Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 3

Will Lithuania Be the Final Straw That Brings NATO into Direct Conflict with Russia?

After Russian President Vladimir Putin’s blank threats against Sweden and Finland over those countries’ decision to move forward with NATO membership (Turkey is currently raising concerns about the remaining two Scandinavian countries joining the alliance due to support for Kurdish groups that the Turkish government considers terrorist organizations), the West is outraged at Russia’s statements towards Lithuania. Most NATO countries are currently on edge about whether they will be the next victim of harsh rhetoric, or whether Russia will retaliate for enforcing sanctions or supplying weapons. Since Lithuania is currently acting all big and tough, because it has the backing of the United States and Europe, will this small Baltic nation’s actions be the final straw that brings us into World War III? Is Russia preparing to sweep towards Poland in its denazification efforts, and is it training for a large-scale conflict with NATO, as Russian Major General Andrei Gurulyov suggested?

The corporate media and political commentators seem to have the same attitude towards the threatening of Lithuania, in that they outright condemn it and will not consider that, perhaps, the little bulldog is in the wrong. Western propaganda suggests that Russia is preparing to capture the Suwalki Gap on the Polish-Lithuania border, which would form a land bridge between Russian-ally, Belarus, and the Russian-European enclave of Kaliningrad (captured from Nazi Germany and added to the Soviet Union in 1945). Kaliningrad has been a controversial piece of territory for years because Russia has placed high-tech hypersonic missiles and other equipment there, as well as its Baltic fleet.

According to Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte, preventing Russian materials, such as steel, coal, and oil, from reaching Kaliningrad via railway is not about blockading the territory; but rather, it is about complying with European Union sanctions. Kaliningrad is a military stronghold for Russia, so cutting it off from supplies may diminish Russia’s ability to wage war effectively. It should be recalled, though, that President Franklin Roosevelt’s sanctions to block oil supplies to Japan was the reason for the Pearl Harbor attack, so it seems like the West enjoys playing with fire.

From Russia’s perspective, this is an act of war that needs to be addressed and ceased, especially because the people of the territory rely on Russian goods transported through Lithuania. Is Russia’s invasion horrendous? Of course it is, but does this mean that being hostile towards civilians, who happen to live under a banner that is disliked by the West, is acceptable? Russia has claimed that it will retaliate against Lithuania, in some way, but it is more likely than not that the threats will be as empty as those against Sweden and Finland. However, this further escalation by the West could cause Russia to act and draw NATO into open conflict. Since the Biden administration is hoping that World War III will occur and is covertly making the moves necessary to make this a reality, there will be no condemnation of Lithuania, and the small nation will continue to be bolstered by its association with NATO.

The fearmongering is further being ramped up, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has made his appeal that Russia is about to launch a massive missile bombardment into Ukrainian territory in retaliation for the destruction of drilling rigs that supplied natural gas to Crimea (by cutting off supplies to Crimea, is Ukraine admitting that the peninsula no longer belongs to it and that the well-being of the Crimean people are of no consequence?). From Zelensky’s position, it makes sense to emotionally appeal to the West. He might be in the process of having his country's infrastructure destroyed, seeing territory lost, being stripped of his title as president, and watching the collapse of his failed state.

In the coming days, Ukraine will struggle to recapture the strategic Snake Island in the Black Sea, but on the bright side, Turkey has begun sending ships with grain out of the port in Mariupol (currently occupied by Russia), which may help diminish the global food crisis. Although the West claims that Russia is politicizing the food shortage by blocking Ukrainian exports and restricting supplies worldwide, including to the Russia-Ukraine-dependent Africa, are not American and European sanctions being utilized for weaponization against Russia? If you are deliberately using tit-for-tat tactics, at least be honest and admit that you are doing the same thing that you condemn others for doing.

As the Biden administration continues to drag the conflict out and contribute to even more Ukrainian death counts and loss of territory, and the corporate media’s narrative has shifted to admitting that Ukraine is losing the war and needs more support, weapons from the United States and NATO will continue to be used to kill Russian soldiers, which risks a hot war. The United States’ special forces and secret intelligence officers on the ground will likely begin to exchange fire with Putin’s forces, eventually, but as I have said previously, a less profitable diplomatic solution is not something that the United States government is interested in bringing about. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is already talking about how corporations in partnerships with governments (corporatist-fascist arrangements) will have to come in and clean up Ukraine after the war ends (a new “Marshall Plan”), but, of course, Ukraine, and possibly more of Europe, will have to be destroyed first so that there is more profit to be made. United Kingdom General Patrick Sanders advised British troops that they need to prepare mentally and physically to directly fight Russians, as World War III is in the making. Will Sanders’ predictions become reality?

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

Tensions Are Rising on Four Corners of the Earth: A Look at Ukraine, Taiwan, North Korea, and Iran

The corporate media seems to be changing its tune a bit on the Ukrainian progress in repelling the Russian invaders, and in addition to the admittances that Ukraine has lost approximately one-fifth of its territory, there are increasing pleas for the United States and its European allies to provide even more support than the tens of billions of dollars that has already been sent. Anyone who had been paying attention outside of Western propaganda already knew that Russia was winning the war and that what was being reported was full of incomplete truths and intentional falsehoods, but for everyone else, this may come as a shock.

But, why was there a change in the narrative? Could it have to do with the idea that persuading the public of an inevitable Russian victory will not only keep the blood-for-profit money flowing within the military-industrial complex, but also a better armed Ukraine means, at least from the neoconservative viewpoint, a stalled operation for Russia, thus allowing Russia to deplete its military resources and become a weaker adversary? This unethical plot that will surely sacrifice more Ukrainian lives could bring the United States into a hot war with Russia anyways, but the Biden administration also seems eager to antagonize three other regions of the world, further inching us closer to World War III.

After the Biden administration announced that it was supplying Ukraine with Lockheed Martin-manufactured M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), Russia immediately responded negatively towards what it viewed as a threat, suggesting that reciprocal actions could be on the horizon. Being that Russian deaths caused by American-supplied weapons might be provocative enough for Vladimir Putin to draw a line and declare war against the United States, it is almost as if President Joe Biden is welcoming a nuclear war with open arms.

To add to the complication, Russia responded to a potential NATO troop buildup in Poland by saying that it will react in kind, thus leading to the militarization of Europe and further escalations by both parties. As I have said previously, if Biden is secretly intending to face off with Putin in direct confrontation, while also wanting the public to think that he is doing his best to avoid war (like Franklin Roosevelt), he is doing an excellent job. As the war rages on in Donetsk, Luhansk, and nearby oblasts, and economic sanctions, including the newest round that cuts off two-thirds of Russia’s oil exports to the European Union (why not go all the way, if you really have principles and believe in the “cause”?), have failed at coercing Putin’s aggression; we can only hope that the war will come to a close soon, without dragging NATO directly into the fray.

As most are well aware, China has been modernizing and increasing its military capacity over the last few years, and it has been in a sort of standoff with the United States in the South China Sea, over the “freedom of navigation” operations that are really just an excuse to see how close to declared Chinese territory that American ships can get without having to engage in naval combat. However, tensions over Taiwan have captured the headlines as of late.

When President Biden firmly stated that the United States would go to war with China to protect an island about the size of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island (combined), he was not saying anything surprising or novel, but when dealing with international affairs, engaging in rhetorical battles and alerting your enemy of your intentions to fight may not be the best approach. China’s response of getting the United States to “pay an unbearable price” for intervention in Taiwan was also not surprising, and with the lack of any meaningful response with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China may be less fearful of how the United States reacts to an attack against Taiwan.

Both China and the United States have assured the other that they are willing to engage militarily, if need be, so because of this, both will likely ramp up military actions to intimidate the other. Such actions could lead to a dire situation, and since China and Australia (and Canada) have been exchanging words as of late (over unsafe aircraft maneuvers and possible military installations in the Pacific Ocean and South China Sea), it could simply take a misunderstanding or false move by any party involved, including American allies, to cause a chain of events that spiral out of control. In addition to the accusation of China building a base in the Solomon Islands, there are now reports that the giant may be looking to Cambodia to station troops.

China’s ally further up the Pacific realm, North Korea, has been causing fear to the Biden administration, as the hostile peninsular nation is allegedly prepared to resume its nuclear weapons testing. It has already conducted thirty-one ballistic missile tests this year (surpassing the 2019 record of twenty-five), and it appears that President Biden is considering actions in response to future nuclear tests. After former President Donald Trump was able to at least get North Korea on the diplomatic route and halt nuclear testing, the current president seems unable to do so, and taking a more aggressive approach that comes with the backing of military operations or provocative exercises in South Korea, as has often occurred, could give Kim Jong-un the ammunition that he needs to launch missiles towards the West. The reality is that the North Korean dictator is largely full of hot air, but he could use the chaos and cover in Europe to accomplish his geopolitical goals (perhaps to intimidate the United States with the support of China and Russia).

As a new Chinese-Russian order threatens the status quo system of world government dominated by the United States, Iran is flexing its muscles in the Middle East. Prospects of a renewed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (or simply an Iran deal) have seemed to fade (partly because the Biden administration refuses to delist Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corp, or IRGC, as a terrorist group), as Iran is now enriching uranium again (there was a sort of pause since 2015), cutting off IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) surveillance (the last remnants of the JCPOA), and installing centrifuges underground. Plus, tensions between Iran and Israel, a country backed by unconditional support of the United States, have risen in recent years; and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are both potentially seeking nuclear weapons programs of their own (these countries get a pass, though, because they are American allies). If the United States takes further actions to disarm Iran of nuclear weapons, the war that results will likely cause a regional conflict that could bring Russia and China in to aid their ally.

Are all of these tensions rising because the world is ready for another large-scale global conflict, or are China, North Korea, and Iran using the smokescreen of the Russo-Ukrainian War to achieve their foreign policy goals that they have desired for years? Do they think that the United States military is stretched too thin and that the political will in the United States is too weak to halt their ambitions? Is the growing alliance between China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran ripe to challenge the United States’ hegemony over the world order?

If we are indeed in the middle of World War III, what will be the defining moment that historians will set for the beginning of the war? Since World War II led straight into Cold War I, Cold War II (seemingly where we are currently) could lead straight into World War III. Some may suggest that World War III began years ago or is occurring at this moment, and if this is the case, is there hope that this third installment will be less deadly than the previous two (fighting instead in space, in the ocean, through covert and proxy wars, with food shortages and economic sanctions, and through cyberwarfare)? It is difficult to predict the future, but what we know is that things seem to be getting worse by the day. Let us hope that Biden’s pride gets out of the way and that diplomacy is achieved before it is too late.

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

From Buffalo and Uvalde to January 6th, the Narratives Do Not Add Up

There have been a string of mass shooting events within the last few weeks, but has the official narrative been accurate? As has been covered previously, the Buffalo shooter was actually a gun control advocate who chose New York as the location for his heinous crime because he knew that nobody could stop him in a state where gun restrictions were some of the tightest in the country. Fox News has since reported that a retired (or perhaps not) federal agent participated in the shooter’s racist chatroom and may have known about the plot before it occurred, and some go even further, suggesting that the shooter was “groomed” to commit the act of terrorism. I cannot independently confirm that this was an entrapment case, or that the assailant was hired by the federal government, but if it turns out to be true, it would certainly not be unprecedented. We already know that the alleged kidnapping of the Michigan governor was a clear case of entrapment, and to capture potential Muslim terrorists after 9-11 and right-wing individuals who were mentally-unstable, the FBI has been quite fond of ruining people’s lives by giving them an opportunity to commit criminal acts that they likely would not have otherwise actually attempted. It would not be surprising if the Uvalde, Texas massacre and January 6th riot were orchestrated by the federal government in some capacity. At the very least, the government may have been informed or knew something was going to occur and did nothing to stop it, perhaps to further the anti-gun agenda (the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando also raises suspicion about the government’s intentions, being that agents were informed that something was going to occur and did nothing).

As the Left screams, like normal, that increased gun control would have prevented mass shootings, it is clear that background checks, for example, would not have prevented the incident (the shooter had previously passed a background check). Then, you hear: well, those measures may not have stopped this one, but they will surely stop the next one. The question becomes: at what point do you keep increasing gun measures? Do you keep going, with every thinkable restriction for every situation, until guns are banned completely? Perhaps that is what the Left ultimately wants, but for those on planet reality, we need to allow more people to own and carry guns in public as a deterrent. “But, there were ‘good guys with guns’ during the Uvalde shooting,” a random person on the left side of the room yells. Yeah, police officers, who were afraid to confront the gunman or ordered to stand down by higher officials, stood outside for an hour before acting. That hardly constitutes what pro-gun choice advocates argue. Maybe the anti-choice people should be more honest with their talking points.

For the untrained citizen, who generally has faith in government narratives, this was just a string of bad luck. You know, horrible acts happen all the time, and instead of blaming the perpetrator or looking into the details of the case further than what the headlines read, the simplistic anti-gun storyline has to be the most rational explanation, right? But, why did police officers sit outside of the classroom and not engage the shooter? How many additional people had to die because of their cowardice?

It has been reported that the police department for the city trained specifically for this type of event two months prior to the incident (perhaps like 9-11, COVID-19, and monkeypox, but of course, any such questioning would be considered a right-wing conspiracy theory full of disinformation). There was really no excuse (not even that they needed backup or a tactical team) for why the officers responded in the manner in which they did, but I am sure officials will cook up some kind of excuse in the upcoming days. “We are so very sorry. We do not know how this could have occurred, but we will train our officers even better than we trained them before,” will be famous line.

It was also peculiar how the teacher that inadvertently allowed the gunman to enter the school premise, had propped the door open, but then she realized that there was a shooter and quickly closed the door to prevent entry (at first, the narrative claimed that she had left the door propped open, allowing the gunman to enter, but this has since been changed). Conveniently for the shooter, the door had not locked the way it should have. Yes, mistakes happen and doors malfunction, but when there are multiple coincidences for the same incident, one must question how coincidental it actually is.

As CNN and NPR reported, the narrative with the Uvalde shooting has changed multiple times, and it seems as if nobody can get their stories straight. Officials claimed one thing, only to be contradicted at a later time. This is another reason to believe that there is something fishy about what happened. Was the shooter reacting to an MK-Ultra-type of conditioning? Did federal government experiments cause him to snap? Did the FBI sabotage the door so the shooter could enter unobstructed? We cannot know for sure, at this time, but there are questions that need answers other than the official propaganda.

In addition, the parents were prevented from saving their children. One parent was handcuffed, another thrown to the ground violently, and a third pepper-sprayed. One mother was able to make it past the guards and the fence and get her two children safely out of the building, but why were police so insistent that nobody could go into the building? If your children were trapped in an active shooter situation, what would you do, especially if the police were not acting? Why were the police treating parents like they were the enemy? Was it simply because they were “interfering in a federal investigation” and would have gotten in the way of the officers sitting around doing nothing? Maybe they were interfering in a federal experiment to see how parents would react to the police sitting around while their children were in danger. Bravo for the “protect and serve” mantra.

Now, the anti-gun rhetoric is being pumped out full time. I mean, after all, we have the most mass shootings of any civilized country, by far, and the most guns per capita, right? Well, the answer is probably half true. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center (and specifically John Lott), the United States is actually in the middle of the pack for mass shooting frequency and deaths (per capita), and the myth that there are more mass shootings in the United States than anywhere else originated from a suspect study by Adam Lankford from the University of Alabama (Lankford has been unwilling to reveal his methodology or data). The United States does, indeed, have too many mass shootings (many of which likely involve government agents persuading potential attackers to take the next step), but parroting unproven talking points does not make one correct. However, it does make for a good narrative for prohibiting firearms.

If it is suspected that some of the recent mass shooters and Michigan kidnappers had connections or interactions with the FBI, could the FBI have caused the January 6th rioters to act irrationally and in a criminal manner by egging them on to trespass on the Capitol grounds? An underreported fact is that the FBI actually found no evidence that an insurrection took place (an insurrection being “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”), being that the protesters were unarmed (except with maybe a flagpole), unorganized, and incapable of overthrowing the most powerful empire on the face of the planet. Plus, as Project Veritas has shown, there were FBI agents in the crowd of the rioters, thus further implicating the federal government in its participation and fueling of the “infamous” day. As I have said previously, videos emerging from that day show police officers letting the rioters enter the building, and since I have worked as a security forces member in the military and know that you cannot just allow unauthorized visitors to pass through checkpoints without orders to do so, it seems pretty obvious, to anyone who is not blinded by his or her hatred of the former president, that January 6th was set up to occur exactly as it did.

Yet, the Left continues to run with the “coup” narrative (just like the dishonest “good people on both sides” comment from President Trump and the false narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia), and since the narrative is under the control of those pushing these ideas, independent and critical thinkers will, for a while, be considered conspiracy theorists and disinformation spreaders. If, as The New York Times reporter, Matthew Rosenberg, has suggested about the January 6th riots being overblown by the Left for ratings and to paint the picture of the Right as dangerous terrorists are true, it means that a witch hunt for Trump-supporters could be underway. Measures to further chip away at self-defense rights are also in the works (a new gun control package, signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul, has already been forced upon the people of Upstate New York against their will and without the chance for recourse). Our rights are disappearing slowly, and it seems as if most Americans are oblivious to it.

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

The Great Disinformation Campaign with the Russo-Ukrainian War

The constant propaganda coming from the White House and the corporate media is becoming more blatant to those who have opened their eyes, and just as the COVID-19 narrative labelled anything that challenged the global governments’ responses as misinformation, the powers that be have gone out of their way to suggest that any anti-war position, with regards to Ukraine, is part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Although the Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board and its cult leader, Nina Jankowicz, have been temporarily suspended, due to “misinformation” about the board (how ironic); efforts for the government to become the arbiter of truth and censor unpopular information are far from over. The Biden administration’s entire narrative over Ukraine has been a giant disinformation campaign, and the corporate media has aided it every step of the way.

President Joe Biden and his army of intelligence officers do not know what President Vladimir Putin intends with Ukraine, and nobody in the West can reasonably understand the full picture of the invasion, as propaganda abounds all around. The media constantly brags that the Ukrainians are in the process of defeating Russia, and others suggest that there is no way that Russia could lose. The truth is undetermined at this time, but just because there are videos of Russian tanks blowing up or Russian bombs taking out civilian hospitals (some say that the Ukrainian military is intentionally hiding in hospitals and schools in order to make the Russians bomb the facilities for increased sympathy, but this is unconfirmed), there is really no way to know what is happening without flying there and interviewing people and seeing the firefights firsthand (some also argue that the warzone is shut off from journalists in order to hide the truth, but this too is speculation). Video footage can be faked very easily.

In fact, it was admitted early on in the war that some of the footage circulating around the internet was from old combat missions, warzones and parades in Syria and Russia (not even in Ukraine), and from videogames. If what we are seeing in the news and social medias cannot be trusted, how can we really know what is occurring? How do we know that Russia is losing and Ukraine is winning? Are we just to take the American, Ukrainian, or Russian governments’ word for it? All we really know is that there is a war going on and that people are being killed and buildings have been destroyed. Everything else is propaganda, and this is why it is crucial to stay open-minded to independent journalists who are able to sneak over there and get footage (though, these investigators could have their own agendas).

The White House has announced that it is intentionally misleading the public on its intelligence gathering in order to deter Russian actions, and the carelessly released material will not be held back, regardless of how low of confidence that the government has in its accuracy. So, the government is permitted to lie to its citizens and other nations and spread falsehoods, but when the average person challenges the narrative, whether intentionally spreading false or inconvenient information, it is called “disinformation” (or “misinformation”). This double standard hardly seems fair, especially in an era of coerced vaccinations and potential nuclear war, but the government is full of propaganda that most citizens eat up and trust without question. President Biden, for example, claimed that Russia was about to use chemical weapons in Ukraine, but it was a flat-out lie, as there was no evidence of any intentions to do so. If our own government is purposely leading us astray with its narrative in Ukraine, why, in a million years, would we put our faith in such an institution? Yet, the Ukrainian flags keep waiving across America.

Well, if you do not think that I am a Russian agent, sent to do Putin’s bidding, by now, let us review another story, in particular, that was brought up by Kim Iversen from The Hill. Although the corporate media will admit that Mariupol has been seized by Russia, as is apparently the case, the verbiage chosen to show the captured soldiers (some of which were Azov Battalion Nazis, supported by the United States) in the Azovstal steel plant being escorted off of the grounds by the Russian military was interesting. The headlines and articles on the subject seemed to suggest that Ukrainians had voluntarily ended their mission at the plant and were leaving to go home, without putting much emphasis on how Russia actually conquered the plant and the surrounding city. This seems to give Americans (and Europeans) the perspective that Ukraine is winning the war, even though the country actually suffered a bitter defeat. Well, guess where the idea of Ukrainians having succeeded in their mission in Mariupol came from? That is right: the Ukrainian government propaganda center itself. The media parroted this concept over and over to get Americans thinking that although Russia won, it only won a “symbolic” victory. Then, the articles would quietly suggest that the “defenders” of the plant were taken into custody in Russian-occupied zones. With this propaganda underway, how can anyone be sure of who is actually winning the war, or what is true about the events in it (Bucha comes to mind)?

It should be clear that the corporate media, which is assisting the Biden administration in its false narratives, desires a Ukrainian victory, and therefore, it will make up whatever nonsense it needs in order to sell it to the American people. People are moving closer to the realization that a hot war with Russia is inevitable, and there can be no doubt that the American strategy of sending more weapons to Ukraine is extending the war. If Ukraine were left to its own devices, Russia would be able to have whatever victory it intended, which would quickly end the conflict or lead to a peace deal, but at the same time, the Ukrainians have the right to defend their homeland against Russian aggression.

Since Ukraine is a non-ally of the United States, risking American lives in a conflict thousands of miles away does not seem like the correct course of action. Every new weapon and dollar that the Biden administration sends to Europe is a step closer to a nuclear confrontation with Russia, and since the beginning, the administration has unofficially declared war on Russia through economic sanctions, intelligence sharing, troop training, and weapon transfers (and perhaps a covert coup attempt against Putin). President Biden, with his European allies, unsuccessfully attempted to destroy the Russian economy, but now Russia is striking back by blocking ports and preventing food supplies from reaching the global market (any guess as to who is perceived as the villain?). As a result, the United States was caught hatching a plan to send Ukrainians with anti-ship weapons to have them destroy Russia’s fleet. But hey, risking nuclear war is just another day in the life of an American president. The American people be damned.

Billionaire overlord, George Soros, who was speaking at the World Economic Forum’s Davos Conference in Switzerland (the group that brought about the concepts of the Great Reset, Event 201, and the Great Narrative), is already conditioning humanity for the upcoming apocalypse, saying that Russia’s war in Ukraine and China’s lockdowns that disrupt global supply chains will contribute towards the end of humanity as we know it (Russia and China are evil, according to Soros). In addition, the head of the state-controlled Russia Today, Margarita Simonyan, said that either Russia will succeed in Ukraine, or nuclear war would consume the West. Just swell! Propagandists and elites from both countries are saying that humanity is about to be destroyed. Should we take this as the exchanging of rhetoric, or does humanity face a crisis that will wipe out the majority of people? Either way, we can expect more information wars and propaganda to be pumped out in the next several months.

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

Back in the Somalia Time Machine with President Biden

Just as we thought that the absurd War on Terror, started by President George W. Bush, was beginning to wind down in the wake of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, President Biden announced that he would be redeploying hundreds of American troops to Somalia, after the operations were largely ended under the Trump administration. The special forces will be assigned to assist the new Somali president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (who also led the country from 2012 to 2017), in battling al-Shabaab (an organization that was able to thrive in the country due to American intervention). Like every other failed American operation overseas, the United States government just made things worse than they otherwise would have been.

Under the guise of preventing radical Islamic groups from gaining a foothold in the Horn of Africa (al-Qaeda and other groups were hardly present in Somalia prior to the American intervention), the Bush administration supported ruthless warlords, which captured the alleged enemies of the United States (sometimes even sending decapitated heads to American forces in Djibouti and murdering released prisoners for fear of retribution). The Somali people began to support the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) because of the warlords’ brutality, thus having the reverse effect of what the Bush administration intended; and the ICU was seen as an entity that could bring stability to the war-torn country (one that was in constant civil war). Out of political revenge for the ICU taking power, President Bush greenlit an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, assisted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States Air Forces (USAF), and bombings by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).

Because of the Ethiopian invasion, the people bolstered their support of the ICU (again, the opposite effect of what was intended), but out of the chaos and the crumbling of the ICU’s moderate government, al-Shabaab (later an al-Qaeda affiliate with Wahhabi roots) became the new hero of Somalis. President Bush, who did not care about the will of the people, finally agreed to the Djibouti Agreement, which ended the Ethiopian occupation and allowed ICU members to take part in the new Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia (ARS). The ARS, which merged with the Western-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG), became divided, as some of the members joined with al-Shabaab. Former ICU commander-in-chief, Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, became president in 2009 amid the turmoil (a ludicrous turn of events, being that the Bush administration waged war against the ICU, and then it allowed members into the new government).

As al-Shabaab grew in strength and territory, the Obama administration expanded on Bush’s unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) bombings, and in conjunction with the African Union (AU), the civilian death toll grew. Again, the United States government was attempting to keep al-Qaeda and other Islamic groups out of the country, but instead, its policies only made such groups emboldened and popular with the masses. After al-Shabaab conquered large portions of the country, a rival anti-radical group, Ahluu Sunna Wa’Jama (ASWJ), which was funded by the American and Ethiopian governments and aided by mother nature (droughts occurred), assisted the Federal Government of Somalia in taking control of the country. President Obama continued with drone strikes, and he even backtracked by bolstering support for the brutal warlords, as his predecessor had once done. Al-Shabaab was not weakened, and the group continues to thrive to this day, though the federal government largely remains in control. Although President Trump participated in hundreds of drone strikes in Somalia and killed the most civilians to date (over three hundred civilian deaths occurred during the three presidencies), he withdrew troops by the end of his term.

How long will the Biden administration slaughter civilians and make the situation in Somalia worse? Will al-Shabaab become a never-ending boogeyman that will require billions of dollars in aid, military equipment, training, and covert operations? Will the endless wars ever end? The one thing that seems to be the case is that the American Empire is not done having its grip on Somalia.

*Much of the above information comes from Jeremy Scahill’s “Blowback in Somalia,” which was heavily referenced for the Somalia section of my book, The Global Bully . Please check out Mr. Scahill’s excellent analysis on the topic.

The Narrative on the Buffalo, New York Shooter Does Not Match Reality

Another mass shooting has occurred, and because it was racially motivated with a potential for a conversation on more gun control, the corporate media cannot stop talking about it (this week, anyways). The gunman picked a Tops Friendly Market in Buffalo, New York because he knew that there would be a high proportion of black people, and his detailed manifesto on an absurd replacement theory was telling of what his motives were. He intended to target black people first, and then he wanted to eventually eradicate Jews because they were the ones that he claimed were ultimately trying to replace the white race. There can be no doubt, if the manifesto can be confirmed as authentic, that the shooter was a devout white supremacist and anti-Semite, and it is disgusting that people still have these sorts of views in the modern era. However, the politicization, on both sides of the aisle, has brought up many issues, and this will only add to the gun control and narrative crusade that the Left seems to want to wage nationwide.

Of course, the Left, understandably, would condemn the white supremacy aspect of this shooting and argue that these things should not be tolerated in our free society (yet, it ignores the other recent shooting in New York City, where the man was a black nationalist with a grudge against white people, because it did not fit the narrative so well), and although almost everyone in the nation would agree that white supremacy and racism are immoral, the agenda seems to be to blame the Right for the attacks and push for censorship of certain ideas. In the last couple days, I have listened to progressive/liberal podcasts on the matter, and the message that was clearly taken away was that Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro were to blame for the Buffalo shooting because they were enabling white supremacists to take such actions. This ignores the fact that the shooter actually mentioned that Ben Shapiro and other Fox News hosts were Jewish, and therefore, they were quoted as being part of the problem with America (how can Ben Shapiro and Fox News be criticized by the assailant while simultaneously being the inspiration for the attack?).

The Left’s narrative on this starts to break down even more after you realize that not only was the shooter a fascist, but he also advocated for environmentalism, socialism, and increased gun control (well, congratulations, shooter, because you might just get what you wanted out of this). This is far from the so-called Right-wing conspiracy theorist and Trump-supporting camp that the Left puts this perpetrator in. It appears that the culprit does not fit neatly into either end of the American political spectrum, but the corporate media will not mention his full views because it is trying to create a narrative around the shooting. Eventually, the facts will be revealed at the bottom of news articles in a few weeks after the public has forgotten about it. This highlights the media’s strategy of pushing agendas before the facts are known to get people in line with the narrative (in this case, the race-dividing narrative), and then the retractions can be released when nobody cares anymore, thus cementing the original narrative in their heads for future use.

To a critical-thinking mind, it is irresponsible to blame your political rival’s opinions as the inspiration for heinous crimes. Tucker Carlson, for example, may have opinions that are offensive and race-baiting, but to say that he caused the attacker to take a gun and go shoot black people is ludicrous, especially given that the shooter was critical of Fox News. If someone takes what I have to say during my critiques of our foreign policy out of context, for example, and uses my material to justify placing a bomb in the Pentagon, am I responsible for the terrorist’s actions? Yet, the Left desires censorship of all information that it views as dangerous (many adhering to this perspective genuinely believe that certain narratives should be censored for the greater good of society, so this push is not necessarily nefarious), which then brings up whether censorship of certain speech is acceptable in a free society.

As part of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ investigation into the incident, unelected Governor Kathy Hochul made it clear that social media companies must “examine their policies” and “take responsibility and be held accountable.” In other words, the government wants more regulations and public partnerships to force businesses to comply with what state officials demand (a version of abridgement of free speech that is outlawed in the U.S. and New York Constitutions). Again, blaming others for inspiring criminal behavior is irresponsible and devoid of deep thinking, but politicians look for any simplistic manner of control that they can exercise. We should know by now the direction that this country is headed when it comes to the First Amendment and scapegoating certain political ideologies (particularly with the Department of Homeland Security’s measures), but the words coming from the governor are blatant.

The Left thinks that it is helping the security of the nation by attempting to pressure social media companies to prohibit certain material from remaining on their platforms, but in reality, it is their prohibitions against that information that is the real problem. If you would like to combat bad or erroneous speech, instead of wasting energy on banning it, put effort into releasing better and more factual information to combat it (free exchange of ideas). What happens when someday the Left loses political power and it finds itself a victim of the Right trying to censor information about immigration, climate change, or abortion? If you believe that the Right should be able to arbitrarily determine this type of information as threatening and censor it, fine, but if not, perhaps you need to check whether you truly believe in free speech, or whether you are doing this for power and control. Free speech is about principles and fighting for the right of people to say things that you personally find abhorrent and dangerous. If you pick and choose which things are acceptable to say based on your own political views, you do not really believe in free speech.

Moreover from the lack of journalistic integrity from the corporate media and liberal podcasters on this issue, what is interesting is that the shooter chose New York to commit his crime because the state has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. He knew, with much certainty, that nobody in the store or area would have a gun that would be capable of stopping him, and if anyone did have guns, they would only have limited ammunition (the NY SAFE Act ended up not being so safe). Many mass shootings take place in gun-free zones (like schools) for this reason. So, what was the logic that liberal politicians used after the shooting? Well, of course, the answer is even more gun control. So, instead of listening to the reasoning of the person who committed the crime, we must do the complete opposite because gun control is always the agenda whenever a mass shooting occurs. But here, we have more evidence that gun control is often counterproductive and harmful to the population, as the shooter knew that the population was unarmed and was able to act with ease. If multiple people in the supermarket had had guns, someone could have easily stopped the terrorist.

Was the shooting a false flag or an attempt by the Left to get its desired gun measures expedited before it potentially loses power after the midterm elections? Something does not add up, as the shooter advocated for more gun control and was liberal-leaning on certain issues. Perhaps he was just a mentally unstable boy full of hatred and bent on destroying people’s lives, or perhaps he was hired to do the bidding. We will probably never know conclusively, as the information will be suppressed, revealed too late after the fact, or labeled as disinformation.

In conclusion, I will leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man”

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

05/20/22 Update on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s Response to the Buffalo Shooting (social media post)

The unelected governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, has issued new executive orders, outside of the legislative process, to force the State Police to create a new division within the New York State Intelligence Center to track people, based on her definition of extremism and radicalization, and to strengthen the state's Red Flag Law. She is admitting (the state legislature and the former governor are to blame as well) that the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments* are just suggestions. She is also hoping to work with the Department of Homeland Security, which is attempting to arbitrarily determine what is considered truth and censor information that runs contrary to it, to stamp out whatever she deems as dangerous speech (which, of course, will be abused). This is covert authoritarianism, and hardly anyone cares. Unbelievable.

*Bill of Rights violations:

First Amendment: monitoring people based on their political beliefs and affiliations, and making people fear searching for certain topics because they might become a target (called "chilling")

Second Amendment: making it difficult to purchase and retain firearms, and guns could be confiscated at the government's whim ("clear and convincing evidence" of "substantial risk of physical harm" can really mean anything, if manipulated)

Fourth Amendment: issuing warrants quietly and without scrutiny (like is the case with FISA warrants) for both gun confiscations and arrests for alleged violent crime (or domestic terrorism)

Fifth Amendment: taking guns with lack of due process (a crime must actually have been committed for property to be seized, and the government cannot conclusively know that a person will commit a crime), sometimes based on tips from family members, "friends," and fallible law enforcement agents; and the accused (but not convicted) will not be able to reasonably challenge the seizure

If the Biden Administration Wanted War With Russia, It Is Taking the Correct Steps

While the corporate media celebrates Ukraine’s alleged victory in driving Russian forces from Kharkiv (it is difficult to know what is happening over there, and there is propaganda on both sides), the Biden administration edges closer to direct confrontation with Russia. Should we expect another Bucha incident (or fraud), as the Ukrainian forces clean up the recaptured city, in order to drum up more support among Americans for war? Or, are we already at war with Russia, as House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accidentally suggested? As President Biden’s poll numbers sink and gas and food prices skyrocket, can we expect the president to aspire to become some new Franklin Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, by sacrificing American lives, to save his place in history among the greats?

Not to fear, the Biden administration is here, to force you to adhere, to whatever foreign adventures are put in our sphere. $40 billion to the Zelensky regime? Yes, please take my money to extend the war between Russia and Ukraine. I am too stupid to be able to use it for anything productive. I am sure that the Ukrainian oligarchs, the Azov Nazis, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin could make better use of it than I ever could. I would just waste the money on gas to fill my tank, food, and other basic necessities. No, it is fine. I will sacrifice those things, in a time of surging prices, so we can make sure that there is more bloodshed overseas and profit to be made by elites and corporations. $40 billion is a drop in the bucket anyways when you have an unlimited printing press in the Federal Reserve. Just think about the greater good here. If we get into World War III, the Earth will be less populated, and thus, we will be less capable of warming the planet, and we will get to increase government control and spending to new deal our way out of the impending economic crisis. It is really a win-win, if you do not value human life (ah, we throw away unborn babies anyways, so what is a few born lives?).

The $33 billion Biden-requested handout that transformed into $40 billion bipartisan aid to Ukraine included direct and indirect weapon transfers, weapon restorations (of those already sent), training to Ukrainian forces (I wonder if this will include boots on the ground), economic assistance, and funding to address the food and crop shortage (which was caused, in part, because the United States got involved in a place where it should not have, and it has perpetuated the war). Now that the American aid to Ukraine has approached $54 billion, which is $6 billion more than all foreign aid in 2019, and almost as much as Russia’s entire military budget in 2020 ($62 billion); we can be happy to know that this will be put to good use. I mean, really, you cannot put a price on slaughtering people overseas and filling the pockets of the military-industrial complex. Just get in line and play ball, already. And hey, Biden just signed a new lend-lease act, in order to expedite aid to Ukraine, so we can rest well at night knowing that our government is ramping up its efforts to fast-track us into a new world war and solidifying its entangling alliances (this could not be reminiscent of anything, could it?).

What is even more terrifying than the money that we are pissing away in Europe is the fact that the United States government is sharing intelligence with Ukraine, and it has now become clear that the downed Russian ship, the Moskva, was destroyed thanks to American intelligence. Although Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby denied that the United States was directly targeting Russian military leaders or strategic objectives, he did say that the government provides “what we believe to be relevant and timely information about Russian units that will allow them to adjust and execute their self defense to the best of their ability.” I will leave you to decide if American officials are playing word games, but there is no doubt that intelligence sharing is extremely dangerous, especially given Russia’s recent warnings. Yet, the arrogance of the Biden administration never ceases to amaze those who observe from outside of the propaganda.

The United States is in an active state of war with Russia, and there can be no doubt about it. From sending money and weapons to Ukraine, to waging economic terrorism against Russia in an attempt to cripple the well-being of the people there, to providing intelligence that leads to Ukrainian victories on the battlefield; anyone with a rational mind can see the moves taking place and reasonably ask if war is the desired outcome. Why is this intelligence-sharing not in the headlines, and why do most people simply not care? Why does the corporate media keep pushing the government’s rally-around-the-Ukrainian-flag efforts? Why do both parties support antagonizing Russia (even Republican senators visited President Volodymyr Zelensky and Kiev)?

Furthermore, the formerly neutral nations of Sweden and Finland are now taking steps to join NATO, a move that Russia originally called threatening. NATO expansion eastward is a large part of why we are in the mess that we find ourselves, so you would think that American officials would take that under advisement when admitting new members. However, because of the risk of nuclear war that is posed by the Scandinavian countries joining the alliance, this is another reason to believe that the Biden administration really wants to fight Russia. Russia has been bluffing on its aggressiveness against Sweden and Finland for the last few months, but knowing that it will lose the rhetorical battle, President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have eased up on warnings, suggesting that the two nations joining NATO would not be a threat to Russia, if the status quo remains (Sweden and Finland have already participated in NATO exercises for years) and nuclear forces or weapons are not moved into new territories. The complete disregard for Russia’s security interests is appalling, though, being that the United States would be eager to go to war if Russia or China deployed troops, missiles, and arms to hostile governments in Central America.

If the United States really wanted to avoid war with Russia, it would be advocating for peace deals and sending diplomats, instead of transferring weapons and providing intelligence to Ukraine. So far, the Biden administration has not attempted to end the war peacefully, and it is astounding that most Americans approve of what the president is doing in Ukraine. The Ukrainian flags and merchandise, that have replaced the Covid masks as the new thing to virtue-signal over, is telling of what is on the brains of Americans. We might not be quite ready to send our troops over there, but at the rate that we are going, war could very easily become reality. The American propaganda has been successful at rallying the people behind the Ukrainian efforts, but let us hope that our wonderful elites and politicians will not take the next step.

It appears that Russia may be winding down its military operation in Ukraine, and if referendums in Mariupol and Kherson allow Russia to have a land bridge from the Donbass to Crimea (of course, Zaporizhzhia Oblast lies in between too), without any more bloodshed, perhaps we should agree. However, I am not confident that President Biden will allow any more territory to leave the divided Ukraine, even if the people of those oblasts desire secession (the will of the people takes a backseat to the agenda). I would not be surprised if Zelensky agreed to relinquish control of some territory, while Biden and Raytheon pushed for the war to continue for months or years to come. We will have to see what happens, but even if war with Russia is avoided this time, hatred towards that country will continue to rise until full-scale war does eventually break out.

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

Overturning Roe v. Wade Brings Up Many Issues, But It Does Not Make Abortion Illegal

Many people like to argue that their views on abortion are true because they are as simple as such and such, however, if you really believe that reducing the issue to a simplistic narrative, without nuances, is the best approach, you are not critically thinking about it. There is no good solution to abortion, and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or pushing an agenda without much thought. In some way, shape, or form, regardless of which side you happen to find yourself on, someone’s rights are potentially being violated, and principles are being abandoned for the sake of political convenience. When you have two living bodies inhabiting the same space and one of them wants something at the expense of the other, conflict is inevitable.

No doubt, the mother has the right to her own body and any medical substances or procedures of her choice, conducted through voluntary means, and this would include the abortion procedure. However, the baby in the womb is also a human life, and such procedure unavoidably results in the death of the child and violates the right of the baby to choose life and exercise autonomy over his or her body (no child can reasonably understand what this means until a certain age, and he or she is completely dependent on parental figures for the first several years of life, so it is a moot point to argue that the child is a parasite and cannot function on his or her own). Whether you fall in the camp that the fetus is a clump of cells that happens to have a heartbeat and feel pain, or you believe that the child in the womb is a full human life, it is important to have respectful conversations to understand others’ perspectives.

When the leaked document, written by Justice Samuel Alito, was revealed, those on the Left were outraged that their sacred right to murder babies, secured through the Supreme Court rulings of Roe v. Wade (establishing that abortion falls under the right of privacy granted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (establishing the undue burden standard for abortion), was under threat. Yet, instead of thinking through the nuances, many reacted to this emotionally (including a scary rant from Senator Elizabeth Warren) and erroneously argued that the decision would make abortion illegal. There are many problems with this line of thinking.

First of all, the decision has still not been conclusively decided, as the justices can be persuaded to change their opinions before the official ruling (perhaps this document was leaked with the intention of trying to pressure one or more justices into changing their votes). The Left spends much of its time fact checking so-called conspiracy theorists and Trumpers by arguing miniscule points that attempt to delegitimize certain claims that go against the narrative, and the fact that Politico stated that the Roe v. Wade decision had already been decided was a violation of journalistic integrity (or, as they would say, “we rate this claim as misleading”).

The Leftist claim that the decision makes abortion illegal is a blatantly false idea that has the potential to turn pro-abortion folks into violent protesters ahead of the midterm elections. Instead of unrestricted abortion being the law of the land, the decisions are now reserved to the states, as is demanded by the Tenth Amendment (the Roe decision was actually unconstitutional in that police powers and local law are not something that should be determined by the federal government, and policies, like what constitutes murder, are not federal issues). Yes, some states could abolish abortion, but likely half of the country (especially New York, California, and New Jersey) would likely remain unaffected by this decision. In some states, there could be a black market that explodes, and unsafe abortions could be performed in the underground. This would, of course, be a problem that would have to be addressed, and many would travel to other states to have abortion performed where it is still legal. This is the system of federalism that is required under our republic, however. As I said previously, there is no perfect solution to the problem, and when people argue that the decision would make abortion illegal, they are, in fact, lying.

It is interesting that the Mississippi abortion law that the Supreme Court is hearing allows abortion up to fifteen weeks, and yet, in France, abortion is illegal after fourteen weeks, unless two physicians can sign off that there is a medical reason to perform one. It seems almost laughable to think that progressives do not ridicule France for being backwards thinking or anything of the sort (most of them probably are unaware), being that Mississippi is potentially more progressive on this issue. In New York, for example, you can have an abortion up until the moment of birth, and politicians, seemingly bent on sacrificing tiny lives, have praised this as the gold standard of abortion. A woman’s right to choose what to do with her body should, no doubt, be respected, but killing life is not something that should be praised. It will be interesting to see what each state adopts as policy going forward.

Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision in another way too. It assumed that the Supreme Court, a body of nine unelected justices, could create their own polices that govern all three trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy (no restrictions in the first, reasonable health regulations in the second, and prohibitions permitted in the third). Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it grant the Supreme Court the power to legislate in areas that Congress does not act. Not only would this decision revert the issue to the state legislatures, as is the appropriate place for such things in a republican form of government (or “democracy”), but it prevents an oligarchy of legal scholars from imposing their will on the entire country. Yet, the Left argues, in a twisted perspective, that the reversal is the Right imposing its will on the country, since most Americans apparently want abortion to be legal across the entire country. Whether the majority wants it or not, this is not the legal, democratic, or constitutional process that we have, so leaving it to the states is actually the fairest position to take (again, this is not a perfect solution that satisfies everyone and definitively secures everyone’s right to choose).

During pregnancy, the child is a temporary inconvenience (being forced to wear a mask during the pandemic was also a temporary inconvenience, according to many upset by the decision), and a mother can choose to put the child up for adoption after the nine months (of course, addressing regulations and unease in the adoption process might need to become a priority). The Left likes to emphasize the rape issue, but the fact is that rape makes up an extremely small percentage of abortion cases, so it is almost as if this is just an excuse to validate the position. It is too bad that there is not a way to separate the unborn baby from the mother’s body in a way that keeps the child alive and allows the mother to not have to bear the burden of an additional body for those nine months, but at this time, no such ability exists. If the mother’s life is threatened by the birth or the child will suffer an incurable disease, this is a different situation, and these issues would be balanced at the state level.

It is interesting that the “my body, my choice” people cry the hardest for the ability to have an abortion, but they also scream and shout at those who do not wear a mask or get a vaccine. They had no problem locking people in their homes (through executive edict), shuttering small businesses (while allowing big businesses to continue operating), or forcing people to get a needle injected in their arm to keep their job or participate in voluntary transactions (vaccine passport system). As I said previously, abortion is one of those issues where principles cannot be definitively followed, and the Left proved over two years that it does not really believe in the principle of bodily autonomy. If you only believe in this concept on abortion or pick and choose when it should apply, you do not really believe in your stated principle (to be fair, the Right has no problem prohibiting marijuana or prostitution in a violation of the “my body, my choice” concept).

What events will transpire in the upcoming months? Will progressives hold on to key positions and win the midterms because of this court case? Will the Left participate in “mostly peaceful” protests or January 6th-style “coup attempts” in a summer of violence and rioting? Will the abortion issue drop off as almost every other important topic eventually does, since Americans have short attention spans? Will this cause more division in an already-polarized country? Will the Right attempt to prohibit interracial or homosexual marriage, as the Left claims (a ridiculous conspiracy theory that is acceptable to believe because it is espoused by the Left)? Will the Left retaliate and go after gun rights? Time will tell, but one thing will remain: abortion will continue to be an unsolvable problem with charged responses on both sides.

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

Welcome to the Disinformation Governance Board: The Beginning of the End of Free Speech

While Democrats cry about a Supreme Court ruling that has not even been conclusively decided and claim that it will be a prohibition against abortion (the ruling would not prohibit abortion, and rather, it would move the decision of legality to the states) and homosexual and interracial marriage (this is completely absurd, being that marriage does not cause the death of a life, at least in the literal sense), a real threat looms on the horizon. Is George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” being built in the United States? When the Department of Homeland Security issued its domestic terrorism bulletins (May 14, 2021 and February 07, 2022), I knew that this marked the beginning of the end of free speech in the United States. After all, if they could label you as likely to commit violence because you opposed pandemic measures or believed the 2020 presidential election results were not legitimate, imagine what type of tools, utilized under the guise of securing our freedoms, that agents of the state could use to spy on you, and perhaps make you disappear. Welcome back to McCarthyism or Woodrow Wilson’s Espionage and Sedition Acts, and the conditioning of Americans to accept the idea of misinformation being an existential threat to our democracy has finally reached a new stage.

DHS has taken these bulletins further with the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board, and although the federal government, and particularly Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, claims that this new board will be bipartisan and target opportunists peddling false information to immigrants and prevent foreign governments from influencing our elections (something our own government does to other countries, regularly), a quick review of the “good intentions” of the Bush administration after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent anti-terrorist surveillance measures will show you exactly where we are headed with this. In fact, the DHS was created in the wake of the attacks, and until Edward Snowden’s 2013 data leaks (perhaps classified as malinformation by today’s standards), the idea that the federal government was conducting surveillance operations against the American people was considered a preposterous conspiracy theory that only a nutjob could believe. Yet, the destruction of the Fourth Amendment (and to a lesser extent the First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments) was very real, and despite the prior charges of misinformation against the quack jobs who were pushing the ideas of conspiracy, Americans no longer retain the right to be left alone from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment is effectively dead.

Abuse following actions taken by the board of disinformation will be no different than the massive surveillance state that Americans have allowed to steal their rights. After 9-11, the federal government made arguments that it was only trying to stop terrorism and that if you had nothing to hide, there was nothing to worry about. Both turned out to be lies, but the surveillance state has become entrenched in the culture and governance of this country. There is no easy way to get rid of it, as Americans have been conditioned into accepting it. No doubt, Americans will be convinced (and have to some extent) that disinformation is such a threat that the government needs to censor speech or arrest or smear individuals who oppose the regime in power. Unfortunately, Edward Snowden’s prophetic words of “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say” may become a reality, as the latter part of these words may take on new meaning in the days of upcoming censorship.

What is the government afraid of? Is it so incompetent and unable to provide superior and well-articulated speech through the free exchange of ideas that it has to eliminate its competition? Does it fear allowing people to think for themselves? Does it believe that Americans are too unintelligent to determine reality on their own terms? Does it believe that it should be the sole arbiter of truth?

President Biden chose Nina Jankowicz, a starch anti-Russia warrior who falsely claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation and pushed the bogus narrative of Trump having colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential election (a state-approved conspiracy theory that the Left clung to for four years), to head the DGB. It is ironic that she attempted to propagandize Americans with false narratives for partisan purposes, and yet, she is considered a disinformation expert and nonpartisan. With the anti-Russia sentiment growing in the United States, expect this new board to target people who have a difference of opinion about the war in Ukraine (such as questions of whether all of the atrocities sold by the corporate media were actually committed by Russia). The Left’s Russia boogeyman might just be the excuse that it needs to rid the country of dissenting views and solidify control through its narrative.

It is ironic that the Left claims to be in favor of privacy rights and the right over one’s body (especially at a time when Roe v. Wade may be overturned), and yet, it screams the loudest to censor information that it arbitrarily classifies as dangerous (like any challenge to the COVID-19 vaccine), prohibits free association or business between voluntary parties (through executive edict), and forces people to make a medical decision in order to participate in society. Is it any surprise, then, that some Republicans (the backwards party, according to the official narrative) are fighting back to defund the board or block implementation of its authority? At least, for now, there is some pushback, but eventually, even Republicans will bend to the pressure and permit a centralized location for determining what is and is not factual information. Soon Americans will be unable to challenge the narratives of the federal government or be able to distinguish between truth and fiction, as they will have the illusion of choice in sources of information (but it will all be controlled by a single source).

American propaganda is strong now, but just imagine what will happen when there is a monopoly on information. Even if the new board focuses on creating a centralized narrative and casts doubt on certain information, this is still an abridgement of speech, as is creating an environment of self-censorship among those afraid to speak out for fear of unwarranted targeting or laws directed at individuals falling into certain categories (called “chilling”). Look at what the White House did to Nicki Minaj, and this creates an atmosphere where other people remain silent to avoid similar repercussions or character assassinations. Plus, the federal government, and particularly the Biden administration, has used its partnerships (whether voluntary or involuntary) with social media companies to remove posts and narratives that it does not like (indirect censorship). In a true free country, these soft censorship methods would not be utilized, but I fear that this is only the beginning of what is to come.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website. As more information is released about the DHS’ DGB, I will provide updates.

Is the World Preparing for an Allies Versus Axis Scenario That Will Lead Towards World War III?

The Western corporate media has been harping on the idea that Russia is calling for nuclear war and that President Vladimir Putin is actively preparing for combat with NATO, due to alleged losses in Ukraine; while at the same time, Russia makes claims that the United States is planning false flag nuclear and biological attacks in Ukraine to rally more support against Russia and in favor of direct conflict between the two world powers. Russia has warned the United States that continued weapon transfers to Ukraine would escalate tensions and result in “retaliatory strikes,” and the Biden administration keeps scoffing at such an idea (just keep poking the bear by seeing how much support for Ukraine that Russia will tolerate, and see what happens) and saying that Russia is the one intensifying tensions. American officials are arguing that NATO expansion is just a “boogeyman” that is an excuse for provocation, while to Russia, NATO expansion poses a huge national security risk (no different than if Russian or Chinese troops expanded military movements into Mexico, the Caribbean, or Central America and practiced military exercises of invasion against the United States while pointing missiles at Texas or California). Forgetting about the unprovoked American invasion of Iraq, General Mark Milley said that the international order would be undermined without a harsh response from the West (we cannot allow Russia to get away with the exact same thing that the United States does on a regular basis, now).

The propaganda coming out of the White House, the mainstream media, and federal government agencies, in conjunction with tensions in the Pacific and South China Sea regions, is gradually conditioning Americans to accept the prospects of war (or at least a cold war) with the growing “Axis” powers of Russia and China (both of which would prefer a new global order). The idea of one empire having domination over the entire world is generally a short-term phenomenon, and perhaps the time has come for a world order where global military and economic power is shared by competing forces. Russia and China challenging the U.S. dollar’s supremacy and American imperialism (troops and activities conducted in every corner of the planet to keep noncompliant countries in check and in line with the current economic system) will certainly mean that elites and American politicians will want to challenge the growing alliance (President Biden alluded to such a thing recently), meaning that a world war could be a real possibility. According to Pipa Malmgren (former economic advisor to President George W. Bush), World War III has been occurring for the last few years, albeit covertly in space (satellite warfare), under the sea (submarines), through covert operations around the world, and through cyber warfare (only Russian and Chinese hacks are announced in the corporate media, but American cyberattacks target Russia and China as well). If this is the case, how long until the war becomes overt and noticed by the peasants of the world?

Germany, a country resistant to the idea of sending weapons to Ukraine for fear of having economic ties and oil cut off from Russia, has not only submitted to American pressure to terminate the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, but it has now joined in on weapon transfers to further aggravate Russia. Poland has been sending tanks and weapons to Ukraine, and even though it was ready to send in MiG-29 jets, the United States ended the deal (apparently sending certain weapons, equipment, and vehicles is not provocative, but shipping over airplanes would cause Putin to react more aggressively and draw Americans into the fray), only to renege on its non-support by supplying Ukraine with spare parts for aircraft. Conventional weapons, some of which are being destroyed by Russian strikes in Odessa and other locations throughout Ukraine (hey, we already left behind $7 billion of military equipment in Afghanistan, so why not waste more taxpayer money in Ukraine too?), are still pouring into the war torn country, in a provocative manner (being that Russia has warned the Biden administration that further transfers of weapons would not be acceptable), and if this continues, conflict may erupt between Russia and the United States.

On top of the $13.6 billion that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine for military and other war effort purposes since March (and billions of other dollars spent since 2014, and earlier, if non-governmental organizations to “democratize” the country are counted), it is now asking Congress for another $30 billion of taxpayer money (money that we do not have, plus, being that this money will almost literally grow on trees, additional printed or typed funds will contribute towards the already out-of-control inflationary situation). In an arrangement of irony, the Biden administration also needs to spend millions of dollars (through the Defense Production Act) to offset the shortage of wheat, barley, and other crops (in a policy of literal socialism, or the control of the means of production) that have been disrupted because of the United States expanding the war in Ukraine (by continuing to send weapons and aid and not seek peace) and placing sanctions against Russia (also a top producer of these plants), which will only contribute to a global food shortage that was in the making far before Putin invaded.

Poland and Romania have hosted American missiles pointed at Russia for years (a renewal of the Cuban Missile Crisis?), and Russia has responded with missiles in Kaliningrad, but will nuclear weapons be placed in NATO countries throughout Europe (such as Poland)? Only time will tell, but what we do not need right now is another arms race.

In a retaliatory move, Russia has suspended natural gas exports to Poland and Bulgaria, and although these countries, along with others like Germany and Austria, are determined to lower their reliance on Russian oil, reality may set in with the demands from their citizenry. The ruble is stronger than ever, and the American-European sanctions have not only failed to deter Putin’s invasion, but they threaten to harm the average people in the West (at a time of surging prices). If the U.S. dollar’s hegemony becomes threatened, this may allow Russia or China to become a contender for replacing the current reserve currency (and petrodollar).

Russia has moved its focus from the northwestern portion of Ukraine, and it is now focusing on the Donbass region, and perhaps the Black Sea strip across to Crimea, and maybe even to Odessa and into Transnistria, which is a breakaway region of Moldova with permanent Russian troops. The narrow strip on Ukraine’s western border had explosions, and it may be possible that just like the United States’ war in Vietnam including airstrikes in Laos, or the invasion of Iraq leading to conflict in Syria, Moldova may become a battleground state of contention (as well as Georgia, with the Russian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and perhaps we should reexamine the borders of the former Soviet states, being that pro-Russian sympathies lie in some of these new countries). Bringing Moldova and Georgia into the war would certainly get the American war hawks pumping out more rhetoric to lead us right down the path towards war with Russia, but either way, it appears that the people of Donetsk and Luhansk may end up being liberated from the Nazi-supporting regime in Kiev. A landlocked Ukraine may not be what NATO wants, but because of its intervention and continued expansion, this may be the end result. A nuclear war may be the only thing that can prevent this, but to Americans, is defining the borders between Russia, Ukraine, and a potential new Novorossiya state really worth the pain that would be caused?

Although the cold war between Russia and NATO over Ukraine has the potential for a spillover into a hot war, we already see nations around the world splitting into factions over support for either the American-European financial system or the coming challenger in the form of the Chinese-Russian order. After the United States and Europe attempted to obliterate the Russian economy and conspire with the world to condemn Putin’s operation, India jumped on the opportunity to purchase Russian oil at a discount by utilizing the ruble, which is recovering and potentially challenging the fiat system by moving towards a gold standard. If India, the second largest country by population, joins the new “Axis” powers, this could be troubling to the American politicians who are looking to recruit India to remain under the current system. These three powers have the potential to cause a rift among the global order, and certainly if India falls out of the United States’ orbit, it is only a matter of time before more countries do the same.

Elsewhere in Europe, China recently delivered its HQ-22 anti-aircraft missiles to Russian ally, Serbia, despite pressure from the United States (the stated reason was that Serbian weapons must remain on Western standards, due to the desire to join the European Union, but in reality, it is more likely that the United States does not want Serbia to move closer to the Chinese-Russian alliance). In referencing the 1999 NATO offensive against Serbia, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic seemed to blow off American threats and suggest that the country would no longer be a “punching bag” to the West (it is hypocritical that the United States supported secessionist movements in Serbia and invaded that country to support them, but it condemns Russia for invading Ukraine and supporting breakaway regions there and in Georgia and Moldova). Does this mean that Serbia is considering a move towards the Russia-China “Axis” powers and further away from the West?

A country that did just sign a security pact with China is Solomon Islands. Australia, in an attempt to act tough, said that a Chinese military base in the islands would be considered a “red line” in the sea, but Beijing argued that the feisty land down under was making up false rumors (maybe it got too much inspiration from its native Tasmanian devil). However, it could be possible that China is lying and that Solomon Islands does intend to host an installation and become a China-Russia ally, and, of course, the United States, in typical fashion, threatened Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare not to allow Chinese troops on its soil (the American delegation told the prime minister that the United States would “respond accordingly” to any presence of its enemy in the archipelago).

Aside from the constant NATO and American air interceptions of Russian jets (including the most recent incident over the Baltic and Black Seas, where Russia is conducting its war operations in Ukraine), close encounters have been occurring for several years in the South China Sea, especially with the arrogant “freedom of navigation” operations, where American ships see how close they can get to Chinese-claimed islands without causing too much condemnation (yes, let us act like we own the sea and see how close to war we can get, because, why not?). In addition to military joint exercises with Philippines and the American deployment of expeditionary strike groups into the South China Sea, China’s Liaoning, which was utilized in exercises to intimidate Taiwan, has moved into the area, in conjunction with another aircraft carrier, Shandong (and potentially a third and fourth in the works), to counter the American presence in the sea.

Things are heating up in the South China Sea, but the Chinese threat against Taiwan could be the spark that starts a global war. The island is always on high-alert, and a news station erroneously reported that China had invaded Taiwan (perhaps it was just miscommunication, but the fact that it was on the agenda to be reported could show that the media there knows that a war is on the horizon and released the information prematurely). The United States and others have been claiming that China plans to “reunite” the two countries soon and that an attack is imminent, and if an invasion were to occur, at the very least, the Biden administration would certainly supply the island with weapons, in a similar manner to what it is doing with Ukraine. This entangling alliance, that is not a technical alliance (the United States cannot even officially recognize the Taipei government), could be enough to drag the United States into direct conflict with Beijing. Because Putin was able to attack Ukraine without any serious consequences, Chinese President Xi Jinping may have similar confidence with the approach to its neighbor across the Taiwan Strait.

North Korea has been firing off missiles at an alarming rate, and the dictator there, Kim Jong-Un, might use nuclear weapons in a preemptive manner, if he feels threatened. If a misjudgment occurs near the peninsula with Japan and South Korea (American allies), the United States could be pulled into war, which would then cause China to come to the North’s aid. Kim often exaggerates his power and makes bluff threats against the West to try to legitimize his country’s status as a nuclear power, and this year marks the ninetieth anniversary of North Korea’s army, so it may just be another rhetorical blowing of smoke. However, with everything else going on in the world, we cannot underestimate the hubris and possibility of a misunderstanding that could launch a war.

Most Americans, content by their standard of living (that seems to be deteriorating with the inflationary crisis), think that nuclear war is near impossible because “mutually assured destruction” protects us from it, but most people did not believe that the first two world wars would occur either. All it takes is a small, insignificant event (by world history standards), like the assassination of an archduke, to cause a chain of events that bring us down the road that most would prefer not to travel down. With nationalism, militarization, entangling alliances, and a changing global economic system, the conditions are right for World War III. Will it happen? It is impossible for the average person to know, but we can be sure that elites, politicians, military contractors, bankers, and others would be more than eager to start a global war for their own interests, at the expense of the people, but there is hope that such a thing can be avoided. However, if the Biden administration keeps arming Ukraine and saber-rattling in the South China Sea, the possibility of global conflict grows stronger by the day.

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