By Jonathan COOK

Back in the dark days of the Soviet Union, dissidents risked being locked up – but not, officially at least, on the grounds that they had committed a political crime. In the Soviet regime’s imagination, treason and mental illness were often two sides of the same coin.

Here’s a brief description from Wikipedia of the phenomenon:

The KGB [the Soviet secret police] routinely sent dissenters to psychiatrists for diagnosing to avoid embarrassing public trials and to discredit dissidence as the product of ill minds. Highly classified government documents which have become available after the dissolution of the Soviet Union confirm that the authorities consciously used psychiatry as a tool to suppress dissent.

The weaponization of mental illness by the Soviet Union against internal critics has been described as “punitive psychiatry.”

Vladimir Bukovsky, a Russian human rights activist who spent many years confined to psychiatric hospitals and labor camps, wrote “A Manual on Psychiatry for Dissenters,” together with a Ukrainian psychiatrist, Semyon Gluzman. The pair observed: “The Soviet use of psychiatry as a punitive means is based upon the deliberate interpretation of dissent … as a psychiatric problem.”

The medicalization of dissent was not unique to the Soviet Union, of course. It is a feature of authoritarian and repressive states. An ideological consensus is cultivated in the population by portraying opponents as traitors whose behavior is proof of a mental disturbance or insanity.

Publicizing dissent, and the reasons for it, through criminal trials risks dangerously challenging dominant social assumptions inculcated by propaganda. Instead, the dissenter can quietly be detained for his or her own good without their political ideology getting an airing.

Medicalizing dissent

This is why the growing trend in the West’s supposedly free and open societies towards conflating dissent with treason – and medicalizing its causes – should concern us. It is likely to be a barometer of how authoritarian our liberal democracies are rapidly becoming.

This has not happened overnight. It has been a gradual process that accelerated with the trauma for liberals of discovering that the political system they so revered was capable of spawning a president like Donald Trump. How could the most evolved of the Western democracies – which had defeated the evil Soviet empire ideologically, economically, and militarily – end up electing such a wretch for a leader?

Trump supporters attend a rally in Washington before marching on the U.S. Capitol, Jan. 6, 2021. John Minchillo | AP

The proper conclusion to draw was that Trump was a symptom of an entirely dysfunctional, corrupt Western political system – one with which liberals had closely identified even when it was being led by the right. (U.S. politics had thrown up plenty of other clearly lamentable presidents, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, but none exhibited the same degree of vulgarity and vanity that so troubled liberals.)

It should have been a moment for the scales to fall from their eyes. But that would have meant questioning everything liberals held dearest. So Instead they found other reasons to explain the rise of President Trump.

He had to be treated as an aberration, not the exemplar of a system that had long served people very much like Trump: whether it was the billionaire-owned media, the moneyed donors that had captured both political parties, or the corporate lobbies that deprived the public of proper health care and channeled public wealth into endless, devastating wars that enriched a narrow elite.

It’s disturbing how many people are peddling the idea that Nato is a ‘defensive alliance’. It *claims* to be defensive. Actually, Nato is a central pillar of the highly lucrative war industries. This may help clarify: https://t.co/SL2MA1ASMh

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 26, 2022

What was needed urgently was a theory that would leave the status quo – and its claim to moral superiority – untouched.

The neatest candidate, for those committed to liberalism – or its modern incarnation as neoliberalism – was the idea that Western democracies had become so open, free, fair, and honest that they had developed an inherent vulnerability – an Achilles’ heel – that could be easily exploited by malicious actors. According to this reasoning, liberal democracy was uniquely susceptible to sabotage.

Fake news ‘threat’

From 2016 onwards, the corporate media was awash with warnings that Trump was the product of dangerous new trends: populism, fake news, Russian disinformation, and online bots. These quickly became shorthand for the same supposed phenomenon.

Paradoxically, these “threats” derived from the rapid technological development of unique forms of popular engagement and more democratic media. Social media leveled the media playing field for the very first time, challenging the traditional top-down model in which state and corporate media – the latter owned and controlled by a fabulously wealthy elite – reserved for themselves an exclusive right to decide what counted as news and how news events should be interpreted and assessed.

There was indeed a problem with fake news on social media, even if it paled in comparison to the much more influential and damaging fake news on corporate media. But the real cause of the proliferation of fake news and wild conspiracies on these platforms could not be genuinely addressed by the corporate elites running our societies – and for good reason.

What it makes me think is: this guy, Alastair Campbell, who helped destroy Iraq’s capital, Baghdad, in a ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing campaign that looked just like this but for real, should be in the dock at the Hague for war crimes https://t.co/7CaRwbeSPQ

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) March 13, 2022

Fake news, like genuine news, thrives in the more democratic environment of social media only because political and media elites have kept so much real information – information that might make them look less virtuous – under wraps. It is the tight secrecy of Western democracies that has encouraged such variety of news and views, informed and uninformed alike, to proliferate.

Social media “conspiracy theories” are not evidence of how a section of the public has fallen under the malign influence of “Russian disinformation.” Rather they are a sign of how a growing number of Westerners have become so deeply distrustful of their elites and what they are concealing that they are ready to believe almost anything about their depravity, however incredible.

‘Russiagate’ born

There were two other, self-interested reasons for the billionaires and the journalists who work for them to vilify users of social media, painting them as either victims of, or colluders in, “Russian disinformation.”

First, social media made it possible for the first time to illuminate the inherent weaknesses of the traditional media’s reporting and analyses. Users could highlight what was being ignored or misrepresented, and the glaring double standards at play. Voices that had been disregarded or actively silenced suddenly had visibility.

My latest: If we seek peace, we need the western media held to account for its mindless jingoism, exaggerations, credulity, double standards and deceptions. But who is going to act as a watchdog on the supposed watchdog of the Fourth Estate? https://t.co/RrDGDCstq3

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) March 4, 2022

And second, those offering a mode of critical thinking that has always been impermissible in the corporate media were positioned to question the foundations of the political and economic systems on which the billionaires – and those they employed – depended for their power and privilege.

The foundations of a political system with which liberals deeply identified were being shaken. As a result, a whole industry sprang up to insulate them from the terrifying thought that maybe Trump both personified, and represented a reaction to, something already unwholesome about the United States and its values.

My latest: The increasingly desperate task of capitalism’s perception managers is to dissociate our economic system from the emerging environmental crisis – to break our understanding of the causal link between the two https://t.co/S4Aby314FX

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) October 25, 2020

And so “Russiagate” was born: the idea that Trump’s electoral success had occurred – could only have occurred – because the U.S. system had been sabotaged from outside and within. Trump must have colluded with the Kremlin to subvert U.S. democracy.

Despite years of investigations, no evidence was ever adduced to support that claim, but nonetheless, it soon had a vise-like hold on the imagination of U.S. liberals.

The subtext was that only those with feeble minds, or perverse and treasonous ideological impulses, could fail to understand that the liberal candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, was far better.

‘Basket of deplorables’

But Trump also provided the perfect opportunity for liberals to start subtly medicalizing their opponents – whether on the left or right. Trump’s narcissism, bordering on personality disorder, was hard to ignore. Those who supported him were therefore readily discredited as a “basket of deplorables” – Clinton’s infamous term for them. (Clinton’s language offered a subliminal message that they were “basket cases” too).

Of course, support for Trump was not the only symptom of the breakdown of the liberal – and neoliberal – order. That consensus was also challenged from the left by Bernie Sanders. He was supposedly a product of fake news and Russian disinformation too. His supporters were dismissed as “Bernie Bros”: a doubly false characterization that they were overwhelmingly male and peddlers of toxic masculinity.

Over in the U.K., similar processes were underway. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was disappeared from view (first in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, then in Belmarsh high-security prison) for revealing war crimes committed by the West’s military-industrial complex – or, as liberals preferred to call it, the “defense industry.”

Assange arrives at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, April 11, 2019. Victoria Jones | PA via AP

The liberal Guardian exemplified the shift from at first vilifying Assange as a rapist (also, an evidence-free accusation) to portraying him as mentally disturbed: its journalists led the way in spreading fake news that he abused his cat and smeared feces over the walls of what amounted to his cell in the embassy.

The British and U.S. security services knew that by the time they engineered Assange’s seizure from the embassy in 2019, he would fit perfectly the image of the crazed dissident the Guardian had so meticulously crafted. Three months earlier, the CIA had gotten embassy staff to confiscate Assange’s shaving equipment. He was carried out, bearded, disheveled, and pale from lack of sunlight, looking like a mad hermit from Monty Python’s “Life Of Brian.” Or a “demented looking gnome,” as long-time Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore called him.

The actual U.S. charge against Assange, largely overlooked in all the messaging from liberal media like The Guardian, was the true insanity. He was accused of “espionage” for publishing evidence of U.S. war crimes – even though he wasn’t a U.S. citizen, had done none of his work in the U.S., and had not participated in any act, even had he been a U.S. citizen working in the U.S., that could realistically be characterized as spying.

My latest: It is the ultimate, ugly paradox that Julian Assange’s legal and physical fate rests in the hands of two states – the US and UK – that have the most to lose by allowing him to regain his freedom and publish more of the truths they want concealed https://t.co/M7WTKq0ZXf

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) December 17, 2021

Digital gulag

It didn’t end there. Britain had its own version of Bernie Sanders, a left-wing insurgency candidate. But unlike Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn won the contest to become Labour Party leader, riding a wave of support from party members that shocked and incensed the Blairite centrists that had long controlled the party. Naturally, Corbyn’s success also infuriated the corporate media.

He was initially portrayed as a traitor. But soon liberal media like The Guardian were focusing on an entirely concocted charge that Corbyn was either a confirmed antisemite or wilfully indulged a strong antisemitic tendency within the party.

My latest: Corbyn’s election to lead the Labour party didn’t overturn the rigged political system or end the corporate chokehold on power. His victory was an accident, and the system has been fighting back with all its might to correct the error ever since https://t.co/2u0Vyo0qLU

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) July 3, 2019

These confected allegations rarely operated at the political level. The subtext once again was that an enemy of the neoliberal order was unhinged, a man in the grip of irrational prejudice and demons he was incapable of slaying.

Corbyn’s supporters weren’t literally being wheeled off to the psychiatrist’s couch – not quite – but the implication was clear: those who voted or campaigned for him, like those who stood by Assange and his right not to be jailed for telling the truth, were a menace to wider society. They needed to be silenced, put in a digital gulag – enforced through algorithmic changes – as a first stage of containment.

They were to be treated as one would deal with a dangerous illness, rather than a popular movement driven by a political ideology or political grievances.

In an initial move to cure society, Trump was hounded off social media platforms even while he was president. Meanwhile, damaging stories that might question the virtue of his liberal challenger, Joe Biden, in the 2020 election were erased from public consciousness through coordination by the traditional and new corporate media.

But the question remained: was digital containment enough?

Pandemic debates

One of the advantages of having power – especially when it is power over narratives – is that the perception of any real-world event can be shaped in ways that serve the interests of power.

That meant that the arrival at the tail end of the Trump presidency of a global pandemic – a cataclysmic moment with biblical overtones – could be used as yet another lens for liberals to interpret the world, and in terms that posited anyone like them as virtuous and everyone else as dangerous or mentally unsound.

The reality was that COVID offered an ideal opportunity to question some of the most cherished tenets of a neoliberal orthodoxy that had had absolute dominion over Westerners’ lives for more than four decades.

• Was the planet primarily an economic asset to be endlessly exploited?
• Did the individual have more inherent value than the collective?
• Should the value of relationships, and virtue, be measured chiefly in economic terms?
• Ought public health to be at the mercy of profit-driven corporations, from pharmaceutical to food companies?

My latest: The response of leaders like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson to the coronavirus crisis has shed a troubling light on the twisted priorities long cultivated in our societies https://t.co/YNDYawpBbY

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) March 17, 2020

None of these questions – pivotal as they are to our survival as a species – came to the fore during the pandemic, the moment when they had the most obvious relevance and topicality. The corporate media made sure to steer the national debate away from questions so incompatible with a world designed by and for billionaires.

Instead, the problem was quickly reduced to a simpler one: Why were a minority of the population not getting themselves or their children vaccinated? What could be done to deal with this irresponsible section of the population?

Almost immediately this became the obsessive focus of media and popular attention. Proof of vaccination became the only legitimate marker to distinguish between the virtuous and disease-free (the clean), and the selfish and disease-carriers (the unclean).

From the outset, there were lots of problems with this distinction. Scientific evidence, even if it was publicly downplayed, indicated that those who had already caught COVID enjoyed a natural immunity that offered stronger protection than that from vaccination. (Notably, until COVID, natural immunity had always been considered the gold standard of immunity.)

The vaccines, it quickly became clear too, had very short-lived efficacy. They offered personal protection against more severe illness, but they did little to stop the communal spread of the disease, as Omicron’s current rampage through heavily vaccinated populations should underscore.

It could not be stated publicly at the time, but virtue was not the main reason to take the vaccine. Selfishness was.

Fortunately for the health of our public conversation, if nothing else, the arrival of Omicron shattered the liberal consensus that passports and social shunning, if not enforced isolation, were the solutions to what were until then being dismissively labeled the “anti-vaxxers” – those depraved individuals who had failed to take three or more shots of the vaccine, whatever their reasons.

Ukraine survey

It would be a grave mistake to imagine that we are anywhere near the end of this trajectory, just because Trump is gone (for now) and the COVID pandemic looks nearly over.

The framework for our current “debates” has been fixed by the billionaires and the liberals who are their willing accomplices. Political arguments have been subsumed by liberal claims to mental clarity and moral superiority. The implication is that the mentally infirm, those susceptible to the influence campaigns of the enemy, need to be dealt with to stop liberal democracy from being subverted.

As an example of the way this is starting to play out in more overtly Soviet-style terms, consider this recent thread on social media by a New York academic who has quickly gained half a million followers on Twitter by pandering to liberals still in shock at Clinton’s defeat in 2016.

Caroline Orr Bueno is described as “a behavioral scientist who researches social media manipulation, online information warfare, and far-right extremism” – ascribing almost all of it, predictably, to “Russian disinformation.”

In a recent interview, she observed that she had “moderated” her tone on Twitter as her influence has grown:

Because right now so much of what is wrong on the internet is super divisive. It’s hype, and I find that to be not helpful and not productive, and it doesn’t really lead to anywhere good. So I try not to contribute to that cycle.”

Contradicting herself moments later in the same interview, Orr Bueno notes of her critics:

I get a lot of attempts to discredit me or my work through various disinformation campaigns, often emanating from people and organizations with direct links to the Russian government.”

So what comes next can presumably be discounted as “Russian disinformation.”

Orr Bueno highlights a survey whose methodology is itself troubling. A poll of Canadians on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine breaks down the responses on the basis not only of age and gender but whether the respondent has been vaccinated or not. This is now a relevant category for assessing the public’s views, it seems.

The headline Orr Bueno wants to highlight as evidence of a mental infirmity among the unvaccinated is that 26% of them reportedly support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, compared to just 2% of those vaccinated with three shots.

You know how I keep talking about how anti-vaccine attitudes are really a proxy for underlying moral/ideological values? And how I kept warning that bad actors are using vaccines to shift attitudes around seemingly unrelated issues like foreign policy?

So, about that… https://t.co/VMWkNADnIA

— Caroline Orr Bueno, Ph.D (@RVAwonk) March 21, 2022

Her conclusion, dressed up as academic analysis, is that the unvaccinated are either so incapable of rational and moral thought, or such willing dupes of Russia, that they are susceptible to obvious disinformation campaigns.

Skeptical posture

There is a very obvious problem with this analysis, as answers to many of the survey’s other questions demonstrate. We might assess one marker of sanity – or, at least, mental clarity – vis a vis Ukraine as an unwillingness to provoke a World War III between nuclear powers, especially if such a provocation is actually a way to avoid negotiations to achieve a ceasefire.

So how do unvaccinated and three-shot-vaccinated Canadians square up, based on that yardstick? According to the survey, more than three times as many of the highly vaccinated as the unvaccinated want their government to send Canadian fighter jets and troops to Ukraine. Just over half of all three-shot Canadians surveyed appeared ready to start a war with Russia over Ukraine.

It might be reasonable, using Orr Bueno’s approach, to assume that it is therefore the three-shot vaccinated rather than the unvaccinated who are mentally unsound. But I will resist that temptation.

What we need to do instead is consider the kind of influence peddling that might have led so many vaccinated Canadians to promote what looks like an insane policy.

If it is Russian disinformation to think there may be grounds for Russia to invade Ukraine – and taking a wild stab, I suspect some of the respondents may have regarded it as a justified response to NATO expansion – whose disinformation might have encouraged so many Canadians to conclude that joining a war against Russia is a good idea?

Protests outside of the White House call for NATO military action against Russia, March 6, 2022. Jose Luis Magana | AP

The correct inference here is not, as Orr Bueno concludes, that a minority with infirm minds is susceptible to Russian disinformation, but that there are two population groups that have differing attitudes towards established authority and, as a result, have been exposed to different kinds of information.

Those who have taken three shots of the vaccine are more likely to rely heavily for their information on traditional sources of authority. They are what I have called elsewhere “trusters.” They assume their leaders are well-meaning, if sometimes complacent or incompetent, and that they generally seek to act in the best interests of their societies and the world.  They consume “mainstream” media largely passively – the very media run by and for the benefit of Western oligarchs.

It is therefore hardly surprising that they were keen to take as many shots of vaccine as the government’s medical advisers told them to, and that many of them also believe it makes sense to launch a war against Russia when so many prominent corporate media journalists are telling them that is what is needed.

By contrast, the unvaccinated are more likely to be drawn from those who are suspicious of their governments and major corporations, as well as the structural forces shaping information on the West’s political processes. These “doubters” insist on maintaining a skeptical posture.

My latest: Power needs to be rid of Sanders, just as it earlier rid itself of Corbyn, because they are not chained to the current power paradigm. By refusing to serve the power-cult like most politicians, they threaten to shine a light on its true nature https://t.co/Um9t170547

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 25, 2020

Critical thinking

Were we to do more surveys on this basis, we could probably guess a range of other views likely to resonate with the three-shot vaccinated more than the unvaccinated:

• That Assange deserves to be locked up for life for revealing U.S. and U.K. war crimes;
• That social media should be tightly controlled either by governments or by the billionaires of Silicon Valley;
• That the class concerns of the “far-left” are actually cover for a deep-seated antipathy towards Jews;
• And that NATO is a purely defensive organization trying to protect countries from Russian imperialism.

There is nothing in these views that suggests mental clarity or superiority; resistance to disinformation; independence of mind: or even basic critical thinking skills. These just reflect the consensus manufactured by a corporate media that services the interests of the billionaire class. All of these views are useful to those in power and help to maintain the status quo. Which is precisely why these views, rather than others, dominate.

What Orr Bueno and liberals like her are doing is subtly pathologizing those who dissent, just as the Soviet Union did more brashly. They are suggesting a mental infirmity among those who refuse to accept what the political and media class – and the billionaires behind them – declare is true.

The pathologization of dissent is not going away. It will intensify as neoliberalism faces crisis after crisis and social polarization grows. Those who claim to be liberals defending democracy will soon be only too ready to snuff it out.

mintpressnews.com

Amidst the storm of Orwellian misinformation shaping our current world, up has become down, white has become black and good has become evil.

Despite the fact that the evils of Nazism were defeated primarily by the sacrifices made by the Russians during WWII, it has increasingly become popular to assert the fallacy that the great war’s true villain was Stalin. And despite the fact that unreconstructed Nazis were absorbed into the Cold War Five Eyes-led intelligence machine giving rise to 2^nd and 3^rd generation Nazis in Ukraine today, we are repeatedly told that Ukraine is a temple of liberty and beacon of democracy upon whose territory we should risk lighting the world on nuclear fire to defend.

It is thus a breath of fresh air when uncomfortable truths are capable of breaking through the drunken illusion of Orwellian newspeak which has contaminated the current zeitgeist. One such truth to come to light has been the mainstream media’s recognition that the disastrous Hunter Biden laptop and all of its scandalous contents were always genuine. These revelations have forced Americans to confront the fact that the current U.S. President directly benefited by the systems of graft and corruption which he oversaw while viceroy of a Nazi-infested Ukraine during Obama’s reign.

Channel 4’s Nazi King Exposed

Another explosive revelation which has sent shockwaves through the western zeitgeist in recent days was featured in a documentary which aired on Britain’s Channel 4 called ‘Edward VIII: Britain’s Traitor King’.

This film, based upon a soon-to-be released book by historian Andrew Lownie, uses recently declassified reports from the Royal Archives to tell the story of Britain’s Nazi King Edward VIII who not only desired a Nazi victory in WWII, but actively worked towards said goal from the moment he was forced to abdicate the throne in 1936 (allegedly to marry an American divorcée Wallis Simpson) throughout the darkest days of the war itself.

As this documentary proves, teaching his young niece Elizabeth II how to do a proper ‘sieg heil’ wasn’t his only dance with Nazism.

While in exile in Portugal where the royal hob knobbed with Germany’s elite, the documentary cites diplomatic cables sent by Edward to German officials demanding that the Nazis relentlessly bomb England into submission in 1940 encouraging the deaths of millions of innocent civilians. The film also cites a little-known speech where Edward called for Britain’s surrender to the Nazis in 1939 which the BBC refused to air. Even after being sent to the Bahamas by imperial officials who had decided it more expedient to put down their Frankenstein monster than continue with their earlier plans for a fascist New World Order, the Nazi would-be king had cabled Hitler’s officials indicating his willingness to return to Europe when needed and retake his rightful seat on the throne as an Aryan king.

Beyond the Film: More Nazi Roots of the Windsors

Beyond the case of Edward VIII, there are many other embarrassing Nazi connections to the house of Windsor (formerly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) which the film failed to mention, some of which implicate the late Prince Consort Philip Mountbatten (aka: Duke of Edinburgh) directly.

All of the Duke of Edinburgh’s three sisters were married to Nazi princes, and the husband of one of them (Sophie) became a Waffen SS officer with the rank of Oberführer (senior leader).

Philip’s sister Sophie’s husband, Prince Christopher of Hesse-Cassel, was chief of the Forschungsamt (Directorate of Scientific Research), a special intelligence operation run by Hermann Göring, and he was also Standartenführer (colonel) of the SS on Heinrich Himmler’s personal staff. Philip’s four brothers-in-law, with whom he lived, all became high-ranking officials in the Nazi Party.

Philip himself maintained the family tradition, first having been educated under a Nazi curriculum centered on eugenics in the 1930s, and then going on to found the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) with fellow one-time Nazi Party member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a lifelong eugenicist and Bilderberg Group founder, in 1961. Philip and Bernhard were joined by Sir Julian Huxley (then president of the Eugenics Society of Britain) as WWF co-founder. In an August 1988 interview with Deutsche Press Agentur, Prince Philip proclaimed his desire to return in the next life as a deadly virus to help “solve overpopulation”.

On this virulent concept of population reduction, it is worth reviewing the life’s work and words of one prominent vice-President of the WWF from 1978-1981 named Maurice Strong who served directly under Prince Philip (then acting WWF President). According to Justin Trudeau, Strong had co-founded the World Economic Forum alongside Klaus Schwab in 1971, chaired the UN Conference on Population of 1972 and its 1992 sequel in Rio de Janeiro while juggling a wide array of hats from World Bank President, Earth Charter author, UN Environmental Protection Agency founder and architect of Agenda 21 (recently renamed Agenda 2030).

In a May 1990 interview with WEST magazine, Strong discussed a meeting at Davos and mused: “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Prince Philip exuded similarly cold misanthropic “musings” as he contemplated the human zoo asserting:

“You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species.”

The Disturbing Case of Prince Charles

Although Philip died in 2021, his son and heir to the throne has taken his father’s mission of reducing the world population to heart, through his leadership of various conservationist organizations, and as patron of the now defunct Liverpool Care Pathway, which was revealed to have euthanized over 60,000 British citizens per year, without their consent, between 2001 and 2013.

During its 18 year reign, the LCP had pressured hundreds of healthcare providers to put millions of sick and elderly (and expensive) patients onto “End of Life” lists without their consent resulting in forced dehydration and morphine drips to accelerate deaths despite the fact that life-saving treatments were still available.

In June 2020, Prince Charles co-founded the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative along with his colleague Klaus Schwab in order to take advantage of the “existential two-fold crisis” of climate change and a pandemic to radically remodify global behavior and economic systems. Beyond the pretty words used by Davos billionaires to rally humanity to save the planet, the fact is that those “green” Build Back Better reforms which adhere to sustainable energy, carbon emission cuts and food reforms as witnessed in the EU Farm to Fork agenda would result in a scale of death that even the likes of a Hitler might blush.

The Nazi pedigree of the royal family and its loyal managers raises the question: Why has their continuation of Nazi eugenics doctrine in the form of the euthanasia and zero-growth movements not become more widely known? What type of world do we live in, that such startling facts could not be general knowledge?

The Privy Council System

I hope it is becoming increasingly clear that the British Empire and its aspirations for population control never ended with the cancellation of the Hitler project in 1945.

I hope it is also becoming clear that this empire was never the nation of Great Britain, its Parliament, or its people.

The true Empire has always been a financial oligarchy which is used by a vast network of power structures to advance the interests of the aristocracy of Europe; The current epicenter of power is the Anglo-Dutch monarchies (otherwise known as the Founts of All Honours). It is this power that controls the Bilderberg Group, its junior appendage the World Economic Forum, and steers American policy through the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (the American version of Chatham House) dubbed by Hillary Clinton as “the mothership”.

Chatham House is another name for the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) begun in 1919 by the leading Milnerites of the Round Table Movement who created the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in order to promote eugenics and world government under the League of Nations. The American branch was given its name to avoid allusions to the British terminology due to American mistrust of British intrigue. The Canadian and Australian Branches were begun in 1928 and run most typically by Oxford-trained agents since then. In the case of the USA, current CFR President Richard Haass graduated from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar in 1978.

It was to leading Chatham House member Lord Lothian in 1937 that Hitler laid out his concept for the Anglo-German New World Order saying: “Germany, England, France, Italy, America and Scandinavia… should arrive at some agreement whereby they would prevent their nationals from assisting in the industrializing of countries such as China, and India. It is suicidal to promote the establishment in the agricultural countries of Asia of manufacturing industries.” (1)

Any number of technocrats pushing a “Build Back Better for the World” scheme or “Global Green New Deal” could have said the same thing.

Today, the Canadian Institute for International Affairs has been renamed the Canadian International Council (CIC). The CIC is Chaired by Oxford-trained regime change specialist Ben Rowswell who worked closely with Privy Councillor Chrystia Freeland in attempting to overthrow the government of Maduro in favor of WEF-puppet Juan Guaido which continues to this day.

A key pillar in the control over colonies of Anglo-Dutch influence remains the Privy Council system, which is centered in Britain, but has secondary branches in select Commonwealth countries. It is under the Privy Council’s influence that lower-level operatives are instituted in the form of deputy ministers, the Treasury Board, Select Committees, and other appointed officials in the Civil Service. Other key nodes in the public and private sector manage the interests of the Crown. All cabinet members of government are made Privy Councillors and all Privy Councillors are sworn to an oath of secrecy and allegiance to the Queen including oaths to keep secret those things spoken of in privy council meetings. (2)

Strange things for paragons of the “free and democratic rules-based order”.

As Channel 4’s documentary on the Nazi King should remind us, there are certain royal closets which can no longer contain the voluminous skeletons that certain powerful forces have wished be stuffed forever out of sight. Western civilization’s failure to reject Orwellian newspeak and other inversions of truth has resulted in an existential tension which will be resolved one way or the other. If that means the anti-human legacy of Hitler, Prince Philip, Edward VIII and other royal Nazis past and present push humanity into a new Dark Age or whether we break from our slumber and seek a new more dignified destiny remains to be seen.

Notes

(1) Transcription in Sir James R.M. Butler, Lord Lothian, Macmillan and Co., London, 1960, pp. 332)

(2) Since it is hard for normal people to wrap their minds around the fact that such a medieval institution such as this still exists in the modern world, here is a selection of the Oath of Allegiance that all privy councillors must take upon entering that office: “I, [name], do solemnly and sincerely swear that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.”

Given claims that the West’s dissidents are slaves to crackpot conspiracies, the oxymoron of conspiracy theories needs examining by first stating what a theory is, by then going on to say what a conspiracy is and by examining how such name-calling is central to NATO’s dark agenda.

With that in mind, Steven Weinberg’s The Revolution That Didn’t Happen, his primer on what constitutes a theory, should be required reading for all those university professors, who teach their nonsense subjects to prospective journalists and social media influencers. (They know who they are, even if they are unsure of their pronouns).

As well as castigating Thomas Kuhn who, Weinberg asserts, should have known better than to spread his paradigm shift nonsense to the four winds, Weinberg tells us that there are two basic classes of theories, the deterministic and the stochastic, each of which remains important to this day.

Deterministic theories include Newtonian and Christian pre-determination theories, as well as Malthusian fatalism and similar off-shoots. In such worlds, the end result can never be in doubt: drop the apple, it falls to the ground; be a good Calvinist, go to Calvinist heaven.

Speckled about them, as the ether is to Maxwell’s equations, were Catholic notions of legions of angels and demons jousting with each other to win our souls. Kings, queens and other monarchs blended neatly into this over-identified model and folk knew on which rung of Jacob’s stairway to heaven they stood both in regard to God and to the King, God’s earthly representative and enforcer.

Greek philosophers like Aristotle helped solidify this hierarchy, where women essentially got the short straw partly because, as Aristotle explained, women have less teeth than men. It was not until Spenser came along some 2000 years later that folk got the novel notion of counting how many teeth men and women actually had to determine if Aristotle’s hypothesis was correct or not. Suffice to say that Weinberg says the only use a philosopher has is to protect us from other philosophers.

There arose then a gradual trend not to accept theologies, no matter how complete, beautiful or over-identified they seemed. Folk started measuring things and, in the process, they noted anomalies, exceptions to pre-conceived notions which would eventually cause the underlying theories to be modified, if not scrapped altogether and it was confusion on this point that dragged Kuhn and oodles of Gender Studies cretins into their self-made abyss; Arthur Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers makes some important remarks on Galileo and other frauds in this regard.

It was, for example, such calculations that got most of us to accept the world is not flat and that Newtonian physics works perfectly, but only in a Newtonian world where gravity is king. Thus, although we no longer believe in Maxwell’s ether, and we now know that there is more to nature than Newton’s particles, no future discovery can ever hope to alter the fundamental logic of their work. Both Maxwellian electrodynamics and Newtonian mechanics will remain integral parts of human knowledge until the end of time.

Branching far out from physics, we can have deterministic and/or stochastic theories on just about anything tangible and measurable. Measurement through appropriate models allows us to set insurance premiums as women, on average, live longer than men, men are more risk prone, and so-called Acts of God, though rare, can be devastating and so should be insured against at an appropriate premium that can be measured. But conspiracies?

Conspiracies are a legal fact and one can hardly have a theory about a fact. Prior to the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, trade unions were regarded as criminal conspiracies and the Tolpuddle Martyrs ended up being transported as convicted felons because they were part of a conspiracy, of a trade union, in other words. Guy Fawkes and his pals suffered terrible deaths because they were captured conspirators. Elements of the Catholic hierarchy condemned the Irish-American Fenian conspiracy and likewise condemned Freemasonry as a conspiracy. And then we have the persons unknown trial where Irishmen were convicted of conspiring with persons unknown at times unknown to commit crimes unknown. Though those conspiracies were all legal, historical facts, they in no way constitute building blocks for a theory on conspiracies or on anything else.

Canada’s truckers are not conspiracy theorists. They are blue collar workers, who want government conspirators to get off their backs and out of their bank accounts. French citizens protesting in solidarity with them are not conspiracy theorists, even though the French educational system devotes far too much time to philosophy. They are simply French citizens, who are carrying on the proud French tradition of protesting for their own notions of liberty, equality and fraternity. Kiwi protesters simply object to a pampered World Economic Forum fascist being foisted upon them.

As regards the Masons, though an endless number of allegations have been made against them, those allegations do not make a theory. They are observations, real or imagined, on how Freemasons work and they lead to hypotheses, which must be tested. Now, those who say the Masons, the Jesuits, the Jews or any broadly similar group control world affairs fall down at this very important hurdle: because theories or hypotheses such as theirs, which purport to explain everything, actually explain nothing, they are stilted theologies that get us absolutely nowhere.

One either accepts their theology and joins their cult or one continues to question and test and to ultimately reject all such cults, including those with massive marketing budgets, the biggest of which is that, which empowers and enriches our regional, national and trans-national overlords. And, although their marketeers seem to be all froth and no substance, they have been very successful froth peddlers ever since Edward Bernays first pulled the wool over governments and women more than 100 years ago. To believe that our political overlords have been on the level with us all that time is to display an innocence that belongs only in a cloistered convent and that is a destination the Gender Studies legions would object to, just as they object to much else.

What these strange folk are doing is hijacking the received narrative to shape today. Gone, for example, is the Bradleyist interpretation of the Shakespearian tragedy and even JK Rowling is being exiled from her own Harry Potter franchise because she won’t accept Alice in Wonderland’s Humpty Dumpty logic regarding the definition of womanhood.

The Bradleyist interpretation of Shakespeare is relevant as unorthodox, unpopular or downright stupid interpretations of history are held up as symptoms of these so-called conspiracy theorists. But historians do not work to theories; they consult, as far as is practicable, primary sources and draw conclusions, hopefully bias-free, therefrom for others to build upon. Because these soft sciences have no hard component equivalent to Maxwell’s equations, their ether lends itself to manipulation by the gullible, as well as those with sinister agendas.

That much should be obvious and, although this cancer is bad enough in literature and history, its toxins are now seeping into the hard sciences, exposures like that of the Sokal hoax notwithstanding.

Sokal noticed Jacques Derrida claiming to understand Einstein’s constant and proving he didn’t. Sokal wondered how abstruse mathematical topics not used in chemistry or biology and only very rarely in physics could possibly become relevant in the humanities or social sciences. Sokal showed these hucksters were using all the well established tricks of the intellectual charlatan and he exposed Julia Kristeva, Jacques Lacan, Jean Baudrillard and Gilles Deleuze as the self-serving frauds that they were.

Postmodernism and similar schools are, Sokal shows, the software through which the hardware of ineffective, reactionary remedies enter the socio political system. To be blunt about it, French philosophers like Jacques Derrida have even less to offer than does Aristotle and that also applies to the university departments they continue to poison. They are far worse than any conspiracy minded barfly.

Although conspiracy theory canards should be debated and then dismissed as the red herrings that they are, we cannot debate The World Economic Forum’s Humpty Dumptys where words means precisely what they want them to mean. If we are ever to break free from their shackles, we must first articulate a platform that resonates with society’s real stakeholders. But, as Sokal asserts, we will not do that with the narcissistic sophistry of Derrida and his chums. Rather, we must instead challenge those like Trudeau, Macron and Ardern, who mask their virtue signalling fascism in the honeyed maze of Derrida and the reactionary Gender Studies tripe he spawned.

The case against Covid mandates, as articulated by Joe Rogan, Jimmy Dore and Robert Kennedy Jnr, exemplifies. These three, amongst others, have not only shredded the accepted Covid narrative but, irrespective of whether they are “right” or “wrong” or whether they adhere to some conspiracy worshipping coven or other, they have given us cause to question and debate that narrative.

But debate is the very last thing the World Economic Forum’s Young Leaders want or can handle. Debate is bad for business, debate slows down decision-making and debate is, in any case, redundant as those who profit from Covid have, so they proclaim, settled the science once and forever.

And that is the key and cardinal point. The World Economic Forum’s consuls declare that those they oppose are conspiracy cultists, who should be cancelled, much like Rome cancelled the Catacomb dwellers. JK Rowling? A TERF, so persecute her. Canadian truckers? Theoretical heretics, so rob $10 million from them. Dostoevsky? Russian, so off with his head and kick his cat.

How, why and to what benefit ? The how has been a gradual ongoing and well funded war of attrition where these subversives took an inch on academia’s lowest rung and, with massive funding and targeted intimidation, expanded to where they have even expelled JK Rowling from her own franchise. The why has been to emasculate us all and, as the Harry Potter saga shows, to even cancel the imaginations of children. The benefit to the World Economic Forum and their NATO enforcers is to allow us collude in them cancelling Russia, the world’s biggest country, from our intellectual, economic, cultural, historical and even geographical space. Not even Harry Potter or Humpty Dumpty could conceptualize that degree of nihilistic madness.

For all their philosophical flaws, the French have the right idea when they kick against these pricks and strive, however imperfectly, for liberté, égalité, fraternité, for grounded ideals which are infinitely nobler than those who rule over them and over us. We, on the other hand, have fallen so far from grace one doubts we will ever rise again. And somewhat like how Delilah emasculated Samson, so also have we been seduced not with a bang from a gendarme’s truncheon but by the Gender Studies whimperings of insipid politicians. The price for our submission can be seen not only in our crumbling cities but in the endless wars NATO pretends to be fighting on our behalf.

If we look at it all through a stochastic rather than a deterministic lens, then things may not be that grim. The coming economic turbulence may be a blessing as well as the curse it will undoubtedly be, if we reject Foucault’s pretentiousness and shift our efforts back towards criticizing our failing economies, our corrupt states and our compromized leaders, whilst also improving our daily lives, reading Dostoevsky, adhering to grounded ideologies, and promoting sober social relations and community-rooted cultures. Striving, in short, for a life worth living, free from the petty chicanery of those who benefit from parroting NATO’s conspiracy theory slurs to deflect from their own vile conspiracies and viler intrigues.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the Mainstream Media has taken an absolutely one-sided stance on the war going on right now in the Ukraine. We cannot forget that most of the “news” that we get are just AP or Reuters newswires rewritten by some bachelor’s degree monkey in a cubicle or unaffordable New York apartment. News isn’t made by some philosopher kings, but by systemic people within their system and when the man says “jump” they say “how high”. This is a fact of life, big media outlets are financed to project an interpretation of reality to control public perception not to create an educated public. Probably, all who are reading this dislike that fact, but for now it is an unchangeable reality, so absolutely no one should have expected Fox, CNN, the BBC or any others to try to break down and understand the motivations behind Russia’s ongoing military intervention.

But all of this big media has to still present the facade that it is analyzing the situation and offering insight, so in a controlled way they have to pretend like they somehow are presenting to you the true motivations behind what the Russians are doing. Sometimes they at least repeat Russia’s official logic followed by smug condemnation of the absurdity that they could find a hostile Nazi regime that recently considered getting nukes as their neighbor a threat. But there is one talking point that does not appear anywhere, it is so forbidden that it cannot even be brought up into the conversation to be criticized or “debunked”.

So let’s open the Necronomicon for the Mainstream Media together and expose these dark words right now.

Within most major nations in any given region of the world there are plenty of ways that we can subdivide the dominant culture. Within China there are plenty of dialects and regional culinary differences between people, Germany and Italy really only forged into greater nations from many diverse regions in the 1800s and places like Nigeria have many tribes who all say they are Nigerian, but never forget to mention which tribe they come from. The United States, the current home of the Mainstream Media can also be subdivided by some regional tendencies. The whole Civil War thing really cemented the idea in American society that there are “northerners” and “southerners” who both have different accents, attitudes, cuisine and to this day have differing views on what this whole America thing is supposed to look like. If there is a third type of American it would probably be someone from the West Coast. Seattle, Portland, San Fran and LA, who are neither northern nor southern in their accent, views and general culture.

People love to overclassify things online and we could get into arguments that the “Rocky Mountain Way”, as Joe Walsh put it, is different enough from the West Coast to be its own sub-type of American or perhaps if a Northerner is poor enough, they magically transform into a Midwesterner. It isn’t important as to how many subdivisions for Americans we can make, by their accents, local culture, political views, geography and so on, but to acknowledge that these different types of Americans are real and that besides some basement dwellers online 99% of Americans see these other types as their countrymen and overall an inherent part of their society. Even if California’s inability to pronounce the word “button” is infuriating, along with their sense of “moral superiority”, these are not reasons to say they are no longer Americans.

Now, what if the United States were to lose a horrible war and evil foreign powers came in to break American society forever? They would take these American sub-types and try to turn them into different ethnicities. The new overlords would push some sort of Southern revisionism and tell them that it is time for the South to “rise again” and punish generations of “Northern Aggression”. The evil occupiers would of course feed into West Coast snobbism trying to convince Washington, Oregon and especially California that they’d be so much happier finally being separated from those casserole eating, truck driving, camouflage wearing troglodytes in the fly-over states that voted for Trump. Long story short, subdivisions within any society can be used by one’s enemies to create division and infighting.

Of course the enemies of America would not only pump an independent California full of hate but also make sure they had all the goodies and media cover to all sorts of destructive acts and most importantly cut any remaining cultural threads to American culture forever.

Now what if time passes in our fantasy scenario and a divided America gets back on its feet again. Futuristic Washington’s main mission would be to remove all the fake divisions created by the foreign occupiers. They would need to reintegrate the South and the West Coast especially if those regions were controlled by hostile regimes that serve only the interests of foreign powers.

So I would have to hope that the overwhelming majority of Americans reading this would agree that…

1. There are regional differences across America.
2. These differences could be exploited by foreign powers trying to convince them that they are not a type of American but a separate ethnicity.
3. If foreign powers succeeded in breaking up America, it would be critical for the remnants of the USA to pick up the pieces as fast as possible and reunite the country ASAP before time takes its toll and real separate cultures start developing.
   1. This is especially true if one of these broken off parts of the Continental 48 became hostile and systemically anti-American being used as a weapon against Washington’s interests.

This was a long preface but it is necessary in order to understand why the Russians are doing what they are doing. In his now famous hour-long explanation as to why the military was going to go in and save the Donbass, Putin explained that Lenin and the Communists in their Internationalist zeal irrationally subdivided regions of Russia into separate nations based on seemingly minor and often pointless differences. In the same way that we could sit down and roughly divide a map of America with markers into different subtypes of Americans, the Bolsheviks took it a step further and divided their nation into many fake sub-nations.

Ukraine is a fake nation made to serve a 1920’s Communist Agenda of Internationalism that now serve a Globalist/NeoCon agenda of keeping Russia as small and weak as possible. Kiev is the birthplace of Russian Civilization and the regions to the south and east of it are inherently Russian as Chicago, Atlanta and Las Vegas are inherently American despite their regional differences, accents and so on.

This is the key piece of logic that the Mainstream Media keeps hiding from every discussion about this issue. This is the Elephant in the room that never seems to make it on camera and it explains this odd invasion where the Russians will pound air bases with hypersonic missiles yet not cut off the internet or electricity to Kiev. It explains why half the mayors of the towns the Russians rolled through have happily put up Red, White and Blue flags on top of their offices carrying on with their official duties without the need to use fake Ukrainian terminology in their paperwork anymore. This also explains why the Russians will accept surrender from any of Kiev’s conscripts but have zero mercy for the private battalions. The truth is that the majority of the people, especially in the south and east of today’s Ukraine are Russian. These two-thirds of Ukraine, were, are and always will be Russia to Russians.

After 8 years of watching their own people be bombed and killed by Kiev and the Oligarchs’ private Neo-Nazi battalions, Russia has simply had enough. Before allowing a few people to be killed rather than launching an invasion in the hopes of negotiations and getting the Minsk Agreements to be followed seemed like the better option. Now Russians feel they have no choice but to sacrifice some to save all. These fake political divisions drawn by Lenin, and enforced by a triumphant Washington since 1991, have lead to an unnatural division in Russian Civilization and even created genocide in the Donbass.

Long ago Lincoln was faced with a choice: acknowledge that the South was a different culture and let them go, or remind them that they are American with musket and bayonet?
This is a similar sort of challenge faced by the Kremlin right now and this talking point is so easy to understand and so relevant and relatable to an American audience that it will never ever be hinted at on any Mainstream Media. These are the words that the Mainstream Media dare not speak – Ukraine is a fake country drawn up by the fantasies of Communist Revolutionaries to fit a hot narrative. Most of it is an inherent part of Russia and filled with Russians. #UkraineIsRussian, always has been, always will be. If you disagree then it is time for you to buy a white linen suit and recognize the Confederacy.

It has been said that “The Gods laugh at those who make plans”. That should resonate with all whose life plans have been disrupted over the last two years. Fair to say that little has worked out as intended for anyone. Going forward to a future rife with uncertainty, any plans must include an element of “wishful thinking” There are few certainties existing on which to base those plans. Accepting this is difficult, a future that cannot be seen and accounted for is understandably daunting to most.

Once considered unthinkable, war on a global scale is now a real possibility. Elites have longed used war to distract from domestic problems, Western aggression towards Russia, China and Iran has turned them all potential flash points. The purported “threats” by these identified adversaries are all centred on their refusal to comply with the Empires’ wishes. Despite the relentless propaganda and scaremongering, little support for war can be expected from the Western people. All wars are based on lies, and alas all too often those lies have worked. With “weapons of mass destruction” still strong in the public consciousness, few will believe any justification for war. The Empire’s war narrative has changed little, but the people have. Covid, as has become increasingly obvious is the greatest crime ever imposed on the people on such a global scale. With few exceptions it has affected everybody, everywhere. The mass awakening it has inspired has led to mass uprisings around the globe. Which at the time of writing show no signs of abating, in fact they are growing. As more information about the Pandemic emerges the worse it gets as the depth of the evil is further exposed. It is fair to assume as more details continue to come out, those still accepting the lie will join the already awakened in anger.

What the Covid tyranny has exposed is the total corruption of not just the political class but of all the institutions of power and control. The political class has lost any remaining credibility they may have had prior to Covid, which, lest we forget was dubious even before Covid. Overwhelmingly the people now understand that it was never about what is now known to be no more than a seasonal flu. It is about totalitarian control over every aspect of people’s lives. Had this been confined to just the political class the results may have been different, but it has shown that all the governing institutions have been complicit in this atrocity. The mainstream corporate media, long worthy of public disdain, have proved themselves to be co-conspirators. Without their supporting narrative of lies, none of this would have been possible. Included in this odious group are big tech and social media. They silenced genuine but dissenting medical experts, while allowing celebrities and the unqualified (Bill Gates) to force feed the public these lies. The medical establishment, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary have been as guilty. The so called judicial systems of the west have proven themselves more concerned with preserving the establishment than pursuing any justice or accountability. The list goes on. The extent of the globalist control has alarmed and angered all. Credibility or trust in any of these bodies, rightly no longer exists.

What do we have when nobody acknowledges the authority of the existing institutions of control? We have anarchy. These institutions can only exist with the trust off the public, and they no longer command that trust. In their current form, it is highly unlikely that the essential trust can be regained on any functional level. The word anarchy normally invokes images of burning buildings and Molotov cocktails. The uprisings in Australia, Canada, and elsewhere have demonstrated that both Anarchy and order can co-exist. Despite attempts by instigators to incite violence, the protesters have wisely avoided it and remained peaceful. They understand that resorting to violence will just play into the Globalists hands and justify reciprocal violence, let us hope that continues. Violence they understand and can use to their own ends, peaceful non-compliance they can’t. Martin Luther King understood that so did Mahatma Ghandi, so it appears does the majority of the newly created mass’s, to their eternal credit.

The movements of MLK and Ghandi were on national scale, this movement we are now witnessing is International. It is the Globalists against humanity, Dissenters in different countries and further inspired by their counterparts in other nations. The Australian Governments heavy handed and absurd restrictions have provoked demonstrations at Australian embassies in many countries. The courageous stand taken by the Canadian people has enshrined the Canadian flag as a symbol of freedom to people everywhere.

Throughout history, people have periodically rebelled against being ruled badly, but the “Elite” have always objected to being ruled at all. When exploitation becomes a way of life for the powerful in society, they create laws to justify it and a moral code to glorify it. A system of smoke and mirrors based on propaganda can only sustain itself as long as the majority accept it. The tyrant is not to be feared, it is the majority who are prepared to suspend their critical faculties and enable it who are traditionally the problem. We are experiencing a turning point in history, a point when the majority are not complying, with the Globalist narrative. That is the Tyrants greatest fear. And indeed afraid they are, very afraid. We may see them burn a few sacrificial lambs to appease the mob, Fauci, Macron, Trudeau are all dispensable, maybe even a Bill Gates. But that is not enough. This war will not be over when the mandates end, it is no longer just about that. Humanity is entering uncharted waters and what comes next is far from certain. What is certain is that all the institutions of power and control have been exposed, any trust they once enjoyed no longer exists. Our freedoms were never theirs to take away, asking their consent to get them back just reinforces their control. We don’t know what the “new normal” will look like, but is for the people to decide, not the elites. Those who describe themselves as “public servants” while acting as the ’masters” will have no future in what is becoming a truly BRAVE new world…

If there is one thing that is universal about governmental structures across the globe, be they Communist, Western-Style Democracy, Islamic or some other form, it is a 100% assuredness in Technocracy/Bureaucracy as the solution to any and all problems. Perhaps in Western countries where their Constitutions (or Common Law traditions) are supposedly sacred this tendency makes perfect sense. The Founding Fathers built America’s system to be bureaucratic as a defense against the excesses, abuses and whims of a single ruler or ruling party. So, we can be a bit forgiving to the West for falling into this logic trap, because it at least used to work in their favor and to an extent still does. But in Russia (where I reside) due to many historical events no one has any faith in the government, nor do they obey any laws they disagree with, and yet the answer to any tiny problem from Ivan Average is some vague government program. I have heard the same from those living in Italy, China and beyond – that all problems require a legal paperwork solution. But is this really an answer to anything? And why do all “problems” require a governmental solution?

Case in point, it would seem that over recent years numerous religious institutions have been threatened with violence, and some of the threats have become a reality including a hostage situation in Texas that Fox News describes in the following way…

“As Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker was preparing to begin Saturday services on the morning of Jan. 15, 2022, he welcomed a man who had knocked on the window and looked cold inside his synagogue. Cytron-Walker made the man tea and then began his livestreamed Shabbat service. With his back turned to the man, the rabbi recalls hearing a click, turning around, and seeing a gun.

For over 10 hours, this man held Rabbi Cytron-Walker and three other congregants hostage at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas.”

Fox also goes on to mention a few other instances in which those who were attending religious services were actually killed in their houses of worship. Of course, every time some tragedy happens on TV/YouTube our monkey brains impose themselves onto the situation, this tendency is especially true among women but men can and do fall prey to it as well. A sort of “what if this happened to me” reasoning makes the public want to demand action to “prevent this sort of thing from happening again”. We human beings may live in a secular world, yet our monkey brains are still filled with lots of magical thinking. Take a look at Hollywood, which is probably the least religious place on Earth, yet every celebrity’s home is filled with magic crystals and other trinkets of supernatural protection. Many of us, if not most of us, really believe that somehow hate, violence, and other bad parts of life can eventually be completely overcome. Our Medieval ancestors certainly prayed to God to intervene against all the awfulness of their brutal lives as only God could provide the utopia we desire, at the very least after we are dead.

The problem is that today, our God today is the government. They are the utopia makers. The state is supposed to provide an explanation to everything and an answer for everything to demonstrate its omnipotence as the justification for our worship and submission. The God of the Bible was okay with being a bit vague, allowing us to think that “everything happens for a reason” even those that we don’t like, and that there is an eternal battle of good vs. evil happening around us that will go on forever until the End Times.

This older version of God was just fine with having some things go unanswered and as the Father of humanity was, just like a human father, happy to let the kids work stuff out on their own. But our Divine Government that replaced the God of the Bible doesn’t have such a Chad attitude. This authority constantly has to take action and try to solve every issue like a nightmarish helicopter parent the only way it knows how… with legislation.

So the “solution” brought forth by Washington’s human-suit technocrats to the problem of violence (and threats of violence) at religious institutions is the “Pray Safe Act”. The details of which look something like this…

The Pray Safe Act, introduced to the U.S. Senate last week, represents a joint effort on the part of U.S. Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH) to provide faith-based organizations and houses of worship with easy access to security best practices, federal grant programs, and training.

 Cosponsored by U.S. Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV), the legislation would direct the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), working with the Department of Justice, the Executive Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and others as deemed appropriate, to create and codify a federal clearinghouse on safety and security best practices for both faith-based organizations and houses of worship.

 That clearinghouse would be responsible for providing these organizations with safety and security recommendations, as well as providing information on federal resources and grant programs available to that end.

So by this logic, the hostage situation in Texas, if we could turn back time, would have been surely avoided thanks to “safety and security recommendations”, “information on federal resources” and corruption’s best friend “grant programs”. How utterly intellectually insulting this is. This is what spitting in the face to every victim of terrorism in U.S. history looks like. The exploitation of 9/11 for Foreign Policy goals was worse, but that does not excuse this fresh pile of madness.

Rather than accepting that horrific things happen from time to time and that overall, the rate of violence in America is still fairly low in the grand scheme of things, the senators listed above have chosen to exploit a tragedy to bloat the government even further and make grant money dance.

This is not a solution to this supposed “problem”, in fact there is no solution. If someone wants to randomly attack someone and kill them, and they are willing to go to jail or die to do it (possibly due to being insane) then they will do it. This is a fact of life, and the God-Government should really step down from its throne of self-assured omnipotence.

Absolutely nothing needs to be done about these acts of terror at religious institutions as murder is already illegal, as is hostage taking, the police in most nations generally blow the heads off of terrorists anyways immediately (“we don’t negotiate with terrorists”) and the average person knows that if they try something like this, they will surely die. The government, in this case the U.S. government has had all the proper mechanisms in place for this sort of thing since the 1700s. Everyone in society knows that if you commit an act of terror, you’re done.

Perhaps there is that mental health crisis in America that bloggers talk about. Some say that Feminism has had a brutal affect on men, creating the incel culture that is often at the heart of mass shootings. So perhaps there are means by which we could turn back the clock to a time before the idea of random public mass murder was even fathomable. But this would never SOLVE the problem, only reduce it to an absolute bare minimum, to a level of extreme rarity. I don’t mean to say that truly nothing can be done to defuse these events before they happen, but it is truly impossible to make over 300,000,000 people never commit some form of Terrorism including making threats. You can only punish them afterwards or Judge Dredd them on the spot if they don’t surrender, both of which local, state and federal authorities have already been doing properly since the beginning.

Piling on new legislation, programs, packages, assistance and whatever other buzzwords you can think of onto the legal system as a response to acts of Terror is an insult to the intellect of the American populace and an exploitation of those who were the victims of it. Literally, doing nothing in response would be better than exploiting the dead for political masturbation. We are all trapped in an endless loop of demanding to have more and more bars put around the cage of technocratic imprisonment for “our safety”. If we begin to accept that life will never be a utopia, that it could be better, but will never be perfect, then we can finally be free of this truly universal “logic” that affects everyone, not just America.

While the Western media hyperventilates over its own phony news of ‘Russian aggression’ and imminent invasions, the Kremlin has quietly turned its sights on an altogether different target: pedophilia.

Imagine for a moment if Hollywood, the mainstream media and the three-letter federal agencies spent as much time and cash in the war against pedophiles as they do in their perennial propaganda war against Russia. At the very least, the West would be fighting a real enemy and not one that has been concocted at some cluttered cubicle inside of the Ministry of Truth. Thus, it’s up to Russia, the global spiritual superpower of last resort, to fight this worthy battle mostly alone.

Last week, when many Western governments were trampling on the civil rights of their subjects due to a viral strain with a better than 99 percent survival rate, Russian lawmakers adopted – and without excessive fanfare and fainting spells – Law #1248305-7 that imposes life imprisonment for “crimes against the sexual integrity of minors.”

The document extends the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for pedophiles. Currently in Russia, repeat child molesters who have previously been convicted of violating a child under the age of 14 faces a life sentence. According to the updated legislation, which heads to the Kremlin next month for President Putin’s signature, a repeat offender found guilty of assaulting a minor above the age of 14 could receive a life sentence.

The Duma’s efforts to broaden the fight against pedophilia comes at a time when the world is struggling against a Western invasion of ‘progressive’ thought that is totally at odds with what defines a healthy and sane state. That is not to suggest that homegrown sexual deviants do not exist in Russia, or that Russia drafted these laws specifically with questionable Western values in mind. Nevertheless, Russia is fully aware of the radical progressive tendencies that have begun devouring Western capitals. And as most people can appreciate, ideas have no respect – especially in the age of the internet – for national borders, nor do they require passports.

Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way? pic.twitter.com/IzFUBIJfwT

— Katie Razzall (@katierazz) January 12, 2022

In the not-so-distant past, most people – at least among the mentally stable – would agree that pedophilia is a crime of the highest magnitude against society’s most vulnerable members. Nowadays, such a statement of ‘certainty’ finds no shortage of cynical detractors.

Although the Western world has not come out and pledged its allegiance to child molesters, or added a ‘P’ to the LGBTQ+ parade, there are some unmistakable signs that such a day is just over the horizon. Already we’ve crossed several Rubicons that were previously unimaginable.

As things stand, public libraries are proudly hosting (taxpayer funded) Drag Queen Story Hours; a 13-year-old transgender boy named ‘Desmond is Amazing’ is touted in the media as the ideal role model for children; and medical practitioners are strongly discouraged from challenging those children who say they want to ‘transition’ to the opposite sex, a decision involving hormones and surgical procedures that many people go on to regret later in life.

Whether intentional or not, the Western establishment is slowly conditioning people to accept the notion that very young children can make critical life decisions for themselves – up to and including what sex they may identify as (an incredibly complicated and unproven concept that is oftentimes planted in young and impressionable minds courtesy of social media). That’s not a very far leap from arguing that children should also reserve the right to decide at what age it is appropriate for them to enter into sexual relations, and with whomever they want. In other words, there is no longer any need for parental guidance, it is believed, in this bizarre new world order. The mainstream media, Hollywood, public schools and social media have taken over the shop.

This slow-drip indoctrination process has been gathering momentum for a long time in various publications. In 2017, for example, BBC ran with an article entitled, ‘Paedophiles need help, not condemnation – I should know.’ Here the reader is introduced to an anonymous 60-something male who opens his confessional by proclaiming: “It’s a long time since I’ve described myself as a paedophile. Paedophilia is a disorder, a deeply distressing sexual orientation. For me, it’s triggered by traumatic experiences in childhood.”

USA TODAY TRIES TO “UNDERSTAND” PEDOPHILES!!!

To me (and probably anyone who has been watching) this is nothing more than the first step of trying to normalize this kind of behavior. https://t.co/aiI77pxGri

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 11, 2022

Did you catch it? The author has said that pedophilia, as opposed to being a mental affliction, is yet another harmless “sexual orientation.” Just so we’re all on the same page, the World Health Organization (still) lists pedophilia under the category of ‘Disorders of Sexual Preference.’ Yet that has not stopped people who should know better from turning the tide against common sense.

Just this month, USA Today published an article entitled, ‘What the public keeps getting wrong about pedophilia’ where the boneheaded argument was made that a “pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children, but not all pedophiles abuse kids, and some people who sexually abuse kids are not pedophiles.”

Thankfully, the author did not attempt to explain exactly who or what child molesters are thought to be, but it’s probably safe to guess, considering the state of the modern liberal mindset, they’d fall somewhere on the spectrum between ‘victim’ and ‘martyr’.

In any case, it is clear where this game of linguistic gymnastics of turning predators into victims is heading. The world must stand firm with Russia at this great turning point in history and demonstrate its intolerance to the ongoing effort to normalize the most egregious crime of them all. Children deserve nothing less than society’s pledge of full protection.

The sum of all fears for the average Russian has just been averted. The large packet of totalitarian answers to a problem of questionable magnitude has been booted from the State Duma. There has been an air of dread amongst the populace who were waiting to see if nationwide QR-code legislation would make it into law destroying their lives and businesses to separate those vaccinated from plague ridden riff raff. There was an expectation that some sort of Hegelian Dialectic gamesmanship would get a watered down, but still crushing version of this system passed. Thankfully for the sake of the Russian economy and sanity itself this is now not to be. This decision to completely bail on a QR Code apartheid not only comes at an interesting moment in history but has great relevance for Russia itself and issues related to Covid-19 on a global scale.

Screenshot: From the official Instagram account of the State Duma: “The Council of the State Duma unanimously removed the bill on QR codes from consideration”. Interestingly the text says the next big law under consideration is about “punishing pedophiles” even more harshly.

Why was the public so concerned over this, shouldn’t we fight Covid-19?

There was a sort of test run of this QR code system in Moscow. It didn’t last very long and from the onset it was clear that the Russian masses were not going to let laws get in the way of their daily activities as is tradition. Any filtration processes at subway entrances were a joke that caused a complete transport collapse and lasted around 48 hours in total. The boiled down version of this idea mostly applied to restaurants which were forced to check guests for having a vaccination code. There was much resistance to this, and certain crafty restaurateurs saw the value of convincing the government that they were enforcing QR code restrictions while just letting anyone through the door anyways. After Putin came back from one of his trips abroad, this system, which was ever so critical for our safety, vanished into thin air, but it certainly left a bad taste in the public’s mouth and many bankrupt restaurants.

Later a similar project was put into place in Tatarstan with even more violently resisted results. Perhaps if this were to have happened on a national level in one clean sweep it could have broken the Russian economy. The QR madness in Moscow/Tatarstan from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok would have been vastly more devastating than all of Washington’s sanctions packages combined. Perhaps it was a wise choice for a certain President to keep this a “States’ Rights” issue and repeatedly reaffirm that vaccination is a personal choice.

 So why did this happen now?

 People have been asking me for quite some time about the reality of anti-Covid measures here in Russia and what the government is doing. The problem is that to understand today’s Russia you simply cannot think of the state as a monolithic block. There is no Putin dictatorship under a crushing cult of personality with all roads to power leading to an often shirtless God-Emperor. Russia is not the Borg Cube.

There has been a massive unseen war going on behind the walls of government institutions over the pandemic, which explains why Covid policies here have come and gone seemingly at random in various regions. Even at the macro level, there has been a soft push (with the threat of a hard push) for vaccination and yet Putin himself a few weeks ago said something very important about the Omicron Strain…

“Although they say it (Omicron) is not so harmful, some experts even call it live vaccination. <…> Let’s not get ahead of ourselves”.

In political terms this seemed like a big call to just let the whole Covid situation go while having the ability to retract this statement in a few weeks if necessary. It is also a very Russian answer to a problem for things to just magically work themselves out on their own. For those conspiratorially minded it is interesting that this self-vaccinating Omicron Variant of Covid-19 that Putin brought to public attention is accused of being artificially created by the Mainstream Media. This is some dark food for thought for sure.

Going further into the realm of conspiracy, there could be a connection between the absolute failure of negotiations between Russia and the U.S. and finally dropping this QR code legislation. Russia got nothing that it wanted from the Globalists so maybe the Globalists are going to get nothing from Russia? Moscow’s participation in the big school play may be over for good.

What does this mean for Russia?

Both sides of the Covid fight in Russia have done a good job of building up enemy lists and a deep seeded hatred for the other. When one side wins in this type of scenario we can all guess what is going to happen next. There could be some major restructuring and firings coming up within the next year as revenge time is surely nigh.

For the Russian masses this will show that being obstinate pays off. Very often people of questionable intelligence vastly overestimate the ability of the individual to make change in society, but one thing the individual can do is resist, and when the majority of the population decides to grind the wheels the engine comes to a halt. The more collective mindset of Russians has saved the day and the Russian cultural traits of complete disregard for rules and brutal obstinacy have been revalidated for another generation.

What does this mean in the context of Covid-19 globally?

There is now a major nation that has essentially given up on anti-Covid measures. It is also a global player with some significant media and internet presence that can advertise this fact. While Australians are being beaten and gassed for not wearing a mask at some bar, Russia will probably say to the world how great it is that they defeated Covid using measures that had a minimal impact on the rights of citizens and now everything is back to the Old Normal. They may even broadcast the whole notion that Omicron is a passive solution to the problem and that there is no threat.

This will make Russia become even more attractive to Western Conservatives and we should expect a wave of anti-vaxxer immigration to the land of bears and snow. You may scoff at this notion, but when one gets emails about this issue daily, things look a lot different.

But of course, if Russia completely drops its war on Covid, that will mean that Russians will suddenly present a “danger” to the populations of foreign nations and may be banned from traveling to most if not all of the West regardless of vaccination. And going to Russia as a Westerner could mean the death of your travel future as you’ve been tainted by their lack of anti-Covid measures. That may sound insane but it is bureaucratically logical and a natural next step in the ever devolving Monopolar vs. Multipolar conflict that we are all in against our will.