Anthony Blinken is uncomfortable at the podium as he delivers a lengthy speech at NATO while the Ukraine war continues and the West’s response continues to not only confuse the Ukrainian leader but also most people who are struggling to understand how the war has got to where it is today, with the latest massacres shocking the world.

What Blinken didn’t make a mention of was what happened on the same day in 1994, which was the start of the Rwandan genocide – a colossal failure of both the UN and NATO. Blinken spoke about the UN’s decision to suspend Russia from the U.S. Human Rights Council.

The Rwandan Genocide is important to remember as the similarities of the West’s activities in Ukraine today can be compared, in that giants in the UN and NATO like the U.S. remain as pusillanimous as ever towards actually fighting a real war for the rights and principles that they supposedly stand for.

In Rwanda, the CIA-backed English-speaking Tutsis entered the north of the country with a disinformation campaign which installed terror in the hearts of peasant Hutus who took to slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Tutsis with a common farmyard tool. There really isn’t an example of how information or disinformation can play such a decisive role in a war going one way or the other than Rwanda, which the West is entirely responsible for.

When the real killing started in great numbers, the Americans were nowhere to be seen. Clinton, after the PR disaster of Somalia just a few months earlier, pulled back from getting involved in Rwanda and the UN and NATO followed. The UN did have troops in Rwanda but the role of their soldiers is both polemic and ineffective.

On the evening of 6 April 1994, the aircraft carrying Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira, both Hutu, was shot down with surface-to-air missiles as their plane prepared to land in Kigali, Rwanda – sparking the Rwandan genocide.

The parallel with Ukraine is chilling. It’s often forgotten how Malaysian Airlines MH17 was shot down in 2014, which in many ways was a similar catalyst to the fighting in Ukraine reaching a point, where Russia decided to enter the country and take control on February 24^th of this year.

The West blames Russia for the attack on the civilian airliner although the evidence is not entirely conclusive. The Rwandans themselves (the Tutsi-led government) concluded in 2010 that the missile which shot down the Rwandan president’s plane was almost certainly from the hardcore element of the Hutu army which believed the President had sold them out and brokered a peace, allowing Tutsis to return to Rwanda and make claims on land.

But on the 7^th of April 2022, Anthony Blinken made no historical references as he announced even more sanctions against Russia in a war which America hopes will be dragged out for months, in the belief that this will have an impact on Putin, impacting his ability to remain firm when the negotiations start. It wasn’t only the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide which Blinken decide not to mention (probably not wanting to remind the press pack gathered there of both Bill Clinton’s huge erroneous foreign policy play which led to 800,000 dead), but he also chose not to mention Europe’s failure to stop buying Russian oil and gas, which in many ways means that these countries are actually funding Putin’s operation in Ukraine.

If EU countries can’t actually stop buying Russian oil, then the farce of this war will continue for month and perhaps even years to come. Equally, if America’s role is to continue funding Ukrainian soldiers without genuinely wanting to negotiate peace (as the truth is that Blinken and his colleagues believe that a long war is a winning strategy for them), then all talks of peace and negotiating for it are folly. America got the war that it wanted in Ukraine, which is bite-sized and doesn’t involve the threat to American lives which they have been preparing for since 2014 when their own guy overthrew Russia’s chosen leader. We really shouldn’t be surprised by anything other than Blinken’s ability, rather than Biden’s to “fuck things up”.

Though terrorizing Russian teenage figure skating sensation Kamila Valieva and cancelling Russian Paralympians from the international stage both spit in the face of the spirit of Greece’s original Olympics, they are in full harmony with how NATO’s Mafiosi and their political commissars regard their lucrative sports’ empire. To the Mafia, excluding the world’s largest country from all sports is strictly business.

Though Valieva might yet revolutionize figure skating the way Olga Korbut, the legendary Belarusian athlete, revolutionized gymnastics, she is instead being bullied out of contention, much the way Ronaldo was shell shocked in the 1998 World Cup by the same star-spangled fascists who despise youth’s starry-eyed idealism.

Russian weight lifter (and frequent Donbass visitor) Maryana Naumova best articulated this youthful idealism in this incredible video where, whilst wearing the jacket he signed for her years earlier, she explains how much Arnold The Terminator Schwarzenegger inspired her to greatness when she was an obviously starry-eyed and star-struck teenage weight lifting wonder.

Schwarzenegger, of course, was a notorious drug cheat, as were Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, Tyson Gay and literally hundreds of other Americans and Canadians. As was Rambo, when he squared up to the unoriginally named Ivan in Rocky 1V.

Although The Onion sarcastically wrote that Rocky’s victories in all four movies should have been overturned because Sylvester Stallone was, like Arnie, just another proven serial American drug cheat, The Onion misses the key point that the spirit of Rambo epitomizes the fiction that is American Sporting Exceptionalism.

America’s Rambo spirit has nothing to do with sport as the ancient Olympians, Olga Korbut, Kamila Valieva, Maryana Naumova, Novak Djokovic, Max Schmeling, Teófilo Stevenson, Muhammad Ali, Peter Norman or those hundreds of anonymous heroes who put in tens of thousands of hours training Russia’s Paralympians understand it.

It is, unfortunately, how Qatar’s leaders and those Bojos they have cajoled to host the 2022 World Cup in the middle of a desert in the middle of Europe’s football season, understand it. Boris Johnson, who likes to flatten Japanese schoolchildren to relive his cringe-worthy Eton days, believes that Ukraine should get a bye into the World Cup at the expense of Wales and Scotland, where Johnson’s Tory Party are thoroughly loathed. Johnson’s vision of sport has nothing to do with the dreams of Japanese, Welsh, English, Scottish or Ukrainian children and everything to do with the Tories’ personal enrichment and advancement.

There are, in essence, two camps in sport. In Big Business’ corner lurk Boris Johnson, the USA, Qatar, and an army of corrupt sporting officials, who have been bribed, bullied and cajoled into instituting a Russophobic apartheid system more complete and systematic than that which pertained against apartheid era South Africa.

In the other corner, with Kamila Valieva and Russia’s Paralympians, tower true sporting legends like Peter Norman, the third athlete pictured in the famous 1968 Olympics Black Power salute photograph, which occurred during the medal ceremony for the 200-metre event. Not only did Norman wear the badge of the Olympic Project for Human Rights in support of fellow athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith but the idea for Carlos and Smith to each wear a glove was Norman’s. Not only was Norman never selected to represent Australia again but, portending today’s Russian athletes, he was the only Australian Olympic medal winner not invited to attend the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

Chelsea Mitchell, “the fastest girl in Connecticut”, is one of legions of female American athletes, who can empathise with Kamila Valieva as she is being trampled under the same profit-driven jackboot that tried to squash Valieva’s spirit. Mitchell’s issue, that she must compete against and lose sporting scholarships to dudes who declare themselves to be women, is analogous to saying Mike Tyson should have fought the winner of the Ali-Fraser 1971 fight, the fight that paused the Vietnam war, when Tyson was only 4 years old.

Though it is an obvious nonsense, Bojo, Biden and their backroom boys in the Pentagon would be delighted with such a mismatch if it brought in the shekels, because blood, booty and self-adulation are their game. Their legacy is not that of the Greek Olympics but that of crudest Rome, of Gladiator where athletes exist only to boost Big Business’ bottom line and the egos of frauds like Bojo.

This is not about sport at all and it is not exclusively about Russia which will remain a sporting powerhouse forever. As this is, as always, about money, pure and simple, if Russia has to be sacrificed so be it, no biggie. And if wrestling and Naumova’s weight-lifting also have to make way for Hollywood’s more lucrative pseudo sports, then hasta la vista baby.

Expelling Russia from weight lifting and wrestling will do much more than give Russia’s Naumovas a bloodied nose. As those two sports trace their lineage right back to the original Olympics, they should have pride of place in today’s games. But, even though the USA excels in both, so too does Russia and, more importantly, so also do almost every single country from Bulgaria in the West to Korea in the East. Despite weight-lifting and wrestling being the pre-eminent sports in most Central Asian countries, Wall St’s agents, by secret ballot of course, want them banished with more photogenic games like Norwegian women playing sports in thongs and brassieres too small to do what they are designed to do replacing them for click bait, prime time ads and profits.

Valieva, Mitchell and today’s other sporting greats best fix up their spare bedrooms as plenty of redundant athletes are coming their way. Horse-racing, not athletics or figure-skating, now sets the surreal pace, where Rambo and Rocky once led. Virtual horses and virtual jockeys running in pretend races are making real horses and real jockeys redundant as Paddy Power, William Hill and similar companies have beguiled their customers into embracing Big Tech’s lifeless rabbit hole.

Roy Keane, himself a high profile victim of NATO’s sporting Mafia, gave perhaps the best advice when he addressed children in the North East of Ireland. When asked how to excel at sports, Keane told them to climb trees, as all children should, to enjoy all sports, as all children should, but also to first throw their X boxes and other electronic toys into the rubbish bin, as all children also should. Therein lies to key to sports’ future; a return to basics by Russia, Central Asians, Africans and other well-adjusted folk, and fruitless years wasted bribing Norwegian women and their American transsexual fellows into throwing beach balls at one another, whilst wearing skimpy thongs, betting on pretend horses, sporting Ukrainian flags and congratulating obese British Prime Ministers for pulverizing starry-eyed Japanese children.

Very occasionally, a single anecdote can almost completely summate a moment in history. And this one did: In 2005, Zbig Brzezinski, the architect of Afghanistan as quagmire to the Soviet Union, and the author of The Grand Chessboard (which embedded the Mackinder dictum of ‘he who controls the Asian heartland controls the world’ into U.S. foreign policy), sat down in Washington with Alexander Dugin, Russian political philosopher and advocate for a ‘heartland’ cultural and geo-political renaissance.

Brzezinski had already written in his book that, absent Ukraine, Russia would never become the heartland power; but with it, Russia can and would. The meeting had been set with a photo-prop of a chessboard placed between Brzezinski and Dugin (to promote Brzezinski’s book). This arrangement with a chessboard prompted Dugin to ask whether Brzezinski considered Chess to be a game meant for two: “No, Zbig shot back: It is a game for one. Once a chess piece is moved; you turn the board around, and you move the other side’s chess pieces. There is ‘no other’ in this game”, Brzezinski insisted.

Of course, the single-handed chess game was implicit in Mackinder’s doctrine: ‘He who controls the heartland’ dictum was a message to the Anglo powers to never allow a united heartland. (This, of course, is precisely what is evolving at every moment).

And on Monday, Biden channelled Brzezinski out loud, whilst addressing the Business Roundtable in the U.S. His remarks came toward the end of his brief speech where he talked about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and America’s economic future:

“I think this presents us with some significant opportunities to make some real changes. You know, we are at an inflection point, I believe, in the world economy: [and] not just the world economy – in the world [which] occurs every three or four generations. As one of my, as the one of the top military people said to me in a secure meeting the other day, 60 million people died between 1900 and 1946; and since then we established a liberal world order and that hadn’t happened in a long while. A lot of people died, but nowhere near the chaos. And now’s the time when things are shifting. We’re going, there’s gonna be a new world order out there; and we’ve got to lead it and we’ve got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.”

Again there is no ‘other’ at the board. When the moves are made, the board is turned around 180º to play from the other side.

The point here is that the carefully deliberated counter-attack on this Brzezinski zeitgeist was formally launched in Beijing with the joint-declaration that neither Russia nor China accept for America to play chess alone with no others at the board. This represents the defining issue of this coming era: The opening-up of geo-politics. It is an issue for which the excluded ‘others’ are prepared to go to war (they see no choice).

A second chess-player has stepped forward and insists to play – Russia. And a third stands ready: China. Others are silently lining up to witness how the first engagement in this geo-political war fares. It seems from Biden’s comments quoted above that the U.S. intends to use sanctions, and the full unprecedented extent of U.S. treasury measures, against Brzezinski dissidents. Russia is to be made an example of that which awaits any challengers demanding a seat at the board.

But it is an approach that is fundamentally flawed. It stems from Kissinger’s celebrated dictum that ‘he who controls money controls the world’. It was wrong from the ‘get go’: It was always ‘he who controls food, energy (human as well as fossil) and money can control the world. But Kissinger just ignored the first two required conditions – and the last has imprinted itself on the Washington mental circuits.

And here is the paradox: When Brzezinski wrote his book, it was a very different era. Today, whilst Europe and the U.S. never have been more closely aligned, the ‘West’ paradoxically has also never been more alone. Opposition to Russia may have seemed at the outset a slam dunk global unifier: That world opinion would so robustly oppose Moscow’s attack, that China would pay a high political price for failing to jump onto the anti-Russia bandwagon. But that is not how it is working out.

“While the U.S. rhetoric pillories Russia for “war crimes” and the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, et al”, former Indian Ambassador Bhadrakumar notes, “the world capitals view this as a confrontation between America and Russia. Outside of the western camp, the world community refuses to impose sanctions against Russia or even to demonise that country”.

The Islamabad Declaration issued on Wednesday after the 45th meeting of the foreign ministers of the fifty-seven member Organisation of Islamic Conference refused to endorse sanctions against Russia. Not a single country in the African continent or West Asian, Central Asia, South and Southeast Asian region has imposed sanctions against Russia”.

There may well be a further factor at play here: For when these latter states hear phrases such as the ‘Ukrainians, through their heroism, have won the right to enter our “club of values”’, they scent a whiff of debilitated ‘white’ Europe clutching at the life-rafts.

The reality is that the sanctions to which Biden referred in his speech have already failed. Russia has not defaulted; the Moscow stock exchange is open; the Rouble is on the rebound; their current account is in rude good health and Russia is selling energy at windfall prices (even after discount).

In short, trade ‘will be diverted’, not destroyed (the benefit of being an exporter of goods almost fully produced locally – ie. a fortress economy).

The second oddity in Biden’s policy is that whilst Clausewitzian doctrine (to which Russia broadly adheres) argues for the dismantling of ‘the enemy’s centre of gravity, to achieve victory’, in this case presumably, the western control of the global reserve currency and payments systems. Today, however, it is Europe and the U.S. that have been dismantling it themselves: and further locking themselves into soaring inflation and contracting economic activity, in some unexplained fit of moral masochism.

As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard notes in the Telegraph, “What is clear is that western sanctions policy is the worst of all worlds. We are suffering an energy shock that is further inflating Russia’s war-fighting revenues … There is a pervasive fear of a gilets jaunes uprising across Europe, a suspicion that a fickle public will not tolerate the cost-of-living shock once the horrors of Ukraine lose their novelty on TV screens”.

Again, perhaps we can attribute this paradoxical behaviour to Kissinger’s obsession with the power of money, and his forgetfulness of other major factors.

All of this has led to a certain unease creeping into the corridors of power in some NATO capitals over the course that the Ukraine conflict is taking: NATO will not intervene; it will not implement a no-fly zone; and has pointedly ignored Zelensky’s new plea for additional military equipment. Ostensibly, this reflects the ‘selfless’ gesture by the West to avoid a nuclear war. In reality, however, the development of new weaponry can transform geopolitics in a moment (for example, Russia’s Kinzhal hypersonic smart bunker-buster). The fact is that across the board, NATO cannot prevail militarily against Russia in Ukraine.

It seems the Pentagon has – for now – won in the war with State Department and has begun the process of ‘correcting the narrative’.

Contrast these two U.S. narratives:

The State Department on Monday signalled that U.S. is discouraging Zelensky from making concessions to Russia in return for a ceasefire. The spokesman “made it very clear that he is open to a diplomatic solution that does not compromise the core principles at the heart of the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine. When asked to elaborate on his point, Price said that the war is “bigger” than Russia and Ukraine. “The key point is that there are principles that are at stake here that have universal applicability everywhere”. Price said Putin was trying to violate “core principles”.

But, the Pentagon “drop[ed] two truth bombs” in its battle with State and Congress to prevent confrontation with Russia: “Russia’s conduct in the brutal war tells a different story than the widely accepted view that Putin is intent on demolishing Ukraine and inflicting maximum civilian damage—and it reveals the Russian leader’s strategic balancing act”, reported Newsweek in an article entitled, “Putin’s Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He’s Holding Back. Here’s Why.”

One quotes an unnamed analyst at the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) saying, “The heart of Kyiv has barely been touched. And almost all of the long-range strikes have been aimed at military targets. A retired U.S. Air Force officer now working as an analyst for a Pentagon contractor, added: “We need to understand Russia’s actual conduct. If we merely convince ourselves that Russia is bombing indiscriminately, or [that] it is failing to inflict more harm because its personnel are not up to the task or because it is technically inept, then we are not seeing the real conflict””.

The second ‘truth bomb’ directly undermines Biden’s dramatic warning about a false flag chemical attack. Reuters reported: “The United States has not yet seen any concrete indications of an imminent Russian chemical or biological weapons attack in Ukraine but is closely monitoring streams of intelligence for them, a senior U.S. defence official said.”

Biden is positioned in the middle, saying ‘Putin’s a war criminal’, but also that there will be no NATO fight with Russia. “The only end game now,” a senior administration official said at a private event earlier this month, “is the end of Putin regime. Until then, all the time Putin stays, [Russia] will be a pariah state that will never be welcomed back into the community of nations. China has made a huge error in thinking Putin will get away with it”.

There it is – the bottom line: Allow the carnage in Ukraine to continue; sit back and watch the ‘heroic Ukrainians bleed Russia dry’; do enough to sustain the conflict (by providing some weapons), but not enough to escalate it; and play it as the heroic struggle for democracy, in order to satisfy public opinion.

The point is that it isn’t working out that way. Putin may surprise all in DC by exiting Ukraine when Russia’s military operation is complete. (When Putin speaks of Ukraine, by the way, he usually discounts the western part added on by Stalin as Ukrainian).

And it isn’t working out with China. Blinken said in justification of new sanctions imposed on China last week: “We are committed to defending human rights around the world and will continue to use all diplomatic and economic measures to promote accountability”.

The sanctions were imposed because China had failed to repudiate Putin. Just that. The language of accountability and (of atonement) used however, can be understood only as an expression of woke contemporary culture. It is enough to present some aspect of Chinese culture as politically incorrect (as racist, repressive, misogynist, supremacist or offensive), and immediately it becomes politically incorrect. And that means that any aspect of it can be adduced at will by the Administration as meriting sanctioning.

The problem again reverts to the West’s refusal to accept ‘others’ at the chessboard. What can China do, but shrug at such nonsense.

Biden, in his speech to the Roundtable, fore-staged – yet again – a new world order; he suggested that a Great Re-set is coming.

But maybe a ‘Re-set Reckoning’ of a different order is on the cards; one that will return many things to that which, until relatively recently, had actually worked. Politics and geo-politics are metamorphosing at every moment.

Cuba’s request for USSR protection from U.S. imperialist interventions was not unfounded. Only the year before, in April 1961, the U.S. had suffered a spectacular defeat at the Bay of Pigs, when the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-funded paramilitary operation to overthrow Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution was thwarted in less than 72 hours and 1,200 mercenaries were taken prisoner by the Cubans.

The plan was carried out by the Kennedy administration, although concocted by the CIA during the Eisenhower administration. Following the U.S. defeat, Kennedy proposed social and economic aid for Latin America under the Alliance for Progress programme – a plan which the U.S. hoped would bring the region under increased dependence on Washington and possibly prevent other socialist revolutions in Latin America.

As Fidel stated in his autobiography, “He [Kennedy] realized that social and economic factors in the region could well lead to a radical revolution across the continent. There could be a second Cuban Revolution, but on a continent-wide scale, and perhaps even more radical.”

Fidel’s acceptance of having medium-range missiles in Cuba was, in his words, “a measure meant to protect Cuba from a direct attack and simultaneously strengthen the Soviet Union and the Socialist camp.

The missiles were detected by the UN on the night between the 14^th and the 15^th of October 1962, with the then U.S. President John F. Kennedy  warning that the Soviet Union should withdraw the missiles or face a nuclear war. Kennedy also imposed a naval blockade on Cuba, preventing the installation of further missiles on the island.

A declassified U.S. document following the discovery of the missiles on Cuban soil warned, “I assume you will recall that President Kennedy said a year and a half ago that only two points were non-negotiable between the Western Hemisphere and Cuba – the Soviet tie and aggressive actions in Latin America.”

The U.S. threat was renewed on September 13 by Kennedy: “If at any time the Communist build-up in Cuba were to endanger or interfere with our security in any way… or if Cuba should ever… become an offensive military base of significant capacity for the Soviet Union, then this country will do whatever must be done to protect its own security and that of its allies.”

On October 25, the U.S. proposed withdrawing its missiles from Turkey, which posed a threat to the Soviet Union, in return for the Soviet Union’s withdrawal of their missiles from Cuba. Notably, the removal of U.S. missiles from Turkey was kept secret, in an attempt to twist the outcome as a U.S. victory over the USSR during the Cold War.

Fidel considered the compromise as diverting attention away from the issue of Cuba’s sovereignty and the right to defend itself against U.S. imperialist interventions. One major reason for the political discord on behalf of Fidel would have been the agreement being reached without consulting the Cuban government.

For his part, Nikita Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy reiterating that the Soviet Union’s installation of missiles on Cuban territory was done “because Cuba and the Cuban people were constantly under the continuous threat of an invasion of Cuba.” Khrushchev also outlined that the Soviet Union’s actions were defensive not offensive – the latter being the U.S.’s misrepresentation.

Letters exchanged between Khrushchev and Fidel indicate that the Soviet Union sought guarantees that the U.S. “not only will not invade Cuba with their own forces, but will not allow their allies to do so.” However, Khrushchev warned, “Since an agreement is in sight, the Pentagon is looking for a pretext to thwart it.”

A reversal of roles in the current scenario between Russia and Ukraine has NATO and its allies escalating hostile diplomacy. On what grounds is guarding a nation’s borders from NATO violence a security threat?

As the Latin saying goes, De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Fair enough, and for most deceased a modest effort would probably suffice to act in the spirit of this sentiment and find something decent to say. However, in the case of the recently departed Madeleine Albright, one is genuinely hard put to find even a minimum of virtue to balance the wickedness.

For all we know she may indeed be remembered as a “loving mother, grandmother, sister, aunt, and friend” in her private circle, as claimed by her family when they announced her death. But outside of that circle, one suspects that few will remember her that way.

Her passing, which occurred on precisely the day which marked the 23^rd anniversary of the decision to commit one of the most infamous acts with which her name is associated, the savage and illegal bombing in 1999 of Yugoslavia, must impress everyone capable of perceiving meaning in human events as a mighty portent. Assuredly, Albright had committed in her public life other acts of malfeasance and moral turpitude which in terms of destruction and victim count may exceed the devastation which her policies inflicted on the people of Serbia and Montenegro. But ensconced in her relationship with the Serbian nation there is an important and telling detail, and it lays bare the depravity.

In the years preceding the outbreak of World War II, Madeleine Albright, known then as Jana Korbelova, and her family took refuge in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to escape from the ethnic persecution and almost certain death in a Nazi concentration camp as Germany occupied Czechoslovakia. The Korbel refugee family were amicably welcomed and generously accommodated in the Serbian resort town of Vrnjačka Banja, where Jana attended school and reportedly learned the Serbian language. Later in life, after the war, when Jana landed in America, becoming Madeleine, and ambition for personal advancement began to direct her life, not a trace of gratitude or empathy for the people who saved her life could be detected. If on some of her “diplomatic missions” the objects of her contempt rewarded her with stones, who could really blame them? Throughout the nineties, she championed the vilification of the very people who most likely shielded her from a gruesome death in Auschwitz, slanderously denouncing them as reincarnated Nazis and hailing with glee the mayhem and destruction wrought by NATO upon them. Her intemperate calumnies speak volumes about her character.

As a public figure, Albright never gave an inkling of the noble attributes which now fill the official eulogies. Her casual remark during an interview in 1996 with Leslie Stahl of “60 Minutes”, that in her opinion sanctions laid on Iraq which cost the lives of half a million children (more than died in Hiroshima, Stahl reminded her) were “worth it,” was shocking beyond words. But that was just a “loving grandmother” in charge of superpower foreign policy sharing her most cherished values with a global audience.

Her academic output was rather thin, compared to her father’s, who had a successful career as a political science professor on his own merits and without agreeing to any moral compromises to get ahead after the family immigrated to America in the post-war period. One has the distinct impression that in order to get ahead Madeleine relied less on her scholarship and more on who she hung around with. In her rise to prominence she tended always to keep in lockstep with political heavyweights such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Clintons. It was a career strategy that paid off. In the topsy-turvy Beltway world, a person with her flimsy professional and moral qualifications could indeed scale unimaginable heights, as long as she toed the party line and in her diatribes publicly spouted all the right opinions. It is thus that Madeleine Albright became not just a “diplomat” representing her adopted country in the United Nations and later even Secretary of State. As allegedly “one of the world’s most respected diplomats [so goes one of establishment puff pieces dedicated to her] Dr. Madeleine K. Albright, continues to advocate for democracy and human rights across the world, while also championing the important impact international relations and educational exchanges have on the United States today,” as the fawning blurb disingenuously put it, but there is more than that. The grateful and admiring establishment, whose obsequious servant she had been, in the final stages of her career made her professor, of all things, in the practice of diplomacy at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

Thus, the bogus diplomat, who in 1999 orchestrated multiple violations of international law by using her position to destroy and dismember a European country by using the most egregious force and violence, was put in charge of training future diplomats.

That was rather akin to appointing Dr. Mengele professor of medicine so that he could apply his accumulated professional experience to the training of future doctors.

In Orthodox teaching, for forty days after death the soul passes through a series of toll-houses where the record of sins committed during its past life is put before it by jeering demons who, of course, have it all written down. Perhaps this scenario should be modified slightly just for the passage of Madeleine Albright, nee Korbelova, so that in her descent to the netherworld she might be met at the toll-houses by the reproachful gaze of her numberless child victims, whose innocent deaths she engineered and proclaimed to be “worth it.” Naturally, the demons will still be there at the end of the journey, waiting for her arrival and for the pleasure of her company.

When the Soviet Union imploded, Russia urgently needed intellectuals to conceptualise and formulate newer, national narratives to fill their resulting ideological void. Though Alexsandr Dugin who, in his Quixotic search for the Soul of Russia, has been accused of nibbling on an eclectic smörgåsbord of Satanism, Stalinism, Russian Orthodoxy, Marxism-Leninism, pan-Slavism and Nazism, is one such Russian intellectual, Dugin’s final legacy will fall somewhat short of his mooted Russian Manifest Destiny, his supposed desire for a “Euro-Soviet empire which would stretch from Dublin to Vladivostok and would also need to expand to the south, since it require(s) a port on the Indian Ocean”.

Fantastical though Dugin’s pronouncements sometimes seemed, they have now been obviated by President’s Putin’s repeated statements that Russia wants a stable Western border and good, forward-looking relations with China and the Indian sub-continent. As far as the Russian government is concerned, Duginism, in its strong form, can now be consigned to wherever it is historical aberrations fade into obsolescence; Russia will, for the foreseeable future, concentrate on getting her own intellectual house in order.

Although Russia has largely divested herself of her surplus philosophers, NATO’s Manifest Destiny ideologues, as part of their full spectrum dominance strategy, still need theirs, regardless of how fickle their cant may be in either their strong or diluted forms. Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French Zionist “philosopher” who crops up like the proverbial bad penny wherever NATO’s dark arts are at work, is a case in point. As Lévy, NATO’s Professor Pangloss, is now calling for the emasculation of Russia, just as he has called for the destruction of Syria here, here and here, along the same genocidal lines he advocated in Libya, Lévy’s main utility is in spraying a pseudo-intellectual spittle on NATO’s more abominable crimes.

Prof. Gilbert Achcar of London’s SOAS, is another “progressive” proponent of NATO’s “humanitarian slaughter” in places like Syria and Libya and in his native Lebanon as well. Achcar is noteworthy as his academic output seems, especially when juxtaposed with his stratospheric public profile, pathetically weak.

The SOAS’ own website informs us that “Gilbert’s research interests and publication topics include: the political economy and sociology of globalisation, the global power structure and grand strategy, empire theory and the unfolding of U.S. hegemony globally and in the ‘Broader Middle East’, politics and development economics of the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, the sociology of religion in general, of Islam and Islamic fundamentalism in particular, social change and social theory”.

So a very wide or global “big picture” but somewhat shallow area of expertise, one could say. Though “Eichmann in Cairo: The Eichmann Affair in Nasser’s Egypt” seems, on first glance, to be more deeply focused, such, alas is not the case as Achcar only flippantly reviewed coverage of the Eichmann trial in the Egyptian press. Achcar, on the evidence, did not get his cushy number because of his academic prowess.

As this dissenting article explains, contrary to his own belated Blair-like protestations, Achcar is, at heart, an over-paid propaganda mouthpiece-for-hire in convincing the “radical left” to support the “humanitarian bombing” of Libya and other sovereign countries in NATO’s cross-hairs. As Gilbert explained: in the “absence of any alternative means of achieving the protection goal, no one can reasonably oppose it… You can’t in the name of anti-imperialist principles oppose an action that will prevent the massacre of civilians.” So, Achcar’s main criticism of NATO’s saturation humanitarian bombing of Libya, is that they had “only” flown 11,107 sorties against Libya as against 38,004 sorties in NATO’s1999 anti-Serbian war over Kosovo. Not enough humanitarian slaughter for Achcar, in short.

Although this jingoistic site regards him as a “clear-sighted leftist” war-monger who no doubt knows what side his bread is buttered on, Achcar, on the evidence, is no intellectual at all. And nor is French philosopher Lévy, who calls for France’s Muslims to host special days to stone people to death and who cannot even differentiate between real and fake French philosophers. Another over-paid NATO cretin, in other words.

As those intellectuals have feel of clay, we can only conclude that they owe their prominence to their support for NATO’s endless wars. Lévy’s recent political activities do not lend themselves to any other interpretation. If we accept that hypothesis, then we must also accept that groups like the Henry Jackson Society, Bellingcat and Left Foot Forward, to name but three illustrative examples, are similarly NATO constructs, NATO’s useful soft war idiots that cement NATO’s Doublethink into what remains of the West’s public consciousness.

The Henry Jackson Society is a very influential, extreme right wing British think tank that has an undue influence with right wing British Conservative and Labour MPs and their sponsors. While touting their support for freedom, liberalism and democratization as their core organizational remit, in practice the HJS is a neocon Trojan horse for the very opposite: state-expansionism, state-militarization, interventionism, rampant market deregulation and privatization in the interests of Western vulture funds. What’s particularly shocking is that their pursuit of their goals and Trojan horse tactics are, for the most part, easily verifiable from the public record, with only a little digging, from which we can only conclude that the HJS’ objective, from its outset, was to legitimize violent regime-change in the Middle East and Donbas in the name of fulfilling NATO’s manifest destiny by humanitarian bombing.

Despite the accolades NATO heaped on him, Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins’ feigned expertise on chemical and biological weapons has, along with that of his colleague, Dan Kaszeta, been repeatedly pulverized by technical expert Dr Neal Krawetz and MIT’s Prof. Ted Postol, both of whom have long-established track records in those very specialized fields. As Bellingcat and Higgins are both now flourishing under the protective wing of NATO’s Atlantic Council, we can only assume that their continued prominence is explained by NATO’s need, as part of their full spectrum dominance dictum. for a controlled input by “the common man”.

Left Foot Forward, founded by failed politician Will Straw, the son of disgraced politician Jack Straw, is a British blog, formerly edited by Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin , (who, as part of NATO’s reward system, has since scored some lucrative New Statesman pay-days).who tweeted on 28 March 2016 that “Boris Johnson is truly nauseating” for praising Palmyra’s liberation by the Syrian Army. A day earlier, this Irish woman tweeted that tricolour sex toys were the perfect way to commemorate the 1916 Dublin Easter Uprising.

Linking sex toys to Ireland’s revolutionary heritage brings us back to Pussy Riot, to Femen and to the late Gene Sharp’s From Dictatorship to Democracy, which is credited with supplying America’s agents their blueprint for emasculating governments opposed to NATO. The subversion, intentional or otherwise, of old paradigms “from Dublin to Vladivostok” has given NATO’s useful idiots the green light to continue proclaiming its manifest destiny, regardless of the negative externalities and collateral damage their intellectual myopia causes.

Although the Russian Army is, for now at least, stalling NATO’s eastwards progress, NATO’s more ethereal threats must also be neutralized if Europe is ever to achieve lasting peace. Updated cuius regio, eius religio clauses of the Peace of Westphalia are, arguably, some of the many precedents worth implementing. Under those terms, NATO would cease and desist from all subversive philosophical, religious, political and secular evangelizing, countries like Syria, Yemen, Russia and what remains of Yugoslavia would be allowed to live peaceably within their own myths and their own borders and trans-national cultural, sporting, political, financial and economic bodies would be wrested from the control of the USA and its satellites.

Now, all of this is not just to win some pedantic pseudo-philosophical point over Achcar, Lévy or one of NATO’s Henry Jackson Society shills, as a fair debate with them would be even more akin to taking a new-born baby on in arm-wrestling than it was when Dugin’s community centered approach easily handled Lévy’s vacuous shibboleths as well as the one-dimensional American exceptionalism musings of Francis Fukuyama and Ivan Krastev. Rather, it is to plainly say that Russia’s Paralympians should freely compete against their peers, that Russian ideas, as expressed by Chekhov, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, deserve their permanent positions smack centre on the High Altar of our global literature and NATO’s dangerous xenophobes, who think otherwise, deserve to be banished, like the despicable pariahs that they truly are, far beyond the realms of outer space the now cancelled Yuri Gagarin first explored on our behalf.

Though Dugin has been described as Putin’s brain and Lévy is what passes for NATO’s bird brain, Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg put it best when he said the only real utility of a philosopher like Dugin is to protect the world from Lévy and other NATO funded philosophical charlatans.

Though she may well continue to need her Dugins to repel NATO’s philosophical Sirens Russia will, as Tolstoy’s War and Peace shows, always need leaders who can cut to the chase, who can separate the wheat from the chaff and differentiate Russia’s true philosophers and patriots from the frauds. We need Bismarcks, de Gaulles, Talleyrands, Tolstoys and Metternichs, not bird brained authoritarians like Canada’s Trudeau, the red socks’ fascist, or pliable, demented and deranged war hawks like “Irish” Joe Biden. We need, in short, to replace all NATO’s pliable puppets with an intellectual caste that resorts to jaw jaw instead of NATO’s endless war war and that sees the lands of Dostoevksy, Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich as something more than a market to offload McDonald’s hamburgers and Hello Kitty bling into.

Now, though none of that may ever come to pass because of NATO’s Manifest Destiny obsessions, it forms a much more solid basis for charting our common paths forward than does the self-serving jingoism of Bernard-Henri Lévy and his fellow fake French philosophers. It also, of course, entails, dismantling NATO’s entire soft war apparatus, from NATO bottom feeders Bellingcat and the Henry Jackson Society, as well as decommissioning Bernard-Henri Lévy’s Christmas cracker philosophy.

In the history of civilization, Politics has more often than not, been a matter reduceable to the question of “whose side are you on?”

Granted it is not an easy affair to discern what most-nearly approaches truth in the fog of “the present.” Hindsight is 20/20 they say, although that is also not entirely true, for the interpretation of history is just another battlefield, albeit in much slower motion.

In a world of increased division, where we are told there is only black or white, the best we mere “civilians” can hope for is to not get hit by the crossfire. However, that is becoming increasingly harder to do.

It is not a matter of holding “opinion” any longer, it is about upholding a “conviction,” not earned with your own personal scrutiny and research, but by your “faith” in such a conviction and the authorities who shape it.

Increasingly, it does not truly matter what the “facts” are, but the question of “whose side are you on?”

If that is what “reality” has been reduced to by those forces controlling the state, then any enemy to those forces controlling that state will be a villain, regardless of their actions, regardless of their ideology; and any ally to those forces controlling that state will be a hero, regardless of their actions, regardless of their ideology.

And thus, in our shaped reality of today, what makes a “Hero” or a “Villain” will be determined by the simple question “whose side are you on?”

If this is troubling to you, I suggest we do a little exercise together. Let us dare to discern the “facts” for ourselves. Only then, will we cease being mere cheerleaders for a team; only then, can we qualify ourselves to ask in all honest sincerity, “whose side are we truly on?”

Are Nazis Now the New “Good Guys”?

There is a bit of mixed messaging that has been going on, especially in the last few weeks. Are there significant numbers of Nazis in Ukraine and are these “bad” or “good” Nazis in the context that they are fighting the Russian “invaders”?

In one breath we hear the counter, how can there be Nazis in Ukraine when there is a Jewish President calling the shots? In another breath we hear Facebook is now allowing users to praise the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion while they are fighting Russians. In yet another breath we hear, well its complicated, Ukrainian Nationalism should be considered at the forefront of any debate, even if it overlaps with Nazi ideology.

On Feb. 27, 2022, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland held a scarf bearing the slogan “Slava Ukraini,” meaning “Glory to Ukraine,” with the “Blood and Soil” colors of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) (who collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and massacred thousands of Jews and Poles).

She then proceeded to post this picture onto her Twitter account (replacing it hours later with a picture of her without the “Blood and Soil” scarf) and accused her detractors of “reeking of Russian disinformation”. This controversial picture of Freeland was reported by Canada’s National Post.

According to Freeland’s press secretary, this was just another case of a “classic KGB disinformation smear… accusing Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Canadians of being far right extremists or fascists or Nazis,” which is a confusing statement on multiple levels.

It is not clear how this is a case of “Russian disinformation,” since the picture is indeed authentic, Freeland does not deny this. And she is indeed holding a “Blood and Soil” emblem, which originated with the Nazis, clear for everyone to see. Lastly, it is confusing as to why the Canadian government seems to be unaware that the KGB no longer exists. Are they also under the impression that the Soviet Union still exists?

Not irrelevant in all of this is the fact that Freeland’s grandfather was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper during WWII in Galacia and that she is indeed aware of this and apparently unapologetic. Whenever she is questioned about this, she does not deny anything, but simply blames such a focus of inquiry on Russian disinformation with the intent to “destabilize Western democracies.” That is, it is not a question of what is one’s historical or ideological background, but a question of “whose side are you on?”

Interestingly, it was the Canadian newspaper “The Globe and Mail” who reported this story, titled “Freeland knew her grandfather was editor of Nazi newspaper,” thus, not a Russian publication last time I checked. And upon whom did they base such information? None other than Freeland’s own uncle, John-Paul Himka, who is now professor emeritus at the University of Alberta.

According to the Globe and Mail, Freeland was aware for more than two decades that her grandfather Michael Chomiak, was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper that vilified Jews and supported the Nazi cause.

Globe and Mail writes:

“Krakivski Visti [Krakow News] was set up in 1940 by the German army and supervised by German intelligence officer Emil Gassert. Its printing presses and offices were confiscated by the Germans from a Jewish publisher, who was later murdered at the Belzec concentration camp.

The article titled ‘Kravivski Visti and the Jews, 1943: A contribution of Ukrainian Jewish Relations during the Second World War’ was written by Ms. Freeland’s uncle, John-Paul Himka, now professor emeritus at the University of Alberta.

In the foreword to the article, Prof. Himka credits Ms. Freeland for ‘pointing out problems and clarifications.’ Ms. Freeland has never acknowledged that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator and suggested on Monday that the allegation was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

In 1996, Prof. Himka wrote about Mr. Chomiak’s work for Kravivski Visti, a Ukrainian-language newspaper based in Krakow that often published anti-Jewish diatribes including ‘certain passages in some of the articles that expressed approval of what the Nazis were doing to the Jews.’” [emphasis added]

Oddly, Freeland helped to edit and clarify Prof. Himka’s article discussing her grandfather as the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper, however, refused to acknowledge her grandfather’s role publicly and accused any reference to this as part of a “Russian disinformation campaign.” According to this topsy-turvy logic, Freeland’s uncle, Prof. Himka is part of this “Russian disinformation campaign,” and she is guilty of providing assistance to this “Russian disinformation campaign,” all to ruin her political career and “destabilize Western democracies.”

Freeland also told her uncle, Prof. Himka, which is included in his article, that according to her father, her grandfather Michael Chomiak was also working to some extent with the anti-Nazi resistance. However, Prof. Himka was unable to verify this information, which he described as “fragmentary and one-sided.”

Then there is the strange case of NATO tweeting in celebration of international women’s day, this past March 8, a picture of a female Ukrainian soldier wearing the Black Sun symbol which is tied to Nazi occultism, and Satanism. NATO wrote in their post “All women and girls must live free and equal,” sending a very mixed message. NATO also ended up taking down their picture of the Black Sun symbol.

The timing of Freeland and NATO’s twitter posts are most strange. It also begs the question, why post something at all if you are just going to delete it? Is this just a matter of not being aware of such things, or is it a matter of certain groupings getting increasingly bolder and unapologetic as to where their true allegiance lies? Has Chrystia Freeland or NATO undergone any real questioning or backlash for such public displays? Not really.

On Feb. 7, 2014, a leaked conversation between Victoria Nuland (then Assistant Secretary of State) and Geoffrey Pyatt (then U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine) spread like wildfire. It was exposed that after Yanukovych was ousted from government, it was the government of the United States that was caught selecting the membership of what would form the new government of Ukraine, as if they were building their own sport’s team.

This was not only controversial in of itself, it was especially controversial in context of Ukraine’s “Revolution of Dignity,” where many Ukrainians died tragically so that they could have a better future.

Here in the West, we are supposed to be most sympathetic to that cause. So why did hardly anybody call out the fact that the U.S. government very clearly formed a Ukrainian government of their own choosing without a thought for the future and well-being of the Ukrainian people?

In fact, it was the U.S. who largely encouraged and financially supported the Ukrainian revolution. According to the official Obama White House Archives:

“The United States stands with the Ukrainian people and their choice of democracy, reform, and European integration.

 In pursuit of these objectives, Vice President Joe Biden announced today in Kyiv, Ukraine that, pending approval from Congress, the White House will commit $20 million to support comprehensive reform in the Ukrainian law enforcement and justice sectors, including prosecutorial and anti-corruption reforms…the U.S. government has now committed nearly $320 million in assistance to Ukraine this year, in addition to the $1 billion sovereign loan guarantee issued in May 2014.”

Many U.S. politicians visited Ukraine during this time to support the Ukrainian cause for “dignity.”

John McCain visits Ukraine in December 2013 in support of a regime change.

The world should have been appalled and horrified at such an exposure of U.S. criminality and duplicity. That the U.S. had directly and loudly encouraged and financially supported a revolution that resulted in many tragic deaths, only to steal the Ukrainian people’s right to choose their own government democratically.

The Americans also encouraged the Ukrainian people to fight for the EU Deal. And the Ukrainian people received the EU Deal that they were literally dying for. Where are they today? The poorest country in all of Europe.

Ukraine used to be among the richest countries in Eastern Europe, known as “the breadbasket of Europe.” However, this economic fact is harder and harder to come by since Ukraine was a part of the USSR when their economy was at its peak. A most inconvenient truth. It is for this reason that you will be hard pressed to find any GDP graph of Ukraine that begins earlier than 1991, the date of their independence. From 1991 to 1997, Ukraine lost 60% of their GDP (1) and suffered five-digit inflation rates. (2) Who was Ukraine beholden to during this massive recession that has never really ended for Ukrainians? The International Monetary Fund (IMF). [More on this story in Part 2.]

However, certain individuals who have held and continue to hold political offices, have greatly benefited from the plight of Ukraine.

On January 23, 2018, Joe Biden was invited to speak at a Council on Foreign Relations platform about an article he co-authored with Michael Carpenter titled “How to Stand Up to the Kremlin: Defending Democracy Against Its Enemies.”

Incredibly, during this discussion on “defending democracy against its enemies,” Biden publicly bragged that in 2016 (while Vice-President of the United States) he would only deliver on the U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine for economic aid on the condition that Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was fired. Shokin was investigating corruption charges involving Burisma Holdings at the time. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden was on the board of this natural gas company during this period and was allegedly the recipient of $3-$3.5 million from the company. An extraordinary amount that could not be justified, hence the investigation into corruption.

Joe Biden makes the following admission at this 2018 CFR platform:

“…and I went over I guess the 12^th, 13^th time to Kiev, and I was going supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko [then President of Ukraine] and from Yatsenyuk [then Prime Minister of Ukraine] that they would take action against the state prosecutor [Shokin] and they didn’t. So they said they had it [the loan] they were walking out to press and I said nah, I said I’m not going or we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said ‘you have no authority, you’re not the president, the president said,’ I said call him. [laughter in background] I said, I’m telling you’re not getting a billion dollars. I said you’re not getting a billion and I’m gonna be leaving here. I think it was about six hours. I looked I said I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Oh son of a b*tch. He got fired. [laughter in background] And they put in place, someone who was solid.”

Apparently, Joe Biden (the current President of the United States) is not concerned with true democracy but only about whether his team wins. Not the American people I might add. His team is much smaller and more “selective” than that.

Strangely, despite Biden’s admission being recorded at a very public and “prestigious” platform, fact-checkers have continued to deny any proof that Joe Biden was responsible for the firing of Shokin. Apparently, Biden’s own admission to this is irrelevant. Fact-checkers have also denied any hard proof that Hunter received such a lofty sum from Burisma. Well, it is pretty hard to come by hard proof when the investigation into such a thing was prematurely shutdown, don’t you think? That was the whole point.

This is extremely controversial for another reason. During the EU Deal dispute that was used to trigger the Ukrainian protests, it has since been discovered that part of the conditions of this “deal,” which was strong-armed by the IMF, was the demand that a significant rise in utility rates (first and foremost electricity and gas) be implemented while the income of Ukrainians stayed the same.

Who was Ukrainian President Yanukovych’s point person in the United States during the Ukrainian protests and EU Deal controversy? U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

The Ukrainian people had no idea. The very deal they were fighting and dying for was to directly benefit corrupt gas companies such as Burisma Holdings and their foreign shareholders, to the economic detriment of the Ukrainian people. A similar situation to what most of Europe is facing today under a plethora of glorious “EU Deals” in the midst of an energy crisis.

In addition, the New York Times has just recently published an article confirming that the notorious Hunter Biden laptop that was claimed as “Russian disinformation” by our trustworthy fact-checkers, is in actual fact, AUTHENTIC. A very important piece of information that should have been made available to the American people before they chose who would be their next President. This important piece of information was denied to the American people by the very thing that is proclaimed to be defending “national security,” the unelected and anonymous but all powerful, “fact-checkers.”

So, we all know Joe Biden has been promoted, um “elected,” President. Where are Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt today? Nuland serves as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States. Pyatt serves as the U.S. Ambassador to Greece.

Nuland, not one to shy away from unflattering spotlight, has again made headlines. This time on the American – starts with “bio” ends with “lab” – situation in Ukraine. On March 7, Nuland testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where she did not deny that Ukraine possesses “chemical or biological weapons” and acknowledged on public record that “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities.”

But don’t worry, this does not mean that the omnipotent god-like “fact-checkers” are actually the sources of disinformation (what Hunter Biden laptop?), but as Mrs. Nuland has patiently explained to us; the harbouring and experimentation on deadly organisms is called “biological research” when the U.S. Department of Defense is involved. Thus, they are not deemed as “bio labs,” but rather as “biological research facilities,” and anyone who calls them “bio labs” while under the possession of the United States is a propagator of Russian disinformation. And yes, the U.S. Department of Defense is most certainly involved as seen by the saved PDF files taken off of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine website which shows the U.S. Department of Defense as the donor in all the cases listed. However, as Mrs. Nuland carefully explained, as soon as the Americans lose possession of these deadly organisms, it is only then that they transform into “bio labs” with “weapons of mass destruction.” It is very simple actually.

What did not make the headlines with equal vigour is what Nuland did after her failed diplomatic visit to Russia this past October, which was according to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, to “impose” Yarosh onto President Zelensky. On Nov. 2, 2021, President Zelensky appointed Dmytro Yarosh (leader of the Right Sector 2013-2015) as Adviser to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valerii Zaluzhnyi. Nuland is of Ukrainian Jewish descent, thus her ongoing support for neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government and military since 2014 is disturbing on multiple levels.

Right Sector has close connections with Trident (Tryzub) and Patriot of Ukraine. All three groups are right-wing nationalist, neo-Nazi, paramilitary movements as well as political parties. Look it up for yourself, not even Wikipedia is denying this. Yarosh was the leader of Tryzub starting in 2005. Tryzub led to the formation of the Right Sector, to which Yarosh was also leader of between 2013-2015 and continues to have a great deal of influence on all these groupings.

Dmytro Yarosh has been on Interpol’s “wanted list” since 2014.

Recall that in 2014, the U.S. “influence” on the newly formed Ukrainian government was raising concern, specifically around members of Svoboda and Pravyi Sector (Right Sector) holding five senior roles in the new government, including the post of deputy prime minister. This story was reported by Reuters.

Right Sector “Blood and Soil” flag. What westerners are told is a Ukrainian nationalist party concerned with defending the liberty and freedom of the Ukrainian people.

Svoboda is also sold to the west as a romantic movement of benign Ukrainian nationalists, who happen to support Stephen Bandera and cannot deny that they support ethnic ultranationalist views.

Typical rally during the “Revolution for Dignity” in 2014, with flags from the Svoboda Ukrainian Nationalist Party.

On January 1st, 2022, hundreds of Ukrainian nationalists held a torchlight march in the capital of Kyiv, seen in the above picture, to mark the birthday of Stephen Bandera one of the leaders of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its paramilitary unit the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) who fought alongside the Nazis during WWII and massacred thousands of Jews and Poles. These Ukrainian nationalists are shown in the above picture holding the Svoboda and UPA “Blood and Soil” flag. The latter being the same emblem Chrystia Freeland held this past February. This event was reported by The Times of Israel. I wonder, will Freeland’s press secretary dare to call this another classic case of “KGB disinformation”?

A Moment to Reflect

So what is going on here? Are there real Nazis in Ukraine that are being selected, with U.S. and possibly NATO backing, to play a political and military role? And if so, why? What is happening to the Ukrainian people if this is in fact the case?

What even constitutes as “Ukrainian” under an increasingly ultra-nationalist movement? An ultra-nationalist movement which self-identifies as pure ethnic Ukrainians. Ukraine is an ethnically mixed population, with both ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians living together.

In light of this situation, how are we to regard the people of Donbass asking to form their own republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, separate from the rest of Ukraine? Are we in the west going to deny the people of Donbass, with a large population of ethnic Russians, the right to separate themselves from an ultra-nationalist movement that self-identifies as a pure Ukrainian race?

How are we to regard Crimea’s own request to re-join Russia in 2014, a referendum that the West refuses to acknowledge actually happened, despite mainstream western reporters confirming that Crimeans have indeed chosen and are happy to have returned to Russia? (Crimeans mostly consist of ethnic Russians.)

What are we to think of the Ukrainian government withholding 85% of drinkable water to Crimea these past eight years? An action by the Ukrainian government that constitutes a humanitarian crisis against the Crimean people. Are these the actions of a friendly government that cares for the welfare of the Crimean people?

This humanitarian crisis was corrected by the Russians as soon as they entered Ukraine, as acknowledged by Reuters. However, most in the west will never hear anything about this.

We should have the courage to ask ourselves: Is there in fact a civil war that has been going on in Ukraine not just these past weeks, but these past eight years? A civil war that has not been reported to the western people for political reasons, where certain regions of Ukraine have been under attack by neo-Nazi paramilitary units who have been receiving political support and funding from the United States, and possibly NATO.

Why would the west support such a horrific initiative?

To answer these questions, we will have to have the courage to look at the historical root of Ukrainian Nationalism and its relationship to namely U.S. Intelligence and NATO post-WWII.

To follow shortly, “Part II of Fact Checking the Fact Checkers: The Truth Behind Ukraine’s Glorified ‘Nationalist Movement’”

The author can be reached at cynthiachung.substack.com

(1)  “Can Ukraine Avert a Financial Meltdown?“. World Bank. June 1998. Archived from the original on 12 July 2000.
(2)  Figliuoli, Lorenzo; Lissovolik, Bogdan (31 August 2002). “The IMF and Ukraine: What Really Happened“. International Monetary Fund.

In its triple strike of sanctions on Russia, the EU initially was not looking to collapse the Russian financial system. Far from it: Its first instinct was to find the means to continue purchasing its energy needs (made all there more vital by the state of the European gas reserves hovering close to zero). Purchases of energy, special metals, rare earths (all needed for high tech manufacture) and agricultural products were to be exempted. In short, at first brush, the sinews of the global financial system were intended to remain intact.

The main target rather, was to block the core to the Russian financial system’s ability to raise capital – supplemented by specific sanctions on Alrosa, a major player in the diamond market, and Sovcomflot, a tanker fleet operator.

Then, last Saturday morning (26 February) everything changed. It became a blitzkrieg: “We’re waging an all-out economic and financial war on Russia. We will cause the collapse of the Russian economy”, said the French Finance Minister, Le Maire (words, he later said, he regretted).

That Saturday, the EU, the U.S. and some allies acted to freeze the Russian Central Bank’s foreign exchange reserves held overseas. And certain Russian banks (in the end seven) were to be expelled from SWIFT financial messaging service. The intent was openly admitted in an U.S. unattributable briefing: It was to trigger a ‘bear raid’ (ie. an orchestrated mass selling) of the Rouble on the following Monday that would collapse the value of the currency.

The purpose to freezing the Central Bank’s reserves was two-fold: First, to prevent the Bank from supporting the Rouble. And secondly, to create a commercial bank liquidity scarcity inside Russia to feed into a concerted campaign over that weekend to scare Russians into believing that some domestic banks might fail – thus prompting a rush at the ATMs, and start a bank-run, in other words.

More than two decades ago, in August 1998, Russia defaulted on its debt and devalued the Rouble, sparking a political crisis that culminated with Vladimir Putin replacing Boris Yeltsin. In 2014, there was a similar U.S. attempt to crash the Rouble through sanctions and by engineering (with Saudi Arabian help) a 41% drop in oil prices by January 2015.

Plainly, last Saturday morning when Ursula von der Leyen announced that ‘selected’ Russian banks would be expelled from SWIFT and the international financial messaging system; and spelled out the near unprecedented Russian Central Bank reserve freeze, we were witnessing the repeat of 1998. The collapse of the economy (as Le Maire said), a run on the domestic banks and the prospect of soaring inflation. This combination was expected to conflate into a political crisis – albeit one intended, this time, to see Putin replaced, vice Yeltsin – aka regime change in Russia, as a senior U.S. think-tanker proposed this week.

In the end, the Rouble fell, but it did not collapse. The Russian currency rather, after an initial drop, recovered about half its early fall. Russians did queue at their ATMs on Monday, but a full run on the retail banks did not materialise. It was ‘managed’ by Moscow.

What occurred on that Saturday which prompted the EU switch from moderate sanctions to become a full participant in a financial war à outrance on Russia is not clear: It may have resulted from intense U.S. pressure, or it came from within, as Germany seized an opportune alibi to put itself back on the path of militarisation for the third time in the past several decades: To re-configure Germany as a major military power, a forceful participant in global politics.

And that – very simply – could not have been possible without tacit U.S. encouragement.

Ambassador Bhadrakumar notes that the underlying shifts made manifest by von der Leyen on Saturday “herald a profound shift in European politics. It is tempting, but ultimately futile, to contextually place this shift as a reaction to the Russian decision to launch military operations in Ukraine. The pretext only provides the alibi, whilst the shift is anchored on power play and has a dynamic of its own”. He continues,

“Without doubt, the three developments — Germany’s decision to step up its militarisation [spending an additional euro100 billion]; the EU decision to finance arms supplies to Ukraine, and Germany’s historic decision to reverse its policy not to supply weapons to conflict zones — mark a radical departure in European politics since World War II. The thinking toward a military build-up, the need for Germany to be a “forceful” participant in global politics and the jettisoning of its guilt complex and get “combat ready” — all these by far predate the current situation around Ukraine”.

The von der Leyen intervention may have been opportunism, driven by a resurgence of SPD German ambition (and perhaps by her own animus towards Russia, stemming from her family connection to the SS German capture of Kiev), yet its consequences are likely profound.

Just to be clear, on one Saturday, von der Leyen pulled the switch to turn off principal parts to Global financial functioning: blocking interbank messaging, confiscating foreign exchange reserves and the cutting the sinews of trade. Ostensibly this ‘burning’ of global structures is being done (like the burning of villages in Vietnam) to ‘save’ the liberal Order.

However, this must be taken in tandem with Germany’s and the EU decision to supply weapons (to not just any old ‘conflict zone’) but specifically to forces fighting Russian troops in Ukraine. The ‘Kick Ass’ parts to those Ukrainian forces ‘resisting’ Russia are neo-Nazi forces with a long history of committing atrocities against the Russian-speaking Ukrainian peoples. Germany will be joining with the U.S. in training these Nazi elements in Poland. The CIA has been doing such since 2015. (So, as Russia tries to de-Nazify Ukraine, Germany and the EU are encouraging European volunteers to join in a U.S.-led effort to use Nazi elements to resist Russia, just as in the way Jihadists were trained to resist Russia in Syria).

What a paradox! Effectively von der Leyen is overseeing the building of an EU ‘Berlin Wall’ – albeit with its purpose inverted now – to separate the EU from Russia. And to complete the parallel, she even announced that Russia Today and Sputnik broadcasts would be banned across the EU. Europeans can be allowed only to hear authorised EU messaging – (however, a week into the Russian invasion, cracks are appearing in this tightly-controlled western narrative – “Putin is NOT crazy and the Russian invasion is NOT failing”, warns a leading U.S. military analyst in the Daily Mail. Simply “[b]elieving Russia’s assault is going poorly may make us feel better but is at odds with the facts”, Roggio writes. “We cannot help Ukraine if we cannot be honest about its predicament”).

So Biden, finally, has his foreign policy ‘success’: Europe is walling itself off from Russia, China, and the emerging integrated Asian market. It has sanctioned itself from ‘dependency’ on Russian natural gas (without prospect of any immediate alternatives) and it has thrown itself in with the Biden project. Next up, the EU pivot to sanctioning China?

Will this last? It seems improbable. German industry has a long history for staging its own mercantile interests before wider geo-pollical ambitions – before, even, EU interests. And in Germany, the business class effectively is the political class and needs competitively-priced energy.

Whilst the rest of the world shows little or no enthusiasm to join with sanctions on Russia (China has ruled out sanctions on Russia), Europe is in hysteria. This will not fade quickly. The new ‘Iron Curtain’ erected in Brussels may last years.

But what of the unintended consequences to last Saturday’s ‘sanctions Blitzkrieg’: the ‘unknowable unknowns’ in Rumsfeld’s famous mantra? The unprecedented switch-off affecting a key part of the Globalist system did not download into a neutral, inert context – It developed into an emotionally hyper-charged atmosphere of Russophobia.

Whereas EU states had hoped to spare Russian energy shipments, they did not take account of the frenzy raised against Russia. The oil market has gone on strike, acting as if energy were already in the frame for Western sanctions: Oil tankers had already started to avoid Russian ports because of sanctions fears, and rates for oil tankers on Russian crude routes have exploded as much as nine-fold in the past few days. But now, amid growing fears of falling foul of complex restrictions in different jurisdictions, refiners and banks are balking at purchasing any Russian oil at all, traders and others involved in the market say. Market players fear too that measures that target oil exports directly could be imposed, should fighting in Ukraine intensify.

Commodity markets have been in turmoil since the Special Military Operation began. European natural gas jumped as much as 60% on Wednesday, as buyers, traders and shippers avoid Russian gas. A combination of sanctions and commercial decisions by shippers and insurers to steer clear has cut that contribution to global supplies sharply over the last week. A default cascade by western companies is perfectly possible. And Supply line disruption is inevitable.

Many will be affected by the commodity turmoil, but with Russia providing 25% of global wheat supplies, the 21% hike in wheat and 16% rise in corn prices since 1 January will represent a disaster for many states in the Middle East among others.

All this disruption to markets comes even before Moscow responds with its own countermeasures. They have been silent so far – but what if Moscow demands that future payments for energy are to be made in Yuan?

In sum, the changes set out by von der Leyen and the EU, with surging crude oil costs, could potentially tip global markets into crisis, and set off spiralling inflation. Cost inflation created by energy costs spiralling higher and food disruptions are not so easily susceptible to monetary remedies. If the daily drama of the war in Ukraine starts to fade from public view, and inflation persists, the political cost of von der Leyen’s Saturday drama is likely to be European-wide recession.

“Since well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Europeans have been struggling under the weight of runaway energy bills”, OilPrice.com notes. In Germany, for some, one month’s energy costs the same as they used to pay for a whole year; in the UK the government has raised the price cap for energy bills by a whopping 54%, and in Italy a recent 40% domestic energy cost hike could now nearly double.

The New York Times describes this impact on local businesses and industries as nothing short of “frightening”, as all kinds of small businesses across Europe (prior to last week’s events) have been forced to cease their operations as energy costs outweigh profits. Large industries have not been immune to sticker shock either. “Almost two-thirds of the 28,000 companies surveyed by the Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry this month rated energy prices as one of their biggest business risks … For those in the industrial sector, the figure was as high as 85 percent.”

One recalls that old prediction from the Middle East, that western values would turn against the West itself, and ultimately devour it.

The U.S.-backed Latin American dictatorships are still tarnishing their respective countries with the legacy of oblivion. Earlier this month, Uruguay’s “Relatives of the Disappeared” cautioned that President Luis Lacalle is “whitening the history of Juan Bordaberry’s dictatorship” by holding a meeting with the “Representatives of Political Prisoners” group who are claiming an infringement of liberty in terms of the prison sentences meted out to the dictatorship’s executioners. The meeting took place at the presidential residence. According to reports, Lacalle has not committed himself to upholding their concerns.

The notion of political prisoners is misleading. Dictatorship agents serving prison sentences have been convicted for torture, killings and disappearances of dictatorship opponents. Uruguay’s Cabildo Abierto Party has drafted a bill calling for an alternative to prison sentences for former dictatorship agents, such as house arrest, citing humanitarian reasons. One argument championing impunity and put forth by the right-wing in Uruguay is that the imprisoned former dictatorship agents were merely obeying the orders of their superiors and therefore should have not been punished.

However, disappearances were part of a systematic plan implemented by dictators in Latin America to prevent socialist revolutions from gaining ground and establishing an opposition to the U.S.-backed regimes. Uruguay was one of the eight countries participating in Operation Condor – a region-wide initiative backed by the U.S. which emulated Chile’s example of disappearing its opponents. The plan unleashed regional terror across Latin America – the death flights became the most common practice of disappearing dictatorship opponents. A tactic used by Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and emulated by Argentinian dictatorship Jorge Videla, the practice involved packaging the bodies of murdered detainees and throwing them off helicopters into the ocean. On occasions, some victims were drugged and disposed of in the same way while still alive.

Manipulating history under the pretext of humanitarianism is a tactic that has been used in other Latin American countries which have prosecuted and sentenced former dictatorship agents. Such calls on purported humanitarian grounds are in direct contradiction with the fact that dictatorship agents committed crimes against humanity which are punishable under international law.

Additionally, the focus on oblivion eliminates the need for justice and recognition of dictatorship era crimes. Isolating enforced disappearances from the context of state and regional terror negates the reign of terror experienced in Uruguay from 1973 until 1985, throughout which the state and its security forces repressed and exterminated left-wing influence in the country. More than 5000 people were detained during this period while 180 were killed and most of them remained disappeared.

In 1986, a law was passed in Uruguay that sought to provide immunity from prosecution to dictatorship agents, thus introducing oblivion into the new transition to democracy. The law was repealed in 2011 after two failed attempts in the 1989 and 2009 referendums.

While Uruguay’s death toll is considerably smaller than that of Argentina, for example, which tallies over 30,000 Argentinians killed or disappeared during the Videla dictatorship, the problems Uruguay faces in its own quest for historical and collective memory is similar to that of other countries in the region. Only the remains of four people killed and disappeared during the Uruguayan dictatorship were recovered in 2005.

Requesting clemency on humanitarian grounds when Uruguayans are still searching for answers is a political imbalance that needs to be addressed. Many former dictatorship agents who could provide clarification on the disappearances are still protected by the military’s might and silence. “The Army gave all the information it had and the families refuse to believe it,” the former leader of Uruguay’s military centre, Colonel Guillermo Cedrez, stated back in 2015. The act of disappearing opponents was the preferred option to avoid questions and accountability. But the perpetrators exist, and any gesture which offers clemency to those involved in crimes against humanity is an added travesty of justice for the relatives still searching for their disappeared loved ones.

“Oh the gift that God could give us, to see ourselves as others see us.”
-Robert Burns

This famous quote by the great Scottish poet Robert Burns stands as one of the clearest reminders of a precondition for any matured identity.

Burns understood that without having learned to use our God-given ability to place ourselves in the shoes of another, then those powers needed to self-examine our false prejudices, exercise humility (upon which creative insight is premised) and correct our false motives, actions and beliefs would be completely lost.

It is thus disappointing, albeit no small surprise that those basic tools of self-criticism are entirely non-existent when one listens to the gossipy make-believe speeches of so many helmsmen manning today’s ship of fools, sometimes known as the Trans Atlantic “rules-based international order”.

A Clash of Paradigms

After seven years of civil war in East Ukraine, 14 thousand casualties, broken peace deals and countless appeals by those living in the Lugansk and Donetsk Republics for independence from the Nazi-infested militias embedded in the Kiev defense forces, Russia decided to finally recognize the East Ukrainian republics as sovereign nations. A few days later, Russia unleashed a program of de-militarization and de-Nazification of Ukraine featuring targetted military strikes that (as of this writing) have annihilated over 74 military bases, US biolabs and entrenched radical neo-nazi forces that have been entrenched in the Ukrainian military since 2014.

But despite this completely understandable humanitarian intervention which is provably NOT an annexation, we see endless instances of western sock puppet statesmen denouncing Russia’s imperial ambitions and antagonism to western democratic values.

From Canada, where Justin Trudeau and his handlers have used an Emergency Measures Act to justify the violent crushing of peaceful protestors in Ottawa (including the freezing of bank accounts of hundreds of citizens who donated money to a freedom convoy), we hear only buzzing threats of anti-Russian sanctions and pompous condemnation of “Russian aggression” with more comparisons of Adolph Hitler to Putin than one can count.

In response to Russia’s recognition of the East Donbass republics, Justin stated “Canada and our allies will defend democracy”. Referring to the wide array of sanctions and Canadian troop deployments to Latvia, Trudeau said “we are taking these actions to stand against totalitarianism.”

He then stated “the people of Ukraine, like all people must be free to determine their own future”. This last remark implies that the people in East Ukraine who have been demanding independence are not actually people.

These remarks are coming from a Canadian regime that had only days earlier arrested nearly 200 people for the terrible crime of “causing mischief” in Ottawa and freezing bank accounts using “secret information” which none of those representatives or Senators expected to vote for the act were allowed to see. Deputy Prime Minister Freeland herself (who has more than a few uncomfortable connections with outright pro-Nazi Ukrainian networks) has even publicly stated that many extraordinary powers created under ‘emergency conditions’ should be continued indefinitely after the emergencies act is revoked. [1]

Across the Trans-Atlantic Five Eyes cage, similar virtue signalling in defense of “democracy” has resounded with the USA, European Union and UK moving in lockstep to condemn Russian aggression, and impose similar sanctions on Russian parliamentarians, businessmen and banks, with the USA and UK joining Canada in sending troops to Russia’s border.

While an energy crisis has already made a hard life harder for millions of Europeans struggling with a self-induced economic crisis under pandemic conditions, the German government has been pressured to accelerate its own self-destruction by cancelling the desperately needed Nord Stream 2 in order to “punish” Russia.

Nazis and Operation Gladio

European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans has demonstrated the typical level of over-exaggerated hypocrisy asserting that February 22 was “one of the darkest days in Europe’s history” apparently forgetting that WWI or WWII happened.

Timmermans is a character who has distinguished himself as a technocratic sock puppet by pushing anti-Russian sanctions for 8 years beginning with the highly flawed MH-17 bombing investigation in 2014, while covering up the true Kiev-connected hands behind that atrocity. Amidst his current crocodile tears over the “darkest days” Europe has ever faced, Timmermans appears oblivious to the mass atrocities committed by Nazi “stay behinds” used by western intelligence operations under Operation Gladio during the Cold War. This is especially strange since it was during Timmermans’ time as Deputy Chair on the Commission of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands that an extensive 2005 report on Nazi stay-behinds was published by the Dutch Ministry of Defense.

After having been established by the CIA, NATO and MI6 in 1956, Operation Gladio saw hundreds of terrorist cells deployed by former leaders of Nazi intelligence embedded across Europe who were used to kill civilians and troublesome politicians while stoking the fires of anarchy along the way. These acts of terror were in turn used to justify the excessive “emergency management” by oligarchically captured trans Atlantic nations throughout the Cold War based upon the logic that “the war against communism justifies everything… including fascism”.

While some say that the Gladio Operations were cancelled when the Soviet Union disintegrated, evidence points to a very different picture.

One particularly loud case is found in the figure of Andriy Parubiy, founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine who was appointed to serve as Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU) in the post-regime change putsch managed by Victoria Nuland and overseen by Joe Biden.

It is noteworthy that Parubiy, who has close ties to Freeland (herself the proud granddaughter of Hitler collaborator Michael Chomiak) cozied up to Justin in 2016 while seeking weapons, training and other logistical support from Canada. Meetings between Canadian politicians and leading neo-Nazi groups from Ukraine like the Azov Battalion continued to be so frequent that the Ottawa Citizen reported on November 9, 2021 that:

“Canadian officials who met with members of a Ukrainian battalion linked to neo-Nazis didn’t denounce the unit, but were instead concerned the media would expose details of the get-together, according to newly released documents. The Canadians met with and were briefed by leaders from the Azov Battalion in June 2018. The officers and diplomats did not object to the meeting and instead allowed themselves to be photographed with battalion officials despite previous warnings that the unit saw itself as pro-Nazi. The Azov Battalion then used those photos for its online propaganda, pointing out the Canadian delegation expressed “hopes for further fruitful co-operation.”

Deputy Chairman of Ukraine’s Parliament, Andriy Parubiy, visited Ottawa in February 2016, meeting with the prime minister. At that meeting (from left) are Ukraine’s Ambassador to Canada Andriy Shevchenko, Verkhovna Rada Deputy Chairman Andriy Parubiy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Member of Parliament Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

It is thus no small irony that among those “liberal democracies” of Canada, the USA, UK and EU, we have repeated evidence of actual neo-Nazi collaboration both past and present as well as fascist behavior deployed against the people living in and around those very liberal democracies. Among these self-professed bastions of freedom and democracy, we have numerous cases of torture (Guantanamo Bay), illegal arrests of dissidents who participated in January 6 Washington rallies or Ottawa anti-medical dictatorship mandates, unlawful freezing of bank services for those whose political views are deemed unacceptable to a governing elite, and the imprisonment of whistleblowers.

What is clear is that those managerial technocrats processed through World Economic Forum training camps are generally entirely incapable of self-criticism or recognizing their own hypocrisy. They are wired to move in echo chambers of self-congratulatory flattery without every confronting points of disagreement that need be dealt with through dialogue or reason. The typical unipolarist automaton is entirely incapable of basic fundamental human character traits that allows each of us to see and judge ourselves from the standpoint of people outside of our class, group, or even cultural matrix choosing instead to expect everyone and even the universe itself, to fit into those ivory tower models and values which are wired into the mind of any Davos creature.

At the end of the day, those statesmen who are unencumbered by such mechanical handicaps as those suffered by Davos creatures, have access to a much greater degree of insight, and creative flexibility to lawfully break the rules of rigged games in ways that those control freaks sitting in ivory can ever comprehend. It is precisely this incapacity to either comprehend creative human thinking or self-criticize their own false thinking that creates those systemic conceptual blind spots which will ultimately prove their own undoing.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

[1] Thankfully, pushback from a few courageous Senators and Members of Parliament (as well as certain financial institutions petrified of an immanent bank run) have induced the Canadian government to pull back from the act on February 23 although, although an Orwellian “war on disinformation and hate” and a new level of integration between banks and intelligence agencies has now been put into motion.