fold Increase In Earth’s Main Greenhouse Gas Contributes To Cooling The Ocean
- New Study Highlights The ‘Dominant Role’ Of Aerosol/Cloud Interactions In Shaping Climate
- Munich’s First-Ever Green Party Mayor Declares First Ever City Water Use Restrictions… Fines Up to 50,000 €!
- Experimental Lab Research: The Climate Sensitivity To A 400-Fold Increase In CO2 Is 0.1°C
- Fatal Snobbery: In France, It’s Better To Die From A Heatwave Than To Do As Americans
- New Study: NASA’s Models Wildly Underestimate The Capacity Of Clouds To Alter Solar Radiation
Aletho News 