The CBC has lied – again

Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation still the tie that binds Canadians? Judging by the taxpayer-funded broadcaster’s actions the last few decades, it has outstayed its welcome long ago.

Leslyn Lewis, a candidate in the current battle for the Canadian Conservative Party leadership, has witnessed it first-hand in another case of shoddy propaganda the CBC had been accused of performing time and time again.

Lewis, a Canadian lawyer in her day job, and a politician, represents the Ontario riding of Haldimand — Norfolk. She ran for Parliament (and for her party’s leadership) telling voters that she believes (verbatim quote from her own web site) that government should exist to serve the citizens and not the other way around.

“We must be a country where the freedom of religion, conscience and expression, and the rule of law are upheld,” she said in her description of herself.

That would explain why the CBC crowd must hate her with a passion.

Leslyn Lewis has the wounds from an unprecedented attack by CBC on a Canadian politician to prove her point.

What happened?

The World Health Assembly is debating creating a series of documents that would make the World Health Organisation (WHO) the sole arbiter on health situations and their handling, circumventing national governments, including those elected in democratic countries. Their vote is forthcoming within days, and if passed, it would bring the world yet another step closer to the dreaded single world government, the dream of World Economic Forum’s Great Reset planners, Gates Foundation population controllers, and George Soros’s Open Societies’ designers who want to remove democracy from our lives.

Sounds important enough, and Leslyn Lewis asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about it during Question Period on Wednesday, May 18, 2022.

On Thursday, the very next day, that is, the CBC – running on $1.2 billion annually from Canadian taxpayers – published an article criticising her for the temerity, chutzpah, even. How dare a Member of Parliament ask questions of the country’s Prime Minister?

CBC used people whom they called neutral legal experts.

To begin with, no real expert would resort to name calling. A real expert would analyse the matter at hand and pronounce which statements can be proven as correct, and which can’t, and why. End of story.

The three “neutral experts” described the legitimate question as “fearmongering” and “a conspiracy theory.”

That’s typical for those who haven’t a clue about reality: label everything racist, sexist, bigoted or – if all else fails – a conspiracy theory.

The CBC would have had dreadful difficulty calling Leslyn Lewis a racist: she was born in Kingston, Jamaica, and her skin colour reflects it.

So, instead of asking her to rebut those would-be experts’ labels, the CBC ran them as pure gospel from the mount.

Leslyn Lewis, a lawyer, as mentioned, did the only sensible thing to begin with: she checked those experts’ credentials.

She was in for a shock: none of them was independent. In fact, the CBC should have declared that these people speak the way they do because they are paid (quite handsomely) to do so, and if the CBC didn’t do it, they all should have excused themselves.

Who are they?

The findings were not as surprising: the CBC has been known for twisting reality to fit their ideology.

I double-checked Leslyn Lewis’s findings, and they are on the dot.

Timothy Caulfield is listed online as a member of the Trudeau Foundation. Not that the CBC ever mentioned that conflict of interest.

Timothy Caulfield’s Twitter account is filled with dismissive and divisive language against those who have chosen to not be vaccinated against COVID-19, and articles with headlines such as: No, You’re Not Entitled To Your Own Opinion.

Dr. Steven Hoffman is another member of the Trudeau Foundation. Not a word about that in the CBC story.

To make matters even more troubling, Dr. Hoffman is a Director for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which reports to Jean-Yves Duclos, the federal Minister of Health.

Duclos is leading Canada’s delegation to Geneva for the World Health Assembly talks. Essentially, Dr. Hoffman was defending his boss in the media. That would have been fine and dandy if the story revealed the name and position of his boss. It didn’t., but without letting people know what fact was missing.

The CBC did mention that Dr. Hoffman works for the WHO, though. Thanks for the little crumbs of truth.

And, last but not least, Dr. Kelley Lee, the third respondent in the CBC smear story, happens to be a former WHO employee.

Again, why not use his voice. But in honest journalism, that fact should have been made obvious throughout the quotations from him.

That Lee’s position is funded by the Canadian Research Chairs Program was obviously irrelevant to CBC. That program is funded by the federal government and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have a hand in overseeing it.

Whom does it report to? To Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos.

What’s the issue?

Simple and straightforward. As Leslyn Lewis puts it, academics who are connected with the Trudeau Foundation, have active and historic working relationships with the WHO, and have employment income stemming directly from the federal government, must face questions about potential conflicts of interest and bias.

The CBC made sure nobody asked such embarrassing questions. Not in their story, anyway.

Here’s the obvious conclusion: people with connections to the Trudeau Foundation and the WHO are deliberately trying to silence legitimate doubters.

Amendments to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Assembly will decree on in Geneva this week, should be open to debate by all before a single vote is cast.

And so should be the Global Pandemic Treaty, now in the stage of final negotiations between 193 countries.

Is the attempt to silence those have questions a conspiracy?

If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, is it a duck?

Leslyn Lewis’s competitor in the current Conservative Party leadership contest, Pierre Poilievre, says that, should he win it, and should his party win the next elections, one of his first steps at 24 Sussex Dr. would be to defund the CBC.

Leslyn Lewis should join him to make this promise part of her campaign, as well.

And should the current Canadian government vote for the two ominous WHO treaty proposals, helping them to happen, they both should announce that Canada will abandon them first thing after their swearing-in ceremony.

Censors raise their ugly heads again

Is Communist Manifesto a manifesto?

Questionable, if not banned outright, says the Associated Press, once, a very long time ago, a reliable news agency.

The bible of American news reporting, the Associated Press Stylebook, has taken to task those who took the recent Buffalo mass killer at his word. Before committing his heinous (and cowardly) act, the perpetrator had written a file supposed to justify and explain his act. It is about 180 pages long, and many reporters covering the story described it as his manifesto.

Tsk-tsk, said the language police at the AP.

It should be noted that the Canadian Press Stylebook, a publication that governs Canadian journalism mores, relies on its U.S. sibling to a huge degree, differing mainly in some cases of spelling (Canada is closer to the English language than the guys south of the 49^th) and, of course, in naming the country’s officials and their offices.

Here’s what the AP censors tweeted out in a censorious tone: “We don’t use the term manifesto in reference to a racist diatribe. It glorifies racist hatred. Other terms such as diatribe, screed or writings can work instead.”

Oh yes?

The AP Stylebook ran into opposition from an unusual angle.

Christina Hoff Sommers, described usually as a centrist feminist, whatever THAT is supposed to mean, shot back: “You are confused. Hitler’s Mein Kampf & rantings of the Unabomber are routinely referred to as ‘manifestos.’ For example: Encyclopedia Britannica. Mein Kampf, (German: My Struggle) political manifesto written by Adolf Hitler.”

Speaking of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, it would have landed the psychopath from Trier behind bars these days. That’s how politically incorrect (in today’s meaning of the word) it is. And Communist Manifesto is pure peanuts when compared to Marx’s main opus, Das Kapital.

Marx’s ideas have been poisoning generations of impressionable minds for almost two centuries (Communist Manifesto, co-written by Friedrich Engels, was published in 1848, Das Kapital in 1867).

A few facts that must have influenced the AP Stylebook censors:

First of all, the Buffalo shooter wrote that he used to be a communist, but that he currently identifies as “mild-moderate authoritarian left.”

Who coined the word authoritarian? Why, Il Duce Benito Mussolini himself. Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, liked the word, too. He and Mussolini used to admire one another, until they realised they’re stealing votes from one another. So, they disbanded their mutual admiration club, and Lenin went on to introduce the dictatorship of the proletariat. It described his goals much better, he used to explain.

Shockingly, the shooter also wore the black sun insignia, a symbol sometimes used by the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion of Ukraine.

One of the Buffalo mass killer’s main inspirations was the Christchurch shooter in New Zealand.

Surprise: the criminal down under had trained with Azov prior to committing his massacre at a mosque.

And the clincher: both murderers, the one in Buffalo, New York, U.S., as well as the one in Christchurch, Canterbury Region, South Island, New Zealand, have been claiming to be radical environmentalists.

Based on that fact alone, they should have been darlings to the corporate (a.k.a. mainstream) media.

Skin colour controversy

Except: both mass killers showed all characteristics of what the current political vocabulary describes as white supremacists. Had their complexions been a bit darker, the corporate (a.k.a. mainstream) media would have been in trouble. They see everything in black or white, and any sign of a grey shadow causes them awful headaches.

The Buffalo shooter wrote in his manifesto (or whatever else one prefers to call it) that he hated the Fox cable network and all it stood for. That contrasts claims made by the corporate (a.k.a. mainstream) media that say that it’s the Fox News that is to blame.

The AP Stylebook censors somehow forgot to mention the Ukrainian Azov Battalion angle. They had a good reason: their version of the story considers the self-admitted Nazi thugs the good guys, and here’s an irresponsible mass killer who spoils their wonderfully crafted pack of lies.

So, in order to save face, they at least try to downgrade the description of the killer’s writing from manifesto to a diatribe, or a screed.

It’s this obsession with single words, instead of reporting facts, that makes them so dangerous.

Monkeys see, monkeys do

Have we got another AIDS scare coming?

Remember, the original news about AIDS several decades ago held it was spread through sexual interaction among gay men.

The human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immunodeficiency syndromes (HIV/AIDS) were linked into a frightening combination that only a potent combination of medications could help slow down, if not annihilate. This would lead to an activist-driven movement to make such medications available at an acceptable cost to all.

It would take till the fall of 2021 for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci, to emerge. The writer, a capable lawyer, dissects the several recent decades’ worth of similar scares with a painstaking attention to detail, no matter how minor.

The panic, it turns out, was artificial. It only helped enrich major pharmaceutical companies and their friends (a.k.a. Big Pharma) and set off the division of humanity along gender lines, real or imagined.

One of the hypotheses raised at the time involved the origin of the plague. Some suggested that military biological weapons laboratories were involved, others pointed to monkeys, and still others suggested a combination of both.

And now we have monkeypox.

Nothing new

According to America’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Monkeypox virus belongs to the Orthopoxvirus genus in the family Poxviridae. The Orthopoxvirus genus also includes variola virus (which causes smallpox), vaccinia virus (used in the smallpox vaccine), and cowpox virus.

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 when two outbreaks of a pox-like disease occurred in colonies of monkeys kept for research, hence the name ‘monkeypox.’

Please note the year: 1958. Meaning: 64 years ago.

Off on a tangent: The Beatles were asking the right question: will you still need me / will you still feed me / when I’m 64?

They released that song on their 1967 album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Paul McCartney wrote it when he was about 14, probably in April or May 1956, and it was one of the first songs he has ever written. Back to the real story.

Here’s the shocking news: monkeypox has been known as a very mild contagious disease that deserves no panic whatsoever. Reportedly it has begun spreading across the world through attendees of a gay pride gathering of 80,000 people in Gran Canaria.

Where?

Gran Canaria, also known as Grand Canary Island, is the third-largest and second-most-populous island of the Canary Islands, an archipelago off the Atlantic coast of Northwest Africa, and a part of Spain. Official Spanish statistics say that the island had a population of 851,231. This would be about 40 per cent of the population of the archipelago.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has jumped on the bandwagon, saying that monkeypox is spreading mainly through sexual contact among gay men.

As of May 23, 2022, not a single corporate (a.k.a. mainstream) media outlet in the world has mentioned (and never mind credited) such a fact.

WHO has warned gay and bisexual men to be on the lookout for new unexplained rashes.

As England’s The Sun newspaper reports, “Cases have now been detected in Israel, Norway, Australia, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Germany, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and Canada.”

U.S. Administration has already suggested new stringent mandates are on the horizon, including all kinds of vaccines.

The artificial panic around Covid has failed miserably, even though there are still way too many sheeple who continue wearing masks, even outdoors, and line up for all kinds of booster vaccine shots.

Here’s the main issue: human beings are the only species to poison their food supply with pesticides, mass murder their own offspring with widespread abortions, and inject themselves with genetically altering experimental “vaccines” that cause infertility and death.

So, what’s behind it all?

A food expert named Sara Menker of the agriculture analytics firm Gro Intelligence said that that there are only 10 weeks of wheat supply remaining in the world, Insider.com reports. She told the United Nations Security Council that this was not merely “(Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s fault.”

Menker, the CEO of Gro Intelligence, also told the UN Security Council that the Russia-Ukraine war was not the cause of a food security crisis but “simply added fuel to a fire that was long burning.”

Now, granted, Gro Intelligence relies upon artificial intelligence (AI) when collecting and, especially, evaluating data. That’s why their observations require double-checking. In this case, comparisons of data collected by Gro Intelligence with individual summaries compiled by a number of grain-growing nations’ governments confirm the thesis. That data was put together mostly for the grain-growing nations governments’ internal use, not for propaganda purposes, that is.

“It is important to note that the lowest grain inventory levels the world has ever seen are now occurring while access to fertilizers is highly constrained,” Sara Menker said. “And drought in wheat growing regions around the world is the most extreme it’s been in over 20 years. Similar inventory concerns also apply to corn and other grains,” she concluded.

We’ve gone far beyond the point of no return. We’re approaching a new era, one that will see the world as we know it today collapsing.

Revolutions, violent uprisings, wars, governments falling left, right and centre, that all is in the works. And yet, way too many keep failing to see it.

That’s when the World Economic Forum will see its chance to enforce its project known as Great Reset, an illiterate form of socialistic socialism.

That’s when the Malthusians around Bill Gates will be able to enforce their genocidal plans in the name of saving the planet’s climate.

That’s when George Soros and his Open Societies will get their chance to impose one world government ruling all survivors of the coming Armageddon.

They will be doing hidden forces’ biding, and all of them will hope they will survive.

Revolutions eat their children, so their own chances are as close to nil as ours.

Alas, even that doesn’t offer us much comfort.

Friendly skies no more

If you think you need to be somewhere and fast, you’d be better off to skip the event that you think you must attend and fast. In the worst-case scenario, just make sure you start travelling early enough. Preferably in your own car. Or riding your own bicycle. Or walking on your own feet.

Why? So you don’t have to fly. And especially not on a commercial airline.

Here’s the opening line from Ontario physician Dr. Mark Trozzi’s newsletter: No warning. No consent. No joke. Passengers are now being sprayed with the toxin Permethrin.

Who he?

Dr. Mark Trozzi is a medical doctor from Ontario. He resigned from all of his hospital positions, in order to be able to fight what he’d found to be one of the most terrible hoaxes pushed on humanity: the so-called Covid (or coronavirus) pandemic.

This would cost him his entire income and change his way of life. He has sold his house and greatly downscaled his family’s standard of living. He is now surviving on limited savings.

Dr. Trozzi has committed himself to do his part to help counter what he describes as “the criminal Covid enterprise.”

Here’s his story, in his own words: I am a medical doctor; I graduated in 1990 from The University of Western Ontario. I have been practicing Emergency Medicine for the past twenty-five years; and I have been on call in multiple emergency units since the onset of the so-called “pandemic”, until February 2021, including one ER designated specifically for COVID-19. I am an Advanced Trauma Life Support professor with the College of Surgeons of America, and I hold teaching positions in multiple Canadian medical schools.

… I do not have authority to tell you “the truth”, but I will share my honest experiences, perceptions, and digests of hundreds of hours of research on the subject of Covid-19.

At the onset of this “pandemic,” I was cautious and hence meticulous with N95 mask use, hand washing, social isolation and distancing etc. I studied coronavirus science and was deeply involved in many emergency department drills to modify our practice in profound ways to deal with the “killer virus” we were advertised. However, various things soon made me consider that we were being deceived and manipulated.

What he saw on an airplane?

In Dr. Trozzi’s own words: I just dodged forced injections and nasal probe violations, by connecting through Mexico, on route to a very important event: the inaugural three-day WCH Better Way Conference starting May 20th.

On route, all the passengers including myself were heavily sprayed with the neurotoxin insecticide permethrin. There was no warning and no consent; that’s assault, and it’s happening around the world.

Dr. Trozzi then proceeds to suggest ways how to stop the World Health Organisation (WHO), linking to two possible actions (one and two) and another link, suggesting how to prevent the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) assault on humanity (WEF).

What’s the stuff?

First, the official description: Permethrin is a medication and an insecticide.

As a medication, it is used to treat scabies and lice, applied to the skin as a cream or lotion.

As an insecticide, it can be sprayed onto clothing or mosquito nets to kill the insects that touch them. Side effects include rash and irritation at the area of use.

A British chemist named Michael Elliot invented Permethrin in 1972.

Another verbatim quote: It (Permethrin) proved highly suitable for agriculture because it doesn’t break down in sunlight. The United States government first approved permethrin for use on cotton in 1979. Soon after, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that it was toxic to fish, so they restricted its use on cotton.

Only professionals can use restricted-use pesticides. After further testing, the government approved permethrin for use in many agricultural settings, with limits.

Farmers cannot use permethrin near water bodies and most permethrin use is restricted to professionals.

While humans should never consume permethrin, it’s unlikely to be lethal.

Inhalation and consumption can cause difficulty breathing, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea. If permethrin gets on your skin, it may cause tingling, irritation, and a burning sensation.

A common question is: does permethrin cause cancer?

There is no evidence of a link between permethrin and cancer.

Did you notice the wording? There is no evidence. Not that there is no link between the insecticide and cancer.

And no, being too cautious does not equal paranoia. Here’s another quote from that same file: the pesticide residue on spinach and other foods for that matter is so small that one could consume several hundreds of servings per day without any negative effects on their health. But if you want to limit your exposure to the pesticide traces you can wash the produce in cold water or baking soda water. And blanching or boiling the produce should also reduce the pesticide residue levels by at least 50 per cent if not more.

A side note: the suffix “cide” comes from Latin. The word cidium describes the act of killing or a slaughter. With the prefix “sui” it describes suicide.

Which is precisely what the world has been doing: those in power are guilty of the former act, while those who meekly accept it are committing the latter act.

Who’s behind it?

In Canada, it’s the federal government itself, its transport department in particular.

Claiming it’s all done in order to prevent the spread of insects on flights to and from some of the more exotic destinations, Transport Canada has officially ordered all airlines on such routes to “disinsect” their aircraft.

The word itself, “disinsect,” is a bit of a novelty, but this is not a linguistics study asking why not use such good old words like disinfect. Obviously, bureaucrats have to show some kind of activity. So they invent new words.

The Transport Canada memo is a proof of disingenuity the likes of which is tough to swallow.

For example, it stipulates that Permethrin 216A be used at as a residual, or at the top of descent, or when the aircraft is blocks away (an airline expression for distance from the gate).

While the expression “residual” can mean “spraying while there are no passengers aboard,” you can’t push the paying crowd outside on the wings when the plane begins its descent to approach levels, and the same goes for the “blocks away” situation.

Should anyone ask, for example, for the origins of the disgusting (and, too often, sickening) stench, the cabin crew can only say what product he cleaners used, and, if and when pressed, how and when it is used. If the passengers aren’t happy, they are to be directed to speak to the company’s head office.

Canadian registered air carriers are required by several countries to spray insecticide in the flight deck and guest cabin prior to travelling to those countries. This, the memorandum continues, is a preventative measure against the importation of foreign insects that may carry disease or damage crops.

The insecticide has been approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for application on board commercial aircraft. According to the WHO, short-term exposure when spraying this insecticide has not been found to cause any adverse health effects.

Considering the WHO’s record of information failures and disinformation scandals throughout its history, why not believe in the tooth fairy?

Especially when reading the next line in Transport Canada’s memorandum: no formal inflight announcement.

Why not? Because, Transport Canada says, the spraying happens when there are no passengers aboard.

In the context of the paragraph that orders when the spraying is to happen, this is laughable.

Alibi? No way!

Several Canadian airline officials, all speaking on the condition of strict anonymity, said there’s nothing they can do: government orders. They (their airlines) would be grounded if they disobeyed.

Some would go so far as to say they had no issue with the policy: it was a matter of public health, after all.

If they thought these statements would get them off the hook, they should start thinking again. The Holocaust was, legalistically speaking, perfectly fine: a law, after all, to exclude the so-called unsuitables from human society, and an official order to eliminate them all.

To sum up: the Canadian government is guilty as charged by Dr. Mark Trozzi, and so are the airlines that toe the line.

NATO in mortal danger

Is NATO about to fall apart?

No, claim those who believe that by expanding the alliance from today’s membership of 30 countries by two, NATO will become the strongest military group on earth.

Absolutely yes, posit those who see (and hear) Turkey (and several others) telling the world that she would vote against accepting Finland and Sweden into NATO.

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s Secretary General, had said that if Turkey, or any other NATO member, would oppose entry of Finland and Sweden into the Alliance, the group would apply special measures to overrule NATO Constitution’s Article 10.

It reads: The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Please note the fifth word. Unanimous. How Jens Stoltenberg plans to dance around this unambiguous statement remains to be seen. Of course, with his background as Norway’s former Prime Minister, representing the country’s Labour Party, he seems to have no issues with breaking solemn promises.

Come to think of it, neither do the organisation he now represents in the political arena (Americans keep tight rein over all things military).

In 1991, the U.S. and NATO made a solemn promise to then Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, that “NATO will not move an inch eastward from Berlin.”

NATO consisted of 14 members, with two of them in North America (U.S. and Canada).

Expansion started in the late 1990’s. Today’s NATO counts 30 members, 28 in Europe and those two in the Americas. Most of the newcomers joined from east of Berlin.

And now, two countries that had been neutral thus far, recognised and guaranteed as such, have decided to ditch their neutrality.

Or did they?

Looking back

Finland’s direct border with Russia extends for 1,340 km, almost a thousand miles.

The Suomi have had a somewhat eventful history with Russia.

Attacked by Josif Stalin’s Soviet Union three months after the outbreak of the World War II, Finland was a victim of Stalin’s paranoia, his agreement about dividing Europe with Adolf Hitler’s Germany, and her own chequered past of flirting with nationalism bordering on outright fascism.

The Soviets didn’t win on the battlefield but they did gain a few concessions at the negotiating table.

But: when Hitler had his Wehrmacht attack the Soviet Union, Finland allied with Nazi Germany.

Russia hasn’t forgotten, and her guarantees of Finland’s neutrality have come after she received some quid-pro-quo results. And now, Finland goes back on her solemn promise to remain on the Soviet (or Russia’s) good side.

Sweden’s case is even more outrageous: the Tre Kronor share no border with Russia. The Sverige have not been at war with Russia in the last 300 years.

Combined, neither Sweden nor Finland have faced any threats from Russia.

The unanswered question: what gives?

Here’s what complicates the answer: Russia has also established beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that her negotiations with Ukraine about settling if not all then most of the outstanding issues between the two countries would be interrupted and broken by the Ukrainian side. All signs always point to Western countries, NATO members all.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s unannounced (and thus perfectly unexpected) lightning visit to Kyiv (Kiev in Russian spelling) that quashed a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, is a typical example. The combatants were not more than 48 hours away from signing a peace treaty.

This, by the way, is no secret: Roman Romaniuk of the Ukrayinska Pravda (Українська правда), quoting officials from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s closest circles, reported that the British politician urged his Ukrainian interlocutors not to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

To sum up: proposals for peace talks, made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, were first accepted, and then rejected quickly afterwards.

Minister Lavrov assumes that President Zelenskyy is following somebody else’s instructions. He’s not his sovereign own man, as Lavrov put it.

Whether he knew more than he was saying, Lavrov would never hint.

The two NATO candidates claim that the military alliance’s popularity in their respective countries jumped up by about 70 per cent since the beginning of the conflict. Whether this is the result of ferocious anti-Russian propaganda, or whether these numbers would withstand independent verification, is academic for the nonce.

What is not academic is the fact that this is the reason put forward by both the two candidates and NATO for making sure that their applications are accepted by this June. Considering that the usual period between NATO receiving an application, and the new candidate being invited to join lasts at least about a year, this is warp speed at its fastest.

Unpleasant facts

Ukraine has been trying to join NATO long before the so-called 2014 Maidan Coup.

Documents now emerging show that the Maidan Coup was supposed to be a tool that would help accelerate Ukraine’s NATO membership.

Russia raised red flags even then. She was referring to the 1991 promise about non-expansion. Besides, after the U.S.-planned and directed Maidan Coup in Kiev, the Minsk Protocol of 2014, negotiated by France and Germany, stipulated that Ukraine was to remain neutral, de-militarised, and out of NATO, with no time limitation put upon the last obligation.

For the record, the Minsk protocols also demanded that Ukraine rid herself of her Nazis and agree to guarantee a special status for the two Donbas Republics, Donetsk and Luhansk (Lugansk in Russian spelling).

The de-Nazification demands refer mainly to the Nazi Azov Battalion(s). These units have been attacking mostly civilians in the two “independent” Donbas Republics, causing some 14,000 deaths during the last eight years, about one third of which were children.

Russia are particularly sensitive to Ukraine’s Nazis. History is on her side: these people used to collaborate with Hitler’s Nazi Germany in WWII, in the war against Russia, when some 27 million Russians were killed.

NATO, under America’s guidance, has been provoking Russia with first sending military “advisors” and now weapons to Ukraine.

Why? To conquer these rich natural resources, as well as the enormous landmass, the globe’s largest country. And, last but not least, to win the power the dominance of large and rich Russia would bestow on today’s sick western personal and corporate oligarchy.

The fake WEF (World Economic Forum) has done its share. It imposed a viral scare, lockdowns, killing the world economy in the process. Common people’s livelihoods, their children’s futures have gone up in smoke. Expressions such as justice have become synonymous with sick jokes. Just look at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Its judges have not accepted a single claim that goes against the interests of the Cabal, mostly Anglo Saxon-led westerners – plus the insanely wealthy financial corporations, BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity.

A fly in the ointment

As mentioned, Article 10 of the NATO Constitution demands that all 30 members of the Alliance have to agree to a new member.

Turkey, a key NATO member, is dead set against having Finland and Sweden join.

Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, says that these two countries are “guesthouses for terrorist organizations.”

He’s referring to the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the so-called Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front (DHKP/C), both outlawed in Turkey.

Whether this was the truth and nothing but, so help him nature, remains to be seen. But: Erdoğan brokered a deal with Putin in 2017 that was reportedly worth $2.5 billion. He bought the Russian S–400 air defence system, described by experts as something far beyond America’s military capabilities. In any case, the U.S. and, by extension, NATO, was scandalised and there was even talk then of Turkey possibly bidding good-bye to the alliance.

NATO proceeded to punish Turkey by removing most of the nuclear war-heads stationed there and placing them elsewhere, mostly in Italy.

Not that this sat too splendidly well with Turkey. She hinted then, and hints today again, that a closer alliance with Russia and China may be better for her. Why suffer all kinds of insults and denigrations from the duplicitous west when the east beckons with all signs of respect?

Erdoğan is not alone: several countries that used to be parts of former Yugoslavia have mentioned that they would use their veto rights against admitting Finland and Sweden into NATO, too. Their reasons differ somewhat from Erdoğan’s: having been bombed out to smithereens by U.S.-led NATO that sidestepped the United Nations, they decided that to be defended from NATO, they should join it.

In addition, their own relatively recent histories of fighting Nazism and everything that comes with it have made them reluctant to support Ukraine where Nazism is alive, well, and part of government policy.

If the post-Yugoslavian countries make noise, it’s one thing. Turkey is much more important and her departure might spell the final bell toiling for NATO.

Should that happen, Erdoğan would deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

Not that he would get it. It’s reserved for the worst of terrorists such as Yasser Arafat, or for absolute nobodies such as Al Gore or Barack Hussein Obama.

Ex-President George Bush: guilty as charged?

Former U.S. President George W. Bush has been known for what would become dubbed as “bushisms.” His incomplete grasp of grammar and other such relatively normal methods and ways of communication made him a fount of statements that bordered, in intellectual quality, on the best the current U.S. President has been known to utter.

But comparing Russia’s ways in Ukraine with what used to happen in the Iraqi war and saying the two conflicts were equal in their brutality would not have been expected from a guy who had actually devised, ordered and led America’s invasion into that Middle Eastern country.

Gee, true!

While facts could prove that Bush was right, his statement would make the good old psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud happy.

What Bush did was spectacular: he abused himself by calling himself a de facto (if not de iure) war criminal.

Not only that: when made aware of the misspoken statement, Bush repeated it.

Speaking on the importance of democracy and threats to democracy from abroad, Bush took aim at Russia.

“Russian elections are rigged,” Bush said. True, as much as facts could be proven.

“Political opponents are imprisoned or otherwise eliminated from participating in the electoral process,” he continued. “The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine,” Bush concluded. True too, and not that America isn’t exempt.

Then Bush brushed the mistake aside and said, “Iraq, too,” insinuating that Russia was somehow involved in Iraq.

How, he wouldn’t say.

This is really awkward. In 2003, it was under Bush’s presidency and on his express orders that the U.S. invaded Iraq. A number of legal analysts called that incursion illegal then, and many maintain this position even today.

But even ignoring the legality of the entire military operation, it would cost more than a million Iraqis their lives within a couple of years.

The Bush Administration at the time tried to justify their actions by invoking Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Here it is, in its full beauty:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Stripped of all legalese, all this article means is that, should a United Nations member feel threatened, taking a defensive action is well within their rights.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision is based on that same article, and for that same reason the Americans felt obliged to do something about Saddam Hussein and his band of merry murderers.

If you compare the two situations without any bias, here’s the outcome: both President Bush (then and now) and President Putin (now) are right. The countries their armies attacked both were (and, in the case of Ukraine, are) acting in manners not only uncivilised, but dangerous to pedestrians and traffic worldwide, too.

While some would claim that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) found in Iraq and thus, the reason for the incursion was phony, facts differ: the Kurds faced Iraqi army’s attacks that used chemical and bacteriological weapons for mass murder. WMD as a category includes more than nuclear bombs. Besides, when the international inspectors’ push was coming to shove, most (if not all) of these weapons had been transferred to Syria. The inspectors’ reach stopped at that line.

Here’s the parallel: the U.S. has been accused of helping build and finance laboratories to research, develop and produce biological weapons in Ukraine. Current U.S. Administration ended up confirming that the allegation was correct. And it was unable to deny, either, that the dirty bombs developed in Ukrainian nuclear power stations (one of them the still-radioactive Chernobyl) wouldn’t be there without American money and input.

Nazism or not …

True, Putin rhetoric regarding the plight of ethnic Russians in ethnic enclaves inside Ukraine sounded like that of Konrad Henlein, the Nazi leader who tried to split (and ended up splitting) Sudeten German regions from what used to be Czechoslovakia and make them part of Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

Except: the Czechoslovak government of the day treated their minorities with disdain that forced those groups into opposition.

And successive Ukrainian governments, since the day when the country was made independent in 1991, were using military violence to crush ethnic Russians who had the misfortune of waking up on the Ukrainian side of the border following the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Wars, all wars, are crimes against humanity. An ancient Roman saying puts it: inter arma silent leges (laws are silent when weapons speak).

This is to say that armies commit violence during wars, and innocent civilians are those crimes’ most visible victims.

But still, to see a man who presided over two horrible wars have the nerve to call out another country’s action is a display of narcissism, pure and simple. Yes, two wars: don’t forget the earlier attack on Iraq, following her attack on her neighbour, Kuwait.

Bush told all within hearing distance inside his Presidential Library in Dallas, Texas, (and, given today’s technology, he told the rest of the world) that “one man” can launch a military operation without checks and balances. Meaning: that’s what’s wrong with Russia and Putin.

That this was precisely what he himself had organised and launched during the Iraq War didn’t stop his peroration for a second.

All nibs agree that there exist international laws and institutions designed to prevent wartime types of crimes against humanity from happening.

Did anyone listen? Did anyone obey them perhaps? In both cases, and make the answer biblically simple: yes yes, no no.

Yes, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq there had been the 1990 skirmish over Kuwait.

But: prior to that fateful morning of February 24, 2022, when Putin sent his armies into Ukraine, Moscow had been sending her concerns including those involving the militarisation of Ukraine and the potential for Ukrainian NATO membership to the West. This has been going on since 2014. With what result? Another rhetorical question.

Russia says she has her very specific security concerns. Who’s got the inherent birthright to dismiss them out of hand? Who’s got the right to ignore them?

Speaking of security concerns, when the then-Soviet Union stationed a few missile units in Cuba in 1962, who would be up in arms to defend what then was seen as the free world?

A two-way street

If the Americans can defend their interests, why nobody else?

A couple of undeniable facts:

It has become a trend for the Americans to tell sundry world leaders that all they want to cooperate, build ties and reduce tensions.

That same trend would see them immediately enact policies that contradict their own words. In this case, Putin’s leadership has overlapped with several U.S. presidential terms. During that time, Russia has endured several cases of NATO expansion that has encroached right up to her doorstep and militarised her neighbourhood.

As if verbal promises that this would not happen never existed.

And who, pray, made those broken promises? President George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush’s own father.

Do the Russians have an iota of reason to trust the Americans?

And not that they are a bunch of innocent baa-lambs, as white as fallen snow. They are not, and they have never been. But still: war brings with it crimes worse than unspeakable.

No matter whether this was a mere Freudian slip: Bush’s admission of his own country’s guilt in the matter puts the entire affair into a very different light.

Public enemies not so public

Too many public enemies Nr. 1, and too few real culprits brought to light and responsibility: that’s the world’s problem Nr 1 these days.

We had (and still have) George Soros of the Open Societies infamy as the guy responsible for all kinds of class-based and racially motivated havoc.

We had (and still have) Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum infamy as the guy responsible for Great Reset, a.k.a. socialistic feudalism (in the prescient words of American economist Martin Armstrong).

We had (and still have) Bill Gates with his Malthusian plans to depopulate the planet (genocide, in other words) in the name of saving the climate.

We had (and still have) Dr. Anthony Fauci, the American stooge for the world’s major pharmaceutical companies (a.k.a. Big Pharma): the policies he has been pushing through the last half of a century have brought the world to the brink of total collapse.

And, last (thus far) but definitely not least, and not to be forgotten, we had (and still have) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO), who wants the world to give his body the power to dictate everything about health, both public and individual, from A to Z (and beyond).

Did you notice how the headlines have been shifting from one public enemy to another? The idea is simple: confuse the masses, and keep them bewildered.

Common denominator

Look into all those proclamations made by people who claim that not only the planet needs to be saved, but also, it has so happened that they are the only ones anointed enough to do the saving.

Analyse all of their proclamations: made publicly, yet still ignored by way too many who would end up on victim side one of these days. They all call for an unconditional end to individual nations’ governments (what’s the United Nations for, right?). They view democracy as the most deeply flawed social system ever (she is: if she weren’t, she would have been defending herself since her arrival on the scene). And they very openly consider most of humanity as a bunch of yahoos and village idiots who deserve either to obey their orders without question or perish.

The so-called mainstream (or corporate, in today’s parlance) media dance to these self-anointed would-be leaders’ tunes with shocking enthusiasm. They label anyone (and everyone) who dares differ with all kinds of descriptions they consider insulting. Whoever dares use her/his grey cells (and, usually, common sense) risks being derided and pooh-poohed, often with serious implications. Being ostracised by your neighbours in one thing, unpleasant, to be sure, but being ostracised by your learned colleagues (in many such cases in our educational and scientific system) can ruin your career.

Why’s all this happening?

Well, we ought to bow before our elites, oughtn’t we?

If there’s one misleading view, this is precisely it, and if there’s one scandalously unacceptable word to describe these people, this is precisely it, too.

Who are those guys?

It must be a tough job. But somebody’s got to do it. Becoming a member of the world’s elite, that is. Or, better still, a member of the élite: the acute sign over the first letter e will add to your feeling of superiority.

But, mind, don’t you dare mix it up with a typewriter type that provides a dozen characters to the linear inch: it’s called elite, too, and you wouldn’t be caught dead using a typewriter.

But: enough of the frivolity.

Being the cream of the cream (crème de la crème, as they call it in the hoity-toity circles) in whatever society is a serious business. So serious, in fact, it can help you join the club that has been leading civilisation into nothingness.

And that’s precisely what’s been happening the last few centuries.

It’s one thing to be viewed as part of the top-notch crowd as one, say, of the fastest runners. Or the most innovative mathematician. You have to earn the accolade, and it’s not hereditary, either. Your children, should they wish to follow in your footsteps, will have to start at almost Ground Zero, and work their way up, blood, sweat and tears and all that rot thrown in. (Why almost? Their parents’ elite position may help open a door or two.)

Using the word elite in any creative endeavours, such as writing, singing, painting, sculpting, composing, etc., misleads: the quality of the outcome is always in the eyes of the beholder and the fact that all the nibs have agreed that this or that artist is tops is nothing but opinion.

Rarefied difference

But then we have a different sort of elites. That’s those people who claim they know not only where the world is headed, but also where it should be headed, and how. Don’t ask them why: they know, and it’s none of our business, anyway.

Here comes the most important part: most (if not all) members of these elites have joined before they had been brought up in families that have been parts of networks, mostly invisible, living under the motto that money equals power (and power equals even more money).

There aren’t many newcomers into the inner sancta of these groups. Their members shun publicity at all cost. Oh yes, they do on occasion get involved in one charity or other but, upon closer look, theirs is an effort that ends bringing more money, power and influence into their own backrooms.

Many insist that such claims equal what they derisively call conspiracy theories. Many who see those labels, accept them unthinkingly, and so the process goes on unimpeded.

Soros, Gates, Schwab, Fauci, Ghebreyesus, they are all mere pawns. Well-paid, influential, too, but pawns still, nevertheless. If they weren’t influential, they would all be in the nick by now, for life with no parole, digging ditches for oil and natural gas pipelines in the permafrost tundra.

Still, on occasion, even the best-trained pawns make a mistake. Such as the former Ethiopian terrorist Ghebreyesus of the WHO, who has demanded that his group receive powers that would end up surrendering national rights and privileges to his group of unelected (and corrupt) officials.

Lest they think they would become power mandarins, they would be wrong: it’s the powers behind the scenes, mostly anonymous, who would continue calling the shots.

The World Health Assembly is supposed to vote on the latest WHO power grab, a.k.a. World Pandemic Treaty, later this month (May 22-28, to be precise).

Many are now up in arms, doing all they can to stop this open attempt to strip individual nations of their unalienable rights and privileges. Whether they succeed remains to be seen.

But even if they do, it still won’t mean much. Not unless and until we, the masses of the unwashed, call the real powers-that-be out and show them that we need their elitism like dead men need winter coats.

Will we? Won’t we?

America went to war in 2014

Many think the current military conflict is about Russia and Ukraine. They can hardly be more wrong.

At least as many think that the entire war started on February 24, 2022, when Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his troops to cross the border between the two countries. Even more scandalously off the board.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky, writing for Canada’s Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalisation, has reminded us all of his December 2014 study that has revealed one simple truth: the United States of America, under then-President (and Commander-in Chief) Barack Hussein Obama, has been putting legislation together to attack Russia even then. Either directly or, better still, through an intermediary.

Not only that: the so-called H. RES. (House Resolution) 758 of December 4, 2014, accused Russia of having invaded Ukraine, invoking article 5 of the Washington Treaty (NATO’s doctrine of collective security) at a time when Ukraine still had been outside looking in so far as NATO membership is concerned.

Promises, promises

All that a mere decade and a half since Russia had received solemn promises that NATO would not be expanding eastward, to replace the old Warsaw Pact structures in the former communist countries.

Come to think of it, Ukraine is still outside looking in so far as NATO membership goes, and her hopes of joining have diminished considerably since the Russian invasion started.

But the 2014 sabre-rattling was getting ominous. It may also surprise some to hear that it had begun before Donald J. Trump threw his hat into the presidential election rink, making the Russia-collusion accusations even more unbelievable, impossible, even.

As The Times (of London) reported in their August 22, 2014 issue, Supreme Allied Commander General Philip Mark Breedlove told all within hearing distance that NATO needs “pre-positioned supplies, pre-positioned capabilities and a basing area ready to rapidly accept follow-on forces.”

Besides, The Times reported, “He plans to recommend placing supplies — weapons, ammunition and ration packs — at the headquarters to enable a sudden influx of thousands of NATO troops.”

To drive the point home, the Senate had adopted a stranger new law in May of 2014. Called the Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA), it demanded that Eastern Europe and the Baltic states be militarised and that U.S. and NATO troops be sent to station on Russia’s doorstep.

Former Ohio Representative Dennis John Kucinich stated, as soon as the House Resolution had been adopted: “The resolution demands Russia to be isolated … In other words, let’s get ready for war with Russia.”

So, does still anyone believe that this is all between Russia and Ukraine?

As Professor Chossudovsky writes in his thoroughly documented paper, these 2014 legislative initiatives constitute a preamble to the 2022 Ukraine War. In fact, he adds, we are currently in a World War III Scenario.

While none of this is to suggest that Russia’s a peacefully democratic government, the breakdown in East-West diplomacy during the Obama-Biden administration was coupled with extensive war propaganda since Day One.

Strangely and inexplicably, the United Nations has turned a blind eye to extensive war crimes committed by the Western military alliance.

This does not justify Russia’s transgressions one bit. This only points to the fact that the kettle is calling the pot black.

The speed with which House Resolution 758 made it through was astounding.

Introduced by Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Illinois) on November 18, it went with lightning speed to the Foreign Affairs Committee and rushed back to the plenary of the House for debate and adoption. It would take only 16 days since its introduction to end up being adopted by a 411-10 vote on the morning of December 4 (all in 2014).

Unfounded accusations

The House Resolution 758, and all other legislative documents that would follow, have been using accusations against Russia one could have found in sensationalist tabloid media. Most (if not all) of them would not withstand closer scrutiny in independent court.

Examples galore. Such as: who shot down that Malaysian airliner?

Independent inquiry hadn’t been finished with their work by the time the H. Res. 758 was adopted. Even now, all we know it could have been a Russian-made ground-to-air missile, but who owned it, who armed it, who aimed it, and who gave the fatal order to launch? And yet, the resolution framers blame people they call Eastern Ukrainian separatists. Any proof? Not a single sign of it.

It’s when the full text of H. Res. 758 touches upon the question of accusing the Russians of playing politics with their oil and natural gas supplies to her neighbours that the picture gets clearer: the Americans would rather if the Europeans depended on them, not on those dastardly Russkies.

It’s another issue that the current U.S. Administration has been playing such strange games like lifting gas exploration leases in Alaska and making sure Canada’s commodities can’t reach their markets in the U.S. They’ve been trying to force their own citizens off motor vehicles: why don’t you walk to work or school? And, besides, there are the good old stinking wink-wink-nudge-nudge relationships with the Saudis to maintain. Why be independent if you can depend on overseas supplies, anyhow?

Still, the world has been on the brink of yet another world war since President Obama took office in 2008. In fact, one wonders why it took his Administration all of six years to get this de facto approval to go to war.

Killing the world

If this war happens, this world won’t survive. Only some tribes that live in wilderness areas may end up being spared the nuclear Armageddon.

Millennia later, when humanity begins returning from yet another stone age, people will be sharing legends of a devastating apocalypse, recalling there was a place called White House but who knows why it was called after such a boring colour.

Just as we don’t know much about the pyramids strewn all over the world and built using methods our technologies can’t match, people thousands of years later will be shaking their heads, trying to figure out why two continents are so radioactive nobody in their right mind would think of moving there.

Let’s hope someone will direct them to the ruins of legislative buildings in what used to be Washington, D.C., and they will get to read the House Resolution 758 of 2014.

New censor-in-chief speaks, and it’s scary

If you think what you send out on Twitter will remain there even after new owner Elon Musk vowed to restore sanity in the medium, think again.

President Joe Biden’s newest disinformation chief wants to edit other people’s tweets to make them read more acceptable to their liking. This is no joke: Nina Jankowicz, the just-appointed director of the just-created Disinformation Governance Board, wants reliable Twitter users help police commentary on the social media platform.

Who are the reliable people? She, and her like-minded buddies are.

How would they do it? By letting her and her like-minded buddies edit tweets that they consider to be false or misleading.

Who’s she?

Oh, meet Nina Jankowicz, former communications advisor to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Nina Jankowicz, a former Ukraine government spin doctor.

The fact U.S. Administration picked her to head up the newest censorship office says all the rest of the world need to know about its true purpose.

A few more telling details: Jankowicz’s book, How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News, and the Future of Conflict, was published in 2020 when anyone with a modicum of grey matter in their heads must have known better.

Ms. Jankowicz made her objectives known in a video that went viral within seconds of its upload. Many verified Twitter users don’t deserve to have blue-check status because they aren’t trustworthy, she said.

A slapstick to end all slapsticks

Here’s the funny part: Ms. Jankowicz’s seems to have made her pronouncements in a video conference call.

We don’t know the names of other participants, we don’t know their faces, either. Some of them wore masks during the proceedings. How awfully, perfectly considerate. But, seriously, it borders on the crazy: the conference was held using the long-distance communications application a.k.a. Zoom.

And here’s (verbatim) how she would solve it in one fell swoop: “So verified people can essentially start to edit Twitter the same sort of way that Wikipedia is so they can add context to certain tweets.”

No matter whether and, if so, when, Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter happens, the new censor-in-chief revealed her first concern: former President Donald Trump may be reinstated on the social medium, but should he tweet that the 2020 election results were based on fraud, she would have a verified user add what she calls context. Like information from lawsuits concerning the issue or comments by a state election official.

There’s a system behind this madness, in Ms. Jankowicz’s mind. The masses of the unwashed would certainly welcome getting what she defines as a fuller picture of the story instead of an individual claim made in a tweet.

Yes, such an individual may be biased in a way that does not meet Ms. Jankowicz’s lofty standards. And then what?

Of course, Twitter has been politically correct for a while: what else are the warning labels to make sure everybody is suspicious of those who question the 2020 election or the Covid-19 pandemic? In fact, Twitter already has a special reply button for users who want to disagree with another user’s claim or, as Ms. Jankowicz puts it ever so mildly, add context.

Fancy timing

It would take only two days after Elon Musk announced he was getting himself a new toy, Twitter, for U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to counter by announcing the new Disinformation Governance Board. By the way, speaking of context, the main bombshell in Musk’s announcement included words about restoring freedom of speech in the medium.

That must have horrified the “disinformation expert” in Ms. Jankowicz. The author of How to be a Woman Online is not a greenhorn so far as spreading falsehoods goes herself. Remember the New York Post October 2020 scoop on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop? A Russian influence op, so far as Ms. Jankowicz is concerned. Not only then, she still persists.

If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes a truth was Dr. Josef Goebbels’s motto. The Nazi propaganda chief found it worked for him.

Ms. Jankowicz is convinced it would work for her, too.

That’s why she is so dangerous. When she calls for social media to censor allegations that Covid-19 leaked from a Chinese lab, she means it. When she insists that online mockery of Vice-President Kamala Harris and other Democrat politicians was a threat to national security and democracy, she means it, too.

How do we know? Easy. Just read her reaction to the news of Musk’s Twitter takeover: “I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities, which are already shouldering disproportionate amounts of this abuse.”

Poor innocent yahoos of Twitter users, don’t worry, Mama Jankowicz is rushing, sword out, to the rescue.

She’s got her work cut out for her: truth is much more difficult to supress than Nina Jankowicz and her ilk think.

If they are capable of independent thinking at all, that is.

Gray Lady praises American terrorist in her death notice

Till death do us part is the motto of what used to be known as mainstream media. It’s now known as corporate media, but its ways haven’t changed one iota.

Even when it comes to obituaries for murderers so gushingly adored by the would-be intellectuals in the hallowed halls of such rags like The New York Times.

Kathy Boudin, she of the Weather Underground terrorist group fame, active participant in a 1981 attack on Brink armoured truck, died.

For those of limited memory span, herewith an encyclopaedic excerpt: the 1981 Brink’s robbery was an armed robbery, with three related murders that had been committed on October 20, 1981. Several Black Liberation Army members and four former members of the Weather Underground, now associated with the May 19th Communist Organisation, took active part.

The conspirators stole $1.6 million in cash from a Brink’s armoured car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York. They killed a Brink’s guard, Peter Paige, seriously wounded Brink’s guard Joseph Trombino, slightly wounded Brink’s truck driver guard, James Kelly, and would go on to kill two Nyack police officers, Edward O’Grady and Waverly Brown, and wound seriously Police Detective Artie Keenan.

That it shook the nation at the time seems to be quite obvious.

The Gray Lady saw fit to print the truth in their obituary for Ms. Boudin:

“Kathy Boudin, who as a member of the Weather Underground took part in the murderous 1981 holdup of a Brink’s armoured truck, died on Sunday. She was 78.”

Ooops, the editors who happened to read the obituary frowned. Can’t have that. Too much truth in one paragraph. So, they changed it to read:

“Kathy Boudin, a member of the Weather Underground imprisoned for her role in a fatal robbery but who later helped former inmates, died at 78.”

Done with a fine editing comb, it changed the text completely.

Why did they take the word “murderous” out? Too judgemental, perhaps? Well, there were three murders (and three injuries) involved, weren’t there?

In any case, “fatal robbery” does not raise as many eyebrows, especially if the new wording reads that the late Ms. Boudin played a role, instead of taking part.

Adding a charitative touch, namely, helping former inmates, makes her sound almost like a bloody saint. Murderous psychopathic ideologues usually avoid performing good works at all cost.

Good old communist mass murderer Mao Zedong was “an obscure peasant” who rose to power and “died one of history’s great revolutionary figures,” according to The New York Times, as expressed in an earlier tweet, deleted since then.

Why deleted?

Apparently, way too many started asking questions.

The Washington Post has been more principled than that: when ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Badhdadi went to see his maker, in a visit long overdue, he was an “austere religious scholar,” the Post told their readers.

So far as Iranian general Qassim Suleimani, killed in a U.S. airstrike, the Post mourned: “Qassim Suleimani, Master of Iran’s Intrigue and Force, Dies at 62.”

Compare it to The Washington Post’s parting words for former Cincinnati Bengals head coach Sam Wyche: the coach had been reprimanded for “barring a female reporter from the team’s locker room.”

As if THAT was the reason for the obituary to be published.

This is not a brand new trend. In fact, it’s frightfully logical. Just look at Ms. Boudin’s son Chesa.

His both parents behind bars, their Weather Underground brothers and sisters in terror would take care of him.

With unadulterated success, too: he’s now one of the radical leftist district attorneys bankrolled by George Soros.

Who helped raise him? Why, former President Barrack Hussein Obama’s adviser and ghost writer Bill Ayers, with his wife Bernadine Dohrn’s help.

Nobody has ever asked this intrepid couple to renounce their terror- and violence-filled past. In fact, many believe that they both have got their exalted teaching positions at University of Illinois at Chicago and Northwestern Law, respectively, specifically because of it.

What’s a bit of subterfuge in a convicted terrorist’s obituary when compared to this trend?

And, besides, de mortuis nihil nisi bonum (of the dead, [say] nothing but good). They can’t defend themselves.

If that is so, here’s some news for you: Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin and Germany’s Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler loved animals (cats for Lenin, dogs for Hitler), while Josif Stalin knew his native Georgian folk songs by heart, and his rendition of Suliko was heart-rending, by all accounts.

Burn in hell, Kathy Boudin.