Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog

The FTX Scandal Highlights Corruption and Might Usher Us into a Digital Currency

By now, almost everyone is aware that Antiguan and Barbudan-incorporated and Bahamian-based FTX has filed for bankruptcy after corrupt dealings, which has thrust the cryptocurrency market into unknown territory. Will government prioritize regulating the industry? Will this facilitate a central bank digital currency that can then be weaponized against the masses? With connections to Ukraine and the Democratic Party, will founder Sam Bankman-Fried get off scot-free (and become sam-fried)? Investigations are ongoing, but based on history, the current state of our politics, and a healthy dose of skepticism, we can be sure that there is something suspicious with this case.

After Binance liquidated half of a billion dollars’ worth of FTX’s token coin (FTT), most of the crypto world saw a downward turn in value, and Bankman-Fried’s company was unable to weather the storm that resulted. CNN, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and others have utilized this event as a political tool to call for federal regulation and to cast doubt on the cryptocurrency market as a whole. Even New York Governor Kathy Hochul, with the help of her puppet legislature, had earlier jumped on the anti-crypto bandwagon (no surprise there) by prohibiting Bitcoin mining operations from carbon-based sources, under the guise of saving the planet. The law was passed around the time that President Joe Biden had issued an executive order to have his private legislature, under the name of federal agencies and bureaucracies, begin the regulation process. This executive order, outside of congressional approval, evolved into an actual framework for doing so.

However, if critics like Warren, Biden, and Hochul looked a little deeper into the ties between FTX and the financial sector, they might learn that the ties circle back to the government itself and the partnerships that it forms with corporations. Since searching for such connections does not serve their agenda of the nanny state regulating everything under the sun, they will stick with superficial solutions to nuanced issues.

Will Bankman-Fried face criminal charges for potentially defrauding customers out of $8 billion to support his hedge fund, Alameda Research? Since he cannot be arrested promptly, like Bernie Madoff, due to an extradition requirement from the Bahamas, this case will likely drag out for some time; but his ties to the Democratic Party and Ukraine may prevent him from ever being charged. If he is charged, it may just be a distraction to keep the public’s eye off of laundering and other forms of corruption (sacrifice someone who is no longer needed, in order to keep the entire operation secret, and this could turn into a sort of Jeffrey Epstein type of situation), and since the corporate media seems fixated on the idea of bringing down this one person instead of focusing on the corporatist system of economics, there is a very good chance that cryptocurrency will get regulated without any real corruption reform.

Bankman-Fried was the second largest donor to the Democratic Party (after George Soros), and his $38 million for Democratic candidates during the recent midterm elections and $5 million to President Biden’s campaign in 2020 may just be scratching the surface. In fact, tens or hundreds of millions of dollars were transferred from Aid for Ukraine (a charitable organization supposedly formed to raise funds for the war effort) to the National Bank of Ukraine, via assistance from FTX’s cryptocurrency exchange. So what? Why does anyone care if the Ukrainian government was aided with cryptocurrency? Well, just days before the FTX scandal erupted, the Ukrainian government deleted Aid for Ukraine’s webpage and removed original content (the website was relaunched under a new version), thus raising suspicions that Kiev was aware of wrongdoings taking place or was warned that FTX was about to be destroyed. Either way, corruption in the Volodymyr Zelensky regime occurred, and if it was receiving billions of dollars from the United States government, with Bankman-Fried as the second largest donor to the Democratic Party, it is possible that American taxpayer dollars have been delivered indirectly to the Democrats’ campaigns.

If money laundering and abuse of funds to Ukraine could be proven, it would show corruption beyond anything that President Trump was impeached for (though Democrats would still consider it negligible compared to Trump’s actions, due to partisanship and Trump derangement syndrome). Furthermore, Aid for Ukraine has not reported any new earnings over the initial $60 million from April 2022, and only $54 million has been spent towards the war effort. Where did the remaining $6 million go, and what about anything additional over the $60 million? Was it invested in FTX and then laundered to the Democratic Party?

The Democratic Party and the corporate media have continually hid stories that made the Ukrainian government look bad, like the International Legion’s harassment and looting charges, the report that only 30% of weapons transfers from Washington actually reached the battlefield, and President Biden’s then intimidation and bribery against former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire the prosecutor looking into his son’s Burisma case (Trump was impeached for the exact same type of thing, but Democrats are full of double standards); so it is very likely that corruption between the American and Ukrainian officials lead to FTX. As I have said previously, our hero Zelensky is about as corrupt as they come, but many American politicians are no better.

We know that this crisis will expedite the regulation of the cryptocurrency market, since politicians cannot keep their greedy and power-hungry hands away from people’s potential financial freedom, but will this also lead us to a centralized digital currency, leading us away from the current U.S. dollar? With the privatized cryptocurrencies effectively destroyed from government action, the Federal Reserve and Department of Treasury could take a monopoly position on the crypto sphere and control what happens in that market.

Additionally, this would be an opportunity for the federal government to target political dissidents and prevent them from being able to buy or sell without the mark of the government. Oh, that is just a conspiracy theory, you may say. Well, look at what happened in Canada during the Freedom Convoy. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s regime invoked the never-before-used Emergencies Act to crush the peaceful truckers’ protest, and this included freezing the bank accounts and assets of those who participated and those who donated to the cause. If governments can temporarily declare protesters that they do not like as terrorists or insurrectionists (January 6th, anyone?) and subsequently shut off access to banking and transacting in society because of political views, why should we not think that they will implement something like this permanently?

Mastercard, Visa, and American Express already bent to our fascist society’s pressure to code firearm purchases separately and allow for the government to more easily track every gun purchase, and JP Morgan Chase shut down Kanye West’s bank account after he made politically incorrect comments. If the large corporations that have partnerships with the government are going along with the general idea that free speech, association, gun purchases, etc. can be limited, with the Bill of Rights bypassed because of partnerships with third parties, we should not have hope that large banks and corporations will save us from a centralized digital currency. Our corporatist system is alive and well (ironically, progressives are on board with tracking transactions, particularly for guns, and cutting off access to the system for those exercising free speech, and yet, they consider their opponents the fascists), and there is no reason to believe that a quasi-private system of digital currency should make the people let down their guard and rejoice that a centralized digital dollar is here. A new version of fascism is being built in this country, and the majority of the population cheers it on, as we become conditioned to accept increased limits on free speech and association (especially in the post-Covid world).

While the fact checkers are hard at work trying to convince us that a digital currency is not going to happen or be the fascist system that critics suggest it will eventually become, that same executive order that began the regulatory process for the crypto market is taking the next steps in developing a Federal Reserve digital currency. Mastercard, HSBC, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup have also partnered with the New York Federal Reserve to test out such a system (again, public-private partnerships are steering us down this path). To date, almost ninety countries are currently experimenting with a centralized digital currency, and eleven countries have already implemented one. Eventually, the whole world will adopt this concept and force a truly global economy on the public of every country, where governments can track every transaction that is ever made (unless you barter or form an alternative black-market system that will inevitably become targeted by governments, much like alcohol and marijuana used to be).

Will the people stand up to what is occurring worldwide? Will we allow one of the few things in the world that could grant us financial freedom to become regulated into oblivion? Will we celebrate the momentous achievements of a central bank digital currency and be conditioned into believing that those dirty terrorists and dissidents deserve to be shut off from society and scapegoated? The FTX scandal has brought to light a lot of corruption and the direction of our country and the world. What will we do to challenge the tyranny?

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website. This will be the last blog/article on the Goodreads platform, so please join me on Substack for future blogs, articles, and short newsletters.

Will the Oil Blockade in Haiti Help Cause Justification for Further American Intervention?

How covertly involved in Haiti is the United States? Will the federal government outright invade the western side of Hispaniola to keep its interests intact? Just like President Bill Clinton first utilized covert tactics and eventually moved to occupy Haiti in 1994 to force Jean-Bertrand Aristide back into power, after his government had been deposed by a military junta under Raoul Cédras, the Biden administration is now considering full military support to the unelected Prime Minister (and acting President) Ariel Henry to deal with the rebel leader (branded as a gangster by the West) Jimmy Cherizier (also called “Barbeque”). Will this quietly evade mainstream headlines, or will it blow up into a huge story?

What is strange about this whole ordeal is that similarly to when President Clinton supported Aristide and then President George W. Bush likely tried to overthrow the same leader in 2004 (and even possibly kidnapped him), a flip-flop of support occurred where President Trump endorsed Jovenel Moise, which led to President Biden immediately throwing support behind the unelected Henry. The details surrounding the assassination of Moise are still murky, but evidence leads to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (this is, of course, denied by the government), the Counter Terrorist Unit Federal Academy (a private firm of mercenaries), Colombian and Haitian-American mercenaries, and Ariel Henry himself.

In the midst of all of the political instability that has resulted from the assassination, the tanker incident (brought on after Prime Minister Henry removed subsidies and allowed gas and oil prices to rise, which sparked protests) may be the justification that President Biden needs to take on a more active role in Haiti. The Revolutionary Forces of the G9 Family and Allies (FRG9), led by Cherizier, captured a fuel depot section of Port-au-Prince, which prevented 10 million gallons of diesel and gasoline and 800,000 gallons of kerosene from being distributed; and this was done in order to pressure the unelected Henry to step down and bring about proper democratic procedures and freedom and the will of the people in the country (at least this is what the group claims). After intense fighting between the Haitian National Police, which was backed by personnel (in a non-combat role), armored vehicles, and equipment supplied by the United States, and the FRG9, which was fighting without foreign assistance; diplomacy ensued (though Cherizier claims that he withdrew of his own accord and did not negotiate with Henry). The standoff has subsided, thus allowing the oil and gas to flow again, but the conflict is far from over.

Probably disappointed that a good opportunity to deploy combat troops in Haiti has faded, President Biden is now looking at charging Haitian gang members for kidnapping Americans, and another window of opportunity may open there. But if not, Prime Minister Henry has repeatedly called for the United States and other nations to intervene militarily to help stabilize the country and allow himself to consolidate power without the need for an election or accountability by the people. The Biden administration may also send in covert forces (under the CIA or JSOC) to eliminate Cherizier and prevent his group from threatening the government, for good.

American intervention in Haiti has led to much political instability in the past, and even as recently as 2010 (with the earthquake response), the United Nations (which is de facto led and funded by the United States) caused a cholera outbreak that led to a minimum of 10,000 deaths (the UN has not been held accountable for this). Many of the people of Haiti despise the United States for meddling in their affairs and not allowing them to determine their own future (something that you will not hear in the corporate media). Why should the United States bully Haiti into complying with a preferred regime? Is it because the gold, oil, natural gas, copper, limestone, marble, and bauxite that sits under the land of the Caribbean island are too valuable to let go?

As we have seen from history, American economic sanctions often precede military intervention, and already, we have seen UN sanctions against Cherizier and a call for an arms embargo, as well as American and Canadian sanctions against Joseph Lambert and Youri Latortue (two politicians accused of helping criminal gangs). However, this is only the beginning of what is likely to occur. The United States generally adds to the existing sanctions of countries or groups that it does not like, and it seldom reduces them.

If the FRG9 forces continue to try to push the Henry regime into dissolving, thus leading to democratic government, we may see more calls in the United States to ramp up activities and even send military members to assist the unelected and corrupt government in Haiti (Biden actually only cares about democracy when his preferred candidates are under threat of losing elections and the term can be applied to undermine his political rivals). It will be interesting to see what happens, but as always, we will not be able to rely on honest reporting from the corporate media.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

The Federal Government’s Censorship Through Social Media Companies Is Becoming More Apparent

We have known for some time that the federal government, and particularly the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), have been working with social media companies to censor information; but The Intercept has released even more chilling details on what is occurring. Since the corporate media in the United States has been parroting the talking points of the regime, it is no surprise that journalists, who are supposed to pride themselves on investigating the truth and discovering controversial facts, have remained silent on this issue and refused to cover it. This should be a top story, up there with Edward Snowden’s important work on revealing information on unconstitutional spying conducted by our federal government.

A few months ago, Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted that the government was “flagging problematic posts,” and the emails from the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) Anthony Fauci divulged that he was collaborating with Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg to eliminate information that was unfavorable to the created narrative. However, since then, a lawsuit by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, which would force Fauci and Biden administration officials to testify under oath about the government-corporate partnership, has allowed for additional documents to drop. If we can get a favorable ruling, the case may provide undeniable proof that Fauci and the White House were involved in unconstitutional censorship and that the government conducted a disinformation campaign against the American public, while simultaneously claiming that anyone who questioned or challenged the narrative was spreading disinformation.

In The Intercept’s article and right off the bat (pun sort of intended), we are provided with a quote from former DHS official and now executive at Microsoft (the revolving door of government-corporate partnerships is real) Matt Masterson that said to a current DHS official, “Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain.” This implies that social media companies are becoming more and more wings of the federal government and less private companies, which means that the First Amendment would apply. Laura Dehmlow of the FBI suggested that information arbitrarily deemed as dangerous could cause people to have less faith in our institutions, and therefore, the government needs to take an active role in influencing the narrative and removing unfavorable information from the general discussion. This dystopian attitude is in line with historical totalitarian regimes. The difference is that those governments needed to overtly silence dissidents, whereas nowadays, the government can covertly censor what it does not like.

But, how exactly is this being done? Independent media, like The Intercept, is still trying to piece together all of the details and use evidence provided to formulate reasonable conclusions (something that is deemed as conspiracy thinking by the corporate media and many progressive pundits). However, what we do know now is that a portal was set up to allow officials in the government to determine which content needed to be censored or could only be viewed after bypassing a warning label. Since the government could very easily threaten or punish social media companies, Facebook would, of course, feel obligated to comply. It can no longer be argued (and even when it was previously, it was shortsighted) that Facebook and others are private companies and can decide what content they moderate, since we now know with certainty that the decisions are being made by the government itself. Just because the government is restricting free speech covertly or through third parties does not mean that the First Amendment is not being violated.

So, what topics is the government, and particularly the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) censoring? Well, from what we know so far, this would include anything related to Covid-19 (and previously the Wuhan laboratory leak theory) and the vaccines, the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the concept of racial justice, and unconditional support to Ukraine. This would make sense, being that the unvaccinated were scapegoated in society and fired from their jobs, anyone questioning the narrative in Ukraine was considered a Putin propagandist or agent, and if you disagreed with the concept of white privilege or oppression based on skin color, you were called a white supremacist. We have to keep everyone believing the same Orwellian narrative and keep the masses in lockstep.

When did the draconian crackdown on misinformation begin? It seems like just yesterday that the government and media were using the term “fake news” to describe conspiracy theories and what they considered to be false information, but we only heard about it every so often. Now, we hear the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” almost every day. What has changed? Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, LinkedIn, Discord, Reddit, Wikipedia, and Verizon began meeting monthly with members of the FBI and CISA (among others) in 2020 to discuss the concept of misinformation and what to do with it, and prior to this in 2018, President Donald Trump signed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act into law, thus setting up the framework for the newly created CISA to monitor information and request platforms to censor certain items. DHS was then able to build on this precedent by constructing the Countering Foreign Influence Task Force (CFITF) and the Foreign Influence and Interference Branch to gather intelligence and connect it to disinformation campaigns. CISA would be provided alleged misinformation from platforms, and DHS would then set up a process to direct social media companies on information that the government did not want staying online and would have to be removed (the social media companies would have to act quickly and efficiently to the government’s requests, thus causing pressure to take down the information). This was all established under President Trump, but the Biden administration would take it even further.

Instead of using the former president’s CFITF, President Joe Biden created the “Misinformation, Disinformation and Malinformation” team, which would transition a largely foreign intelligence gathering operation to one that monitored information on average Americans. We know that the Biden administration and the FBI have been unconstitutionally targeting the so-called ultra MAGA fascists and those utilizing the Gadsden flag and symbols of the American Revolution or the Second Amendment; but we now have an active spy unit meant to circumvent the First Amendment. The Biden administration continues to expand its disinformation operation by incorporating the Customs and Border Protection, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Science and Technology Directorate, and the Secret Service (as I have previously reported, even the Post Office took part in intelligence gathering). The DHS has even backed away from counterterrorism operations and transitioned many of its resources towards the war against misinformation, foreshadowing an al-Qaeda-type operation against dissidents of the regime.

Even the FBI has spent millions of dollars on software (Babel X and Dataminr) that can track social media posts, and this came after the agency flat out lied and said that it was disinformation that the FBI was monitoring Americans’ posts. It has also been reported that the FBI has infiltrated chatrooms, blogs, and forums to search for dangerous information and plots (meaning that the FBI likely knew about the January 6th incident and did nothing to stop it, or it participated in it in a case of entrapment), and despite an active investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop, the agency requested that social media companies take down anything related to it ahead of the 2020 election, lying and saying that it was Russian disinformation. If our government is involved in disinformation itself, how are we to trust that what it flags as disinformation is actually false?

The government monitoring our information based on political affiliation, censoring information that is unfavorable to the narrative, and participating in covert spying and entrapment missions in collaboration with social media companies violate the First and Fourth Amendments. The government may not like what we have to say, but it does not have the right to tell us what we can or cannot say. Not only is the government actively censoring information, but if people become aware of this, it will cause a chilling effect and prevent people from feeling safe to be themselves and say what is on their minds (this already exists after the Snowden leaks). It is a dangerous road that we are heading down, and we must stay vigilant and challenge the misdeeds of our government, as our freedom depends on it.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

The Propaganda and Nuclear Conditioning Continue with Ukraine and Russia

While the United States and South Korea conduct military drills and simultaneously condemn North Korea for launching approximately thirty missiles, Iran allegedly threatens American troops in Iraq (yes, we still have troops there) and Saudi Arabian territory, and Turkey and Greece (both NATO members) exchange fire in the Aegean Sea and spar over islands; the war in Ukraine rages on. According to Western media, the Ukrainians are kicking Russians out of cities, such as Kherson, left and right, and they are blowing up Russia’s ships in the Black Sea and aircraft over the battlefield. However, the same media is crying that Russia is pounding Ukraine’s electrical grid and causing 4.5 million citizens to be without power (and many more from blackouts). So, is Ukraine winning, or not? Perhaps it should be considered shortsighted to make predictions on the end results, but we are now in a place where objectivity on the war is not on full display by government officials or news anchors.

With the Biden administration conditioning the public to accept a future nuclear war with Russia, we need to see past the propaganda if we are to avoid falling for the traps set by our master manipulators. Just like the false accusation that Russia blew up its own pipeline did not resonate with the American public, and the story has since disappeared from the headlines, Russia is preparing us with the possibility that the Ukrainian government may conduct a false flag operation to blame on Russian forces and drum up Western support for the cause. Of course, a low-yield nuclear attack (also called a dirty bomb) has been laughed off by the corporate media and its government allies, but if such an attack were to transpire, we can be sure that the finger will be pointed at Vladimir Putin, and him only (nobody will be allowed to question if it were actually Ukraine or an American ally).

Yet, the United States government utilizes or endorses false flags all the time (the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines come to mind right away), and it seems more rational to think that Ukraine would benefit the most from a nuclear attack, as this would be a sure way to get immediate lethal assistance from the United States and Europe. It is difficult to understand what Russia would gain from releasing a dirty bomb, being that the weapon would do little health or infrastructure damage and certainly cause the world to come down hard on Putin. Volodymyr Zelensky better think carefully before killing his own people for a political agenda, since this could easily backfire.

This is similar to when he was thinking of blowing up the Nova Kakhovka dam, which he was trying to accuse Russia of targeting, but thankfully, this false flag never came into fruition. One of these days, some kind of false flag attack will likely stick and be blamed on Russia, and we will be hearing it all over the media as the worst catastrophe in human history, after January 6th, of course.

Ukraine, which bombed the bridge linking Crimea to the rest of Russia and then had a fit that Russia would dare retaliate against its infrastructure, accused Russia of “weaponizing food” when it threatened (but ended up recanting on later) to terminate the Turkish mediated grain deal. With no surprise, the Biden administration echoed Zelensky’s accusations of the weaponization. As I have stated previously, it is a double standard to praise Ukraine’s attacks against Russia but condemn similar moves by Putin. If it were not so deadly, the hypocrisy would be quite comical. This is exactly why it is imperative that Americans do their own critical thinking and do not blindly follow the narrative.

In addition to seeing through the lies and manipulation from the corporate media and government officials, we should be aware that American troops operating in Ukraine is a provocative move that Vladimir Putin will certainly respond to in some capacity, and although President Biden announced a withdrawal of American troops in Ukraine back in February, it would be naïve to believe that all of the special forces exited completely. As a matter of fact, it was admitted that the CIA continues to conduct covert operations in the war-torn country. On top of that, Russia has outright accused the United States of sending mercenaries to Ukraine, saying that some of them have died at the hands of Russian troops. Of course, the United States would never send mercenaries to do its bidding, and the Blackwater (now Academi) concept is just a myth (and President Trump sending mercenaries to Venezuela was equally fabled).

Well, if American troops are not directing the Ukrainian military on what Russian targets to hit or training the military on how to use HIMARS (uh, huh), we can rest assured knowing that the United States Army’s 101st Airborne Division has been deployed to Europe for the first time since World War II. The troops were sent there to assist in the large-scale exercises, which have caused no controversy whatsoever, and prepare for war, if any NATO country comes under threat. Of course, there is absolutely nothing to worry about with having these specialized soldiers in Romania, right near the Ukraine border. It is just a show of force, and if there is some type of misunderstanding where they accidentally engage with Russian troops, it will be a minor setback. Heading towards nuclear war is no big deal, after all, because we are being conditioned to accept it.

But wait! There is more! The Biden administration has now outright acknowledged that the American military is, in fact, inside of Ukraine. However, this is only because it needs to account for the billions of dollars in weapons that it has sent over there, and there would be no need for them to take up arms and shoot back at Russians.

Could it be that the administration wants to make sure that its weapons are not being utilized by far-right nationalists, which are embedded into the Ukrainian armed forces, to engage in violence and intimidation against ethnic Russians (if we used common sense or went back in time to when Trump was in office, we would call these groups Nazis, but our Orwellian newspeak does not allow for such terms to be applied to our allies)? No, our government is concerned that the weapons may end up in the black market, or like similarly to our efforts in Afghanistan and Syria, they may end up in the hands of our enemies (the Russians, in this case).

While there may be some good intentions here, I cannot help but think that this is a way for the Biden administration to gradually introduce more and more American troops in Ukraine until we get to the point where we are overtly engaged in the war (or, as some may speculate, it is to get prepared for large shipments of arms before Republicans take back the House of Representatives and slow down the foreign aid). Either way, this is a dangerous game to play.

Are we edging closer to World War III? If we continue down this path, it seems very likely. Reportedly, Russia has been preparing its civilians for nuclear war, the Pentagon has suggested that it may change its policies to utilize nuclear retaliation against non-nuclear threats, the United States military has announced its nuclear submarine between Moscow and Beijing as an intimidation tactic, Finland is considering allowing for American nuclear weapons on its territory, Russian generals have strategized how they would use nuclear weapons against Ukraine and the West, and a former NATO commander (Richard Shirreff) said that the United States and Europe need to prepare for direct war with Russia. You be the judge.

However, there are signs that war may be averted, as Russia has signaled that it is ready to negotiate a deal that would likely leave Ukraine out of NATO and keep Crimea, and perhaps Donetsk and Luhansk, under Russian control. However, the stubborn Zelensky has made it clear that negotiations with Putin would not be acceptable (remember the mantra of “we do not negotiate with terrorists”) and that Ukraine would only be willing to see the surrender of Russian forces, with Crimea and the Donbass under full Ukrainian control. Therefore, Zelensky is willing to risk the lives of his countrymen for his own arrogance and agenda. He would not accept a fair and monitored referendum to let the people of those territories determine who is to govern them, and because of this, the war will likely drag on for months, with American taxpayer dollars moving overseas and to defense contractors. At least the military-industrial complex is happy.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Alex Jones’ Cost of Speaking His Mind Was Unreasonable, But Rachel Maddow Will Never Be Held Accountable for Lies About Covid-19

Yippee, we got the kingpin of disinformation to have to pay almost one billion dollars! Yay for us as a society that supposedly values free speech but really wants to eliminate opinions that run contrary to the constructed narrative! If $965 million were not enough money for the greedy family members of the slain Sandy Hook shooting victims, they now want to sue Alex Jones for an additional $2.75 trillion (not million or billion, but trillion) in punitive damages. This is ridiculous, being that even O.J. Simpson’s civil trial for the actual murder of two people only awarded $33.5 million (not trillion or billion, but million), and by that standard, the commentator could have killed twenty-eight children himself (or 82,000 children, if the larger punitive damages end up being awarded).

This insane injustice shows just how propagandized the public is, and it is astounding that people’s hatred of Jones clouds their judgment (with attempts to get him to have to pay almost 9% of the entire country’s debt, which, of course, is really just to prove a point that you are not free to say what you want). People are willing to throw away the concept of free speech and trade it for a never-ending chilling effect that will haunt political pundits into the future, but yes, let us continue believing that we are permitted to speak our minds (you may speak your mind, as long as you do not offend certain people or challenge the narrative or status quo).

Was Alex Jones wrong about the families and victims having been crisis actors? Yes, he was. Should he have turned over documents to the court to determine if he had profited off of the false information pertaining to the Connecticut massacre? Of course, he should have. Can tort law and civil suits be positive ways to deter action and punish wrongdoers? Yes, they can, however, this excessive ruling will set a bad precedent that we can see already taking shape, as Kanye West is now being sued for $250 million for claiming that George Floyd died largely because of drugs in his system (an initial autopsy did, indeed, conclude that drugs contributed to the death, but it appears that the most significant cause was the action by the police officers on the scene). Even though the rapper had donated money to the family after the wrongful death by abusive police officers, the family seemingly jumped on the anti-speech train in order to improve their financial situation.

In conjunction with the federal government-social media partnership during the pandemic and President Joe Biden’s domestic war on terror against his ultra-MAGA rivals, we are now in a dangerous world of being reduced to walking on eggshells to be able to say anything remotely controversial. But, this is what the sheepish public desires, because it wants Big Brother to protect it from offensive information (we have strayed so far from the concept we learned as kids: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”).

When will we expect class action lawsuits against Anthony Fauci, Rachel Maddow, and others for claiming that the Covid-19 vaccine stopped the transmission of the virus? Maddow even went as far as to suggest that the virus “stops with every vaccinated person,” and yet, countless people lost their jobs and livelihoods because of these false statements. Where are the victims’ $965 million in damages? We should not hold our breath that these commentators and public figures will be made to stand in front of a jury and pay back Americans for their troubles. News anchors in the corporate media, bureaucrats, and officials, who are protected by the government and propaganda, will get off without even the slightest mention that Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, admitted that the pharmaceutical company did not even test for the vaccine’s ability to block transmission. She made up the excuse that they had to “move at the speed of science” (whatever dogmatic concept that is supposed to represent), and being that this vaccine was the most profitable product in human history, it is more likely that they needed to roll out the product as quickly as possible before the virus faded away. They wanted to ram it into as many arms as possible, without regard for the side effects (like maybe young and healthy athletes collapsing during sporting events and a new category of death called “unknown causes of death”?).

Many will forget about the hell that our elites and officials put us through over the past couple of years, while they got to continue their luxurious lives in taxpayer-funded mansions and ignore distancing and masking rules (their hypocrisy should never be forgotten). They lied to us about the duration and effectiveness of lockdowns. They lied to us about the origins of the virus. They lied to us about the communal importance of the vaccines. During all of this propaganda and disinformation to push profits on behalf of Big Pharma, they censored information through social media companies and demonized and scapegoated those who challenged the narrative. They silenced talk of cheap drugs, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, while praising deadly but profitable ones, like remdesivir. They attempted to cancel Joe Rogan for endorsing a “horse paste” that won a Noble Peace Prize for use in human beings (Rachel Maddow was again on the frontlines of pushing a disinformation campaign against ivermectin, and to my knowledge, she still has not retracted her blatantly false reporting on the incident). Our bureaucratic friends under the Trump and Biden administrations attempted to suppress conversations about the Wuhan laboratory leak theory, at the behest of Fauci and Francis Collins, the director of the NIH (National Institutes of Health), only to allow questioning on the topic later on when it was finally deemed as acceptable by the current president.

For the record, I do not advocate for suing news anchors who spread lies on behalf of our elites, because on principle, we would be no better than those we condemn, if we were to reduce our thinking and actions to their level. However, we should broadcast the lies and make this information readily available. Maybe we should not attempt to collect damages from Rachel Maddow, nor silence her future work, but we should pressure her to issue an apology and make sure that every American knows what she did. On the other hand, government officials and bureaucrats, who forced mandates on the population, should be held accountable and have to pay for the harm that they have caused to people who lost their jobs and livelihoods, and the propaganda that led many to become irrationally engulfed in fear needs to be exposed, which would then lead to the downfall of the regimes that pushed these lies and the loss of positions for anyone involved.

Instead, as a society, we demonize people who fly the Gadsden flag, advocate for the Second Amendment, believe that Covid-19 measures were excessive and that the 2020 election was stolen, and independently investigated information that may have later been proven incorrect. It is a sad state of affairs when public enemy number one is the body of the people that question the actions of its government, and the heroes are those who oppress us with a monopoly on “truth.”

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

The Crimean Bridge and NATO Exercise Hypocrisy

As we continue to be bombarded with news headlines suggesting that Russia is in retreat and losing on a massive scale in Ukraine, coverage of the Nord Stream pipeline explosions is almost completely nonexistent. I wonder why. Could it be that the Biden administration is unable to convince the world that Russia would destroy its own pipeline and that not speaking on the issue would make everyone forget about a terrorist attack committed by NATO? Well, since nobody thinks that it is important to address this issue anymore, let us move on to the Kerch Strait Bridge explosions and the NATO nuclear weapons drills. Both events highlight the hypocrisy and arrogance on the part of the United States government, and at a time like this, needless provocations that could cause World War III seem misplaced.

Right after the Ukrainian government damaged the bridge connecting Crimea with Russia proper, the move was praised by Americans and Ukrainians (there were even jokes about how it was cloudy in Crimea but sunny in Ukraine, and it was slightly funny that Volodymyr Zelensky chose Vladimir Putin’s birthday to conduct the attack), but Russia came back with a vengeance by destroying large portions of Ukraine’s infrastructure (were Iranian-made drones utilized?), including over 30% of the power grid and portions of the water supply system. Of course the latter strikes were condemned by the West, with the deaths of Russians commuting on the bridge being viewed positively. Ukraine is allowed to destroy Russian infrastructure, but Russia better not do anything to harm Ukraine’s systems. Now, I would prefer it if neither side caused damage to the other, but it is just the hypocrisy of the Biden administration and its European counterparts that should make one question what is truly taking place. The propaganda is astounding.

Even though the Russian government claims that the attack on the bridge was from a Ukrainian truck bomb, could it have really been from a strike by an aerial or underwater drone provided by the United States? Was the CIA or JSOC involved? If the United States or another NATO member were directly responsible, this would be an escalation that Putin would be unlikely to ignore.

Ukraine also went as far as to bomb border towns within Russian territory, including Belgorod, which left a few Russian citizens dead and disrupted the region’s rail system. Although it is a war zone and casualties and destruction are to be expected, again, you cannot praise the loss of life of your enemies and condemn such deaths when your enemy strikes you back. The logic of this war would be hilarious if it were not for the amount of people dying on both sides, especially because the actor Zelensky was caught delivering a speech behind a green screen pretending to be in an active war zone.

When President Biden is not giving his blessing for Putin to remain in power if he leaves Ukraine, which shows the height of arrogance of our leaders (why does the United States get to determine who is permitted to serve in other countries?), he is preparing his troops for nuclear warfare in Europe. Both the United States and Russia have been exchanging heated words, as Putin has suggested that he will defend Russian territory (including the newly annexed regions of Ukraine) with nuclear weapons and Biden has hinted at a coming “Armageddon,” but actions backed up by those words are what is really difficult to swallow. As I have been saying for months, the Biden administration is doing everything to bring about nuclear war while appearing to want to avoid it (a Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt approach).

Well, Biden could have an opportunity to force Americans to shoot Russians directly with the upcoming NATO exercise in Belgium, the United Kingdom, and the North Sea. It appears that our leaders are either not considering what could go wrong with practicing war in Russia’s backyard, or they are welcoming to the idea of increased bloodshed (blood for profit). The event involving troops from thirty nations, sixty aircraft, B-52 bombers, nuclear-capable fighter jets, and nuclear war games is considered hostile by Russia, and perhaps right now would not be the best time to continue with the regularly scheduled show. Yet, we will continue to condemn Putin for making nuclear comments while engaging in nuclear preparations ourselves.

You could try to act tough and say that you will conduct the exercises no matter what, in order to not look weak in front of your enemy, or you could take the mature path and keep Americans safe from nuclear annihilation. I choose the latter, but war hawks rule this country. Russia may be engaging in its own nuclear weapons simulations soon, and if so, the chances of a misunderstanding or accidental discharge would be more likely to occur. Right now, intentionally provoking a nuclear power seems imprudent, but arrogance will likely win out in the end.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Missiles Over Japan on the Korean Front of the Global Conflict?

As if tensions between the United States and Russia over the Ukraine crisis were not enough to get one wondering if our leaders were trying to get us involved in World War III, we have the United States and China sparring over Taiwan and the South China Sea, Russia-backed Armenia engaging in conflict with Turkey-backed Azerbaijan, the Ethiopian and Eritrean forces attempting to subdue the Tigray region, increased Israeli-Palestinian fighting, civil conflict in Sri Lanka, and protests in Germany, Czech Republic, and Netherlands over unrealistic environmental regulations and shortages of oil (largely due to NATO’s aggressive tactics in Ukraine). However, one of our usual trouble spots on the globe is, of course, the Korean Peninsula. This issue has taken a backseat to the European theater of the new global conflict, but the Asian front does have the potential to cause an Archduke Franz Ferdinand moment that could then allow other countries to more confidently pursue their imperial and nationalistic ambitions. The world is fragile right now, and the Biden administration’s moves are a bit too aggressive for comfort.

After Kim Jong-un’s missile test over Japan, which prompted emergency broadcasts to citizens of the islands, with a new version of the Hwasong-12 or KN-23 (based on Russia’s Iskander), the West went into full condemnation mode, and although it is improper and deplorable to cause alarm and send weapons over enemy airspace, we should look at what North Korea used as justification for the provocation. As is normally the case, North Korea’s missile launches tend to coincide with joint American-South Korean exercises that are deemed as a threat to the northern half of the peninsula, and this case was no exception. In fact, the twenty-fifth round of missile tests this year (involving over forty missiles, year-to-date) occurred immediately after two sets of exercises were performed between the United States and South Korea (and one with Japan), including with the nuclear-powered USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier. Even the corporate media cannot hide the fact that these drills are the reason for the missile launches (wording will be manipulated to make the United States look innocent, and the huge detail of American aggression will be relegated to a few words in the article), but yet, American presidents cannot refrain from participating in the military invasion simulations, air targeting practice, and nuclear weapon scenarios (the exercises are defensive in nature, of course, so no worries).

In response to Kim’s reckless move, the United States Departments of Treasury and State, outside of congressional approval, issued new economic sanctions to prevent two Singaporean companies, as well as one from the Marshall Islands, from delivering refined petroleum to the isolated nation (they had been avoiding preexisting sanctions). Never mind that sanctions are an act of war (remember when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to cut off Japan’s access to oil before the Pearl Harbor attack?), but we have been living the same cycle since well before I was born: American exercises, missile tests in response, sanctions to punish the missile tests, and repeat (except in the brief but unsuccessful pause under the Trump administration). How long will this continue until we realize that our tactics have failed (as Albert Einstein may have opined, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”)?

What may be different, however, about this particular set of missile launches is that Kim Jong-un got the approval (how difficult it must be) for a new law that establishes North Korea as a permanent nuclear state, with the chance for preemptive nuclear strikes under certain circumstances, and the missile test over Japan (hardly unprecedented, being that this was also done in 2017) and onslaught of other ballistic missiles were likely a practice run for real-world nuclear strikes in the event that this becomes a reality. In fact, Kim stated as much when he suggested that his nuclear forces were simulating nuclear battlefield tactics (with roughly 150 North Korean aircraft flying in a show of force), which would not only prepare the nation for an invasion from the south, but the mindset is to frighten Japan and South Korea and bring the United States to the negotiating table to end some of the sanctions (something that is unlikely to occur). All this really did was bring the Ronald Reagan back to the region for additional exercises, which will then continue the endless cycle of lunacy and failed diplomacy. If the United States government really wants to end the nuclear threat, stop engaging in aggressive exercises and renew President Donald Trump’s previous talks. This will not happen, though, as the Biden administration is too arrogant to allow for peace (as we have witnessed with the Ukraine crisis).

Will the cold war in Korea freeze over, or will the thawing of reciprocal military exercises cause a fire that ignites into a conflict that kills thousands, or millions, of people? Or worse, will the fire spread around and rip an already paper-thin global situation? The alliances of a third world war are beginning to be formed (make sure you pick the better team, and do not get picked last by the captains), and the situation in Korea is just one theater in what historians will later classify as a period of tensions unseen since World War II and the Cold War. The future is not set in stone, though, and we may yet prevent nuclear annihilation, but the Biden administration (as well as Vladimir Putin and others) needs to be willing to cooperate and understand perspectives outside of the American hegemony that has existed for many years. The monopolar world order is ending, and a new era is beginning. Can we at least negotiate peace between Pyongyang and Seoul before it is too late? Let us hope so.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Who Was Responsible for the Nord Stream Attacks, and Will This, In Conjunction with the “Sham” Referendums, Bring Us into World War III?

All we heard for weeks leading up to the referendums in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson Oblasts was that they would be a “sham” (a new buzzword to be parroted by the corporate media), and even though there is no willingness in the West to consider that the people of eastern Ukraine could actually want to join Russia, we now hear the echoes that Vladimir Putin is ready to use nuclear weapons to defend these regions. Since President Joe Biden has stated that the referendums are a violation of international law and illegitimate, unconditional American support for Volodymyr Zelensky’s government will continue, thus extending the war. Zelensky has now officially sent a formal request for NATO membership, which, if accepted, will mean direct and nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Russia will not back down from protecting its new claimed territories, and the United States and Ukraine will continue fighting to recapture them. Apart from a diplomatic solution, continuing casualties and destruction will be the result, and Zelensky is asking for President Biden to sacrifice Americans on his behalf, while he refuses to negotiate a peace deal (you are either with us or against us, and there is no nuance allowed). Invoking Article 5 of NATO’s charter over Ukraine would not be a matter for joking.

As far as the referendums are concerned, American officials have provided no evidence that they were bogus, and if it knew that Russia would manipulate the results, why would it not share what it knows with the public? Simply suggesting that they had to be fake because that is what Russia does is not a satisfactory argument, especially given the constant lying and manipulation on the part of the United States government. Maybe the Biden administration knew that the will of the people of the four regions of Ukraine was to reunite with Russia, and since it did not like that idea, it planted a marketing campaign to cast doubt on the legitimacy.

Either way, if the will of the people of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson is really to secede and “alter or abolish” the form of governance over them (as is stated in the Declaration of Independence), why should we stop them? We argue that we care about the will of the people, until that concept is inconvenient for our agendas. Remember that according to the modern globalist logic, France invaded Great Britain and desecrated British territorial integrity during the American Revolution (what we would now call a violation of international law), and plus, let us not play the moral high ground here, as the United States government (under presidents from both parties) have committed atrocities overseas and invaded or participated in covert operations in countless countries. The increased tensions between the United States and Russia are a serious threat to all people on the planet, but what happened with the Nord Stream pipelines has the potential to bring us over the threshold.

There has been much speculation as to who is responsible for the three simultaneous explosions in both the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines. Of course, the West blames Russia, and Russia blames the United States and Europe, but the facts of the incident remain unclear.

It is possible that Russia could have sabotaged the pipelines, as it is currently playing hardball with Europe by utilizing its leverage of oil control (part of the reason that the first pipeline had stalled in transporting oil is due to American and European sanctions that prevent the necessary parts from reaching the system), and economic terrorism has been committed by both sides (the European people are the real victims of government and geopolitics). Alternatively, Russian operatives could have used the explosions as a false flag to raise global sentiment against the United States, but in order for this option to be viable, Russia would have to do a better job in its accusations against the Biden administration (so far, Putin has said very little and has not made a huge global deal about it). Plus, the Kremlin, knowing that much of the world already views its country negatively, would likely not take the risk of exposing its ill deeds and creating even more hatred towards the motherland.

Why would Russia destroy its own infrastructure that it spent massive amounts of money building and relied on for oil revenue, just to make a point that would not end up being all that beneficial (the West is not going to stop sending arms to Ukraine, so it is not convincing to suggest that this was Russia’s motivation)? If it wanted to freeze the German people and bring Berlin and Washington to the negotiating table, why would it not just turn off the pipeline from within Russia, without causing the need for expensive repairs? It does not really make sense for Russia to have sabotaged its own pipeline. Plus, since the pipeline leaks were in the Baltic Sea and completely within NATO territory, if Russian agents were able to avoid detection by one of the most powerful intelligence and military alliances in history, perhaps the organization is not such a formidable force after all.

If Russia did not cause the pipelines to explode, who did? Well, we can be pretty sure that it was not Germany or the Czech Republic, as both countries have been experiencing massive protests over surging prices and the potential shortage of oil, and an incident like this would certainly make the energy crisis worse (and, of course, The New York Times has to try to equate these protesters with far-right extremists and Putin sympathizers, because anyone who opposes a friendly regime or Biden’s interests is a fascist, conspiracy theorist, and domestic terrorist). It also appears likely that Germany had no idea that the attack would occur, being that the CIA had to alert Berlin to potential terrorist attacks (suggesting that the agency was more knowledgeable of what was happening than the German government).

What about Ukraine? Could Zelensky, desperate for more weapons and equipment, have sabotaged the pipelines to gain more support (for a war effort that he is apparently winning by a huge margin, if you ask the corporate media)? It may seem unlikely that Ukraine would have the technological capability to pull off something like this, but the British government did recently supply Kiev with six autonomous lightweight underwater drones, so is it possible that the country schemed to create a false flag that could be used to bring the United States and NATO closer to a combat role on the battlefield? Still, Ukraine is too occupied with fighting off Russian forces to tie up its resources, so unless Zelensky was so committed to pressuring the West to provide more assistance that he would sacrifice his own readiness capability, it was probably not Ukraine.

Who would have the motive to commit such a heinous act? Could it have been Norway, Denmark, Sweden, or Poland? On the day after the explosions, the Baltic Pipe pipeline, which is an oil highway from Norway to Poland (through Denmark), opened for business. Poland may have been seeking revenge after Russia terminated its oil supply for refusing to purchase in rubles, and now an alternative pipeline exists that can starve Russian oil revenue and allow Poland to lead the way in coercing Europe to diminish its reliance on its enemy. If this was done as a plot to make Norway, Denmark, and Poland the top dogs in oil redistribution in Europe, this could mean a rift in the European Union, being that other countries, and particularly Germany (and its people), will suffer this winter because of Poland’s economic ploy. It is a bit suspicious that Swedish and Danish officials are preventing anyone from investigating the pipelines, and is it possible that a cover up and clearing of evidence are being conducted so that the world cannot know the truth about what transpired?

If Poland was responsible for the attacks, it would not be the first time that it obstructed progress on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, as an incident of Naval interference occurred in 2021 while construction was still underway. However, even if Poland did it, the United States government would have known that it was going to happen, or perhaps the Biden administration orchestrated the whole maneuver.

A member of the European Parliament for Poland, Radoslaw Sikorski, took to social media to show a picture of the leaking pipelines and thank the United States for its involvement. Despite the words being black and white and open on the internet (“thank you, USA”), the post was classified as “Russian disinformation” by Polish officials (a common theme by governments that do not want their dirty deeds exposed). As mentioned previously, the CIA warned Germany that an attack might occur, and it is possible that this was a measure taken in order to make itself look like it tried to stop the attack, but if one of the most sophisticated intelligence agencies in the world really wanted to stop the explosions, it would have done so. Maybe the CIA knew that the attack would occur because it was involved. We do have a whole laundry list of covert operations conducted by the agency to push political agendas in other countries, so it would not be unprecedented that the United States would conduct such an operation, as Sikorski suggested.

Practice runs of unmanned underwater vehicles (think of the UK-provided drones) were being conducted by the United States Navy near Bornholm, Denmark, which is very close to where the explosions occurred; and a MH-60S helicopter (which has the ability to detect submarines, mines, and underwater pipelines) was flying along the route of the pipeline at the time of the explosions. Was the Navy (and perhaps the Sixth Fleet that was in the Baltic Sea at the time) conducting more than just routine operations? It remains unclear, but if there is motive, we can make a pretty good assumption here.

Would the Biden administration intentionally conduct such an act of terrorism? Do not forget that back around February when the president predicted Putin’s invasion, he and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland (yes, this is the same woman who was involved in the American-backed coup in 2014 against the democratically-elected government under Viktor Yanukovych) confidently declared that “one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” To be clear, these statements do not prove that the United States was responsible for the attacks, but given the history of our government’s involvement in global events, in conjunction with the motivation to pressure Germany into abandoning the second pipeline project, it would seem the most likely scenario. Those right-wing extremists in Germany were not happy about the upcoming winter gas shortages, so the German government may have felt as if it needed to renegotiate talks with Russia to ramp up oil deliveries, but now, this will likely not be an option.

The Biden administration got its way on the Nord Stream pipelines, and now it can continue on its quest to sink the Kremlin and break Russia into smaller republics or force a change in leadership. I have been writing about American aggression towards Russia for years, but the president’s eagerness to force Americans to accept being killed in World War III is disturbing (even if the pipeline was not America’s doing, the president has been doing everything to bring us closer to direct war with Russia, regardless of what he claims). In addition, climate change agendas may be a factor for why the United States government would want to sabotage the pipelines, as this would mean less oil in circulation, and if awareness is raised on how bad the leaks are for the environment, there may be more of a push towards cleaner sources of energy, even if such changes are not economically feasible at this time.

It is difficult to know who was responsible for the Nord Stream explosions, but currently, I am leaning towards an American-Polish collaboration. The final verdict is still out there somewhere, and it is unlikely that the truth will ever be fully known. I am sure that our corporate media and fact checkers will not consider this a coincidence (like they do with the over 100 food processing plants that have mysteriously caught fire over the last few months), since blaming Russia is something that can be accomplished with the sabotage argument. Either way, the implications of this incident will be great, and history will remember what happened, regardless of who is telling the story.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

The Russian Psychopath Is About to Nuke Ukraine and the West?

After seeing all of the headlines about how Russia was so irresponsible because it occupied the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and how Ukrainian forces had to be careful when conducting its strikes (good news, folks: the crisis has been averted, as the plant has been disconnected), we now have been bombarded with headlines suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin is on a suicide mission to destroy the West. Yup, you heard that right. The psychopath wants to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, which then would inevitably cause the United States and its puppet states in Europe to have to reluctantly respond in kind. According to former CIA officer, Robert Baer, “The chances of his [Putin] using nuclear weapons — at least tactical nuclear weapons — is going up by the day.” I mean, Russia cannot let the thousands of square miles that have been reportedly recaptured over the last few weeks continue under Kiev’s control, right? Since Putin has absolutely no chance of winning the war, according to the corporate media, he has to resort to nukes.

But wait! Did the Russian leader not announce a partial mobilization of 300,000 reservists (implying that his main forces were not previously engaging in the conflict, which runs contrary to media reports that Putin was almost out of troops to send to Ukraine, but what is a little media white lie when the population needs to be brainwashed to accept an agenda?)? Since Russia is mobilizing more of its forces, we can infer that the war is far from over and that this minor counteroffensive that Americans have cheered on is a small victory in the grand scheme of things.

So, if Russia really does have an army of 25 million reservists that could be called up, if need be, why would American officials and news reporters suggest that Putin is not able to continue the fight and would gladly risk the existence of his country and the lives of his citizens? Why would they manipulate the situation to make it seem as if Putin is bent on his own destruction? The short of it is that this is all propaganda created to ensure that Americans have not forgotten about their obligation to send taxpayer dollars to defense contractors and to rally around the flag, just in case the Biden administration needs his minions to go fight in some far away lands. As I have written previously, it appears that the Biden administration is taking the Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt approach of manipulating Russia into making the first move, in order to gain justification for a new global war.

The president does not currently have enough pro-war sentiment in the United States for Americans to sign away their lives for Ukraine or Europe, but if something can be orchestrated (whether by a false flag or active manipulation that leads to Russia taking a step that is viewed as heinous), the Biden administration may just find the war that it desires (I mean, sending countless weapons, equipment, vehicles, and special forces to Ukraine is pretty provocative, but it is a good thing that Putin is being a good sport about it, so far). The American military will, of course, respond in “defense” of the United States (which is thousands of miles away) if Russia were to deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

In order to understand if the Kremlin is threatening nuclear war with the West, as is constantly suggested, we must go directly to the speech itself. We can read the biased news articles that make it clear that the “it’s not a bluff” threat is unilateral, but is it really? Is Russia not threatened by the American expansion of NATO on Russia’s borders and the funding of neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine (like the Azov Battalion that has been utilized by Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky, alike). Have not officials in the United States made it clear that they were actively trying to weaken Russia with sanctions and create an environment ripe for political change in that country? Is Putin wrong when he tells his people that the West is trying to “destroy” their country? Is it farfetched to imagine that the United States was attempting to turn Ukraine into a nuclear state and that Ukraine’s campaign in Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014 onward was a sort of genocide against the independently-minded and Russian-speaking people of those regions? Perhaps Putin’s rhetoric on this is hyperbole, but it is not exaggerated to suggest that Ukrainian forces committed atrocities in the Donbass (maybe the Poroshenko and Zelensky regimes were not intentionally displacing ethnic Russians or killing them off, but they were doing that, nonetheless). Putin’s claim that the West and Ukraine had no desire to negotiate a peaceful solution or seriously consider the federation option for those regions is pretty accurate, because if Kiev wanted to grant autonomy, it would have.

Is it possible that the hunts for neo-Nazis and biolaboratories in Ukraine are similar to the Bush administration’s cries against “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq or the pursuit of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan? Of course, this is likely. Putin would be using his own versions of these as justifications to deploy his forces in a foreign country in an aggressive manner, and preemptive assaults on other nations are wrong, but let us not act like we have the moral high ground here. Plus, it is our government’s meddling in Ukrainian affairs (from funding non-governmental organizations to the assisted overthrow of the democratically-elected government under Viktor Yanukovych, who was actually on the opposite end of two American-backed coups) that led directly to the mess that we now find ourselves in.

Did Vladimir Putin actually say that he was going to utilize nuclear weapons against Ukraine or Europe or the United States? Actually, he said that the West has made nuclear threats against Russia and is sending aircraft and troops along its borders (to practice nuclear drills), and this is all true, though perhaps exaggerated. Regardless of whether we think that our actions are a big deal or not, to Russia, they are. Americans would feel threatened if Russia sent its troops to Canada and Mexico and made military alliances with Central and South America in a NATO-type organization. Putin stated that he would only engage in conflict to defend his territory, so it appears that the media’s hype over his words may be a bit out of place.

If we really want to deescalate the situation (and it is clear that the Biden administration does not), we could try to understand the Russian perspective so that we could avoid nuclear disaster. If we want to be the bigger man here and act maturely, we could turn the other cheek and allow negotiations to occur. The new nation of Novorossiya (perhaps even including the Odessa and Kharkiv Oblasts) will exist outside of Ukraine, one way or the other, unless the Biden administration is willing to force Americans to deal with the consequences of nuclear war. These territories now belong to Russia, and it is time that we come to grips with this concept. Our intervention has caused blowback, and it has failed. The time for controlling Russia is over, and a new multi-polar world order has arrived.

As we approach the results of the "sham” referendums in the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk Oblasts (how any American can conclusively know that the will of those people are not to join Russia is a mystery), we should keep our eyes on calls for the United States and Europe to send over additional weapons and equipment (including the new request of long-range missiles), as well as the growing relationship between Russia and China, which publicly asked nations in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to resist American coup attempts and covert operations abroad (there is a whole laundry list of these operations, which are sometimes referred to as “color revolutions” when performed in former Communist nations). Russia, which has seen record-breaking revenue sales in oil after the American-led sanctions were implemented, is also playing hardball in the economic front by making life miserable for Europeans, who are dependent on Russian oil imports (although this is economic terrorism and morally wrong, the West seems to be getting a taste of its own medicine). What will happen as the tensions between the United States and Russia heat up? Will we be able to calm the storm, or will the tornado of nuclear conflict twist its way to a town near you?

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

The Autocratic Hand of California Will Slap Away the Invisible One

As many are aware, World Economic Forum-compliant California Governor Gavin Newsome issued an executive order, through the California Air Resources Board (ironically created by Ronald Reagan when he was governor of that state), to appease the climate change hysterics and the propaganda that is really starting to take off at the moment (as propaganda machine CNN predicted it would). This new rule will prohibit the sale of new gasoline-powered engines by 2035, but car manufacturers must develop 35% of their new products to be powered from battery or hydrogen sources by 2026. It jumps to 68% by 2030.

Without any surprise whatsoever, authoritarian states, such as New York, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and Massachusetts, are expected to agree, without question, to follow California’s lead and adopt more stringent standards than those of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Air Act requirements. This power grab by the nation’s most populous state will trickle down to everyone else in a negative manner, and the politicians will laugh their way to the bank, as they force the population to comply with their demands (politicians somehow always know which stocks to invest in and how to profit off of their knowledge and positions).

I thought that the Left cared about following our democratic institutions, but here is another example of how it loves to legislate through executive edict. This new electric car standard was not passed by the legislature, so how can progressives claim that democracy is a top priority? It is like pushing the agenda outweighs claimed principles, and this is a clear case of the authoritarianism that they pretend to oppose. Let us force our policies down everyone’s throats, because we know what is better for the planet than you do, you stupid peasants. The politicians dictating to us how to live our lives, of course, are the same people flying to meetings in their greenhouse gas-emitting private jets (if climate change measures were really about saving the planet, our elites in society would reduce their own standards of living, instead of forcing us to lower ours).

Because it is too expensive for car manufacturers to create two separate specifications for their products, most companies prefer to produce cars with the California standard (hidden regulations that violate the concept of the free market), and these companies work very closely with the California executive branch when making their vehicles. In addition, several states, which are not permitted to create stricter standards for emissions and other automotive issues, follow the lead of California, which has a special federal waiver (“California waiver”). This means that even if the Biden administration and the EPA do not announce federal guidelines or executive orders for eliminating and phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles, the car industry will have no choice but to focus solely on the electric car market, as the green-allied states make up approximately 40% of the population and almost that much in total car sales across the entire country. What car company is going to spend money on products that are not allowed in the future market?

The Left constantly claims that choice is an important aspect in the American way of life, but yet, it takes this away, at every turn, through its regulations and mandates (it seems as if the only choice that progressives really care about is the ability to murder babies). In this case, governments are forcing the heavy hand of the state to dictate market outcomes, against the will of the people. What about poor individuals that cannot afford the new products? What if the average person does not want an electric car in the late 2030’s? What if the electric grid does not allow for enough vehicles to be on the roads? Rich people will be fine, of course, as they can bear the new cost, but less affluent people will not be so lucky. Do progressives even care about the best interests of the poor, or are they just concerned with the profit-making of environmentally-friendly corporations?

When progressives are not busy making life more difficult for individuals across the economy, one of their favorite pastimes is complaining about how free market capitalism is the worst system ever devised by mankind, and yet, it is this very system that has produced the most wealth and the highest standards of living throughout history. The car manufacturers that receive subsidies from or partner with the federal and state governments will be able make quite a handsome profit (corporatism), while companies that do not switch to green solutions will be left out of the market (too bad, so sad). Because we will focus on the advancement of electric cars under the current technology, research and development, which could have gone towards new and improved technology, will be guided towards the less efficient processes currently available. Once disruptions in the market occur in the future and poor people are unable to afford vehicles, capitalism will be blamed, even though it had nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with controlled markets (this is what always happens). The free market would be able to give these people an alternative choice, but when the government determines market development, that choice is stripped away.

What can we expect from our new green utopia that is dictated to us by the Left? Well, California, which is known for its rolling blackouts because of its inefficient green power sources, told residents not to charge their electric cars during a recent blackout. Besides the blackout being blamed on climate change (a way to divert responsibility and avoid having to admit that their system is inefficient), this is a laughable course of events that cannot be made up. Progressives want everyone to own electric cars in the upcoming years, but they cannot even supply people with a power grid capable of handling the increased demand for electricity. Our future may include fewer people traveling, at least in comparison with today, but this is the progress that the Left promises us with its market manipulations and autocratic top-down and one-size-fits-all policies. California did not put this new standard up to a vote of the people who will be most affected by this change, and yet, the entire country will be forced to comply with the demands of progressives.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.