The following is excerpted and adapted from David Barsamian’s recent interview with Norman Solomon at AlternativeRadio.org.

David Barsamian: American Justice Robert Jackson was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. He made an opening statement to the Tribunal on November 21, 1945, because there was some concern at the time that it would be an example of victor’s justice. He said this: “If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down the rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

Norman Solomon: It goes to the point that, unless we have a single standard of human rights, a single standard of international conduct and war, we end up with an Orwellian exercise at which government leaders are always quite adept but one that’s still intellectually, morally, and spiritually corrupt. Here we are, so long after the Nuremberg trials, and the supreme crime of aggression, the launching of a war, is not only widespread but has been sanitized, even glorified. We’ve had this experience in one decade after another in which the United States has attacked a country in violation of international law, committing (according to the Nuremberg Tribunal) “the supreme international crime,” and yet not only has there been a lack of remorse, but such acts have continued to be glorified.

The very first quote in my book War Made Invisible is from Aldous Huxley who, 10 years before the Nuremberg trials, said, “The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.” Here we are in 2023 and it’s still a challenge to analyze, illuminate, and push back against that essential purpose of propagandists around the world and especially in our own country where, in an ostensible democracy, we should have the most capacity to change policy.

Right now, we’re in a situation where, unfortunately, across a lot of the political spectrum, including some of the left, folks think that you have to choose between aligning yourself with U.S. foreign policy and its acts of aggression or Russian foreign policy and its acts of aggression. Personally, I think it’s both appropriate and necessary to condemn war on Ukraine, and Washington’s hypocrisy doesn’t in any way let Russia off the hook. By the same token, Russia’s aggression shouldn’t let the United States off the hook for the tremendous carnage we’ve created in this century. I mean, if you add up the numbers, in the last nearly twenty-five years, the country by far the most responsible for slaughtering more people in more lands through wars of aggression is… yes, the United States of America.

What’s your assessment of the war coverage of PBS and NPR? You know, a rarified, polite media where people speak in complete sentences without any shouting. But have they presented dissident voices to challenge the hegemonic assumptions you just cited when it comes to American war policies?

The style there is different, of course, but consider it just a long form of the very same propaganda framework. So, you can listen to a 10-minute segment on All Things Considered or a panel discussion on the PBS NewsHour and the style and civility, the length of the sentences, as you say, may be refreshing to the ear, but it also normalizes the same attitudes, the same status-quo assumptions about American foreign policy. I won’t say never, but in my experience, it’s extremely rare for an NPR or PBS journalist to assertively question the underlying prerogatives of the U.S. government to attack other countries, even if it’s said with a more erudite ambiance.

You’ve got NPR and PBS unwilling to challenge, but all too willing to propagate and perpetuate the assumption that, yes, the United States might make mistakes, it might even commit blunders — a popular word for the U.S. invasion of Iraq that resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of deaths. Still, the underlying message is invariably that yes, we can (and should) at times argue over when, whether, and how to attack certain countries with the firepower of the Pentagon, but those decisions do need to be made and the U.S. has the right to do so if that’s the best judgment of the wise people in the upper reaches of policy in Washington.

Jeff Cohen, the founder of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), has talked about the guest list on such PBS and NPRprograms. There’s a golden Rolodex of what he calls “formers” — former undersecretaries of state, former lieutenant colonels, retired generals, et al. But what about dissident voices like Medea Benjamin, yourself, or Noam Chomsky?

Over the years, FAIR has done a number of studies ranging from commercial networks to NPR and the PBS NewsHour, and found that, particularly when issues of war and peace are on the table, it’s extremely rare to have opponents of U.S. military action on the air, sometimes below one percent of the interviewees. And this is considered “objective journalism” and goes hand in hand with a deeper precept, usually unspoken but certainly in play in the real world: that if an American journalist is in favor of our wars, that’s objectivity, but if opposed, that’s bias.

I’m sometimes asked: Why do journalists so often stay in line? They’re not, as in some other countries, going to be hauled off to prison. So, what makes them feel compelled to be as conformist as they are? And a lot of the explanation has to do with mortgages and the like — hey, I want to pay for my children’s college education, I need financial security, so on and so forth.

To my mind, it’s a tremendous irony that we have so many examples of very brave journalists for American media outlets going into war zones, sometimes being wounded, occasionally even losing their lives, and then the ones who get back home, back to the newsrooms, turn out to be afraid of the boss. They don’t want to lose their syndicated columns, their front-page access. This dangerous dynamic regiments the journalism we get.

And keep in mind that, living in the United States, we have, with very few exceptions, no firsthand experience of the wars this country has engaged in and continues to be engaged in. So, we depend on the news media, a dependence that’s very dangerous in a democracy where the precept is that we need the informed consent of the governed, while what we’re getting is their uninformed pseudo-consent. Consider that a formula for the warfare state we have.

At the White House Correspondents’ dinner President Biden said, “Journalism is not a crime. The free press is a pillar, maybe the pillar of a free society.” Great words from the White House.

President Biden, like his predecessors in the Oval Office, loves to speak about the glories of the free press and say that journalism is a wonderful aspect of our society — until the journalists do something he and the government he runs really don’t like. A prime example is Julian Assange. He’s a journalist, a publisher, an editor, and he’s sitting in prison in Great Britain being hot-wired for transportation to the United States. I sat through the two-week trial in the federal district of northern Virginia of CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling and I can tell you it was a kangaroo court. That’s the court Julian Assange has a ticket to if his extradition continues.

And what’s his so-called crime? It’s journalism. WikiLeaks committed journalism. It exposed the war crimes of the United States in Iraq through documents it released, through the now-notorious video that came to be called “Collateral Murder,” showing the wanton killing of a number of people on the ground in Iraq by a U.S. military helicopter. It provided a compendium of evidence that the United States had systemically engaged in war crimes under the rubric of the so-called War on Terror. So, naturally, the stance of the U.S. government remains: this man Assange is dangerous; he must be imprisoned.

The attitude of the corporate media, Congress, and the White House has traditionally been and continues to be that the U.S. stance in the world can be: do as we say, not as we do. So, the USA is good at pointing fingers at Russia or countries that invade some other nation, but when the U.S. does it, it’s another thing entirely. Such dynamics, while pernicious, especially among a nuclear-armed set of nations, are reflexes people in power have had for a long time.

More than a century ago, William Dean Howells wrote a short story called “Editha.” Keep in mind that this was after the United States had been slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in the Philippines. In it, a character says, “What a thing it is to have a country that can’t be wrong, but if it is, is right, anyway!”

Now, here we are in 2023 and it’s not that different, except when it comes to the scale of communications, of a media that’s so much more pervasive. If you read the op-ed pages and editorial sections of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other outlets of the liberal media, you’ll find such doublethink well in place. Vladimir Putin, of course, is a war criminal. Well, I happen to think he is a war criminal. I also happen to think that George W. Bush is a war criminal, and we could go on to all too many other examples of high U.S. government officials where that description applies no less than to Vladimir Putin.

Can you find a single major newspaper that’s been willing to editorialize that George W. Bush — having ordered the invasion of Iraq, costing hundreds of thousands of lives based on a set of lies — was a war criminal? It just ain’t gonna happen. In fact, one of the things I was particularly pleased (in a grim sort of way) to explore in my book was the rehabilitation of that war criminal, providing a paradigm for the presidents who followed him and letting them off the hook, too.

 

READ MORE:

https://truthout.org/articles/how-do-we-push-back-against-the-us-warfare-state/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW

UPDATED: Consortium News is extending a job offer to  ex-Radio New Zealand editor Michael Hall, who was suspended for editing Reuters copy to reflect the facts in Ukraine. 

 

Earlier this month, Consortium News reported that an editor at Radio New Zealand (RNZ) was suspended for editing Reuters copy that actually inserted correct facts about the war in Ukraine. 

According to a report in The Guardian Australia, the editor, who has been identified as Mick Hall, edited stories to accurately reflect the context of the war. 

“The articles in question made a range of amendments: adding the word ‘coup’ to describe the Maidan revolution; changing a description of Ukraine’s former ‘pro-Russian president’ to read ‘pro-Russian elected government’; adding references to a ‘pro-western government’ that had ‘suppressed ethnic Russians’; and on several occasions adding references to Russian concerns about ‘neo-Nazi elements’ in Ukraine.” 

And more truth was added to the story, The Guardian inadvertently says:

“In one article, a paragraph was added reading: ‘The Kremlin also said its invasion was sparked by a failure to implement the Minsk agreement peace accords, designed to give Russia speakers autonomy and protection, and the rise of a neo-Nazi element in Ukraine since a coup ousted a Russian-friendly Ukrainian government in 2014.’

Another added that Russia launched its invasion ‘claiming that a US-backed coup in 2014 with the help of neo-Nazis had created a threat to its borders and had ignited a civil war that saw Russian-speaking minorities persecuted.’”

These are facts that Consortium News has been reporting since 2014 — but which establishment media has been suppressing — including these two exhaustively corroborated accounts: On the Influence of Neo-Nazism in Ukraine and Evidence of US-Backed Coup in Kiev. 

While RNZ’s investigation continues, Hall resigned from his job. He would have a home at Consortium News. So that’s why we are making a public pronouncement that we hope reaches him:  You are welcomed to work as an editor at CN. Contact us at joelauria@consortiumnews.com 

 

READ MORE:

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/06/26/cn-offers-work-to-nz-editor-suspended-for-ukraine-edits/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAfBdCEp2R4

No2Nato Broadcast #3 - War Logs

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..........

Max Blumenthal addresses UN Security Council on Ukraine aid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddc1ix_9MII

Watch The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal address the UN Security Council on the role of US military aid to Ukraine in escalating the conflict with Russia and the real motives behind Washington's support for Kiev's proxy war.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..............

By Von Hans-Jürgen Geese 

Erinnern Sie sich, wie das dereinst war in der Beziehung zwischen Russland und Deutschland nach dem Fall der Mauer? Erinnern Sie sich an die versprochene Friedensdividende? Frieden auf Erden. Und Freundschaft, Freundschaft über alles. Vor allem mit Russland. Im Jahre 2007 spielte das Musikkorps der Bundeswehr, unter riesigem Applaus, auf dem Roten Platz in Moskau „Preußens Gloria“. Wer hätte das jemals gedacht? Und so lautete auch, in Erstaunen, die Überschrift damals der staatlichen russischen Nachrichtenagentur „Novosti“: „Preußens Gloria auf dem Roten Platz in Moskau.“

 

By Hans-Jürgen Geese – June 1, 2023

Do you remember what the relationship between Russia and Germany was like after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Do you remember the promised peace dividend? Peace on earth. And friendship, friendship above all. Especially with Russia. In 2007, the German Armed Forces Music Corps played “Prussia’s Glory” on Moscow’s Red Square, to huge applause. Who would have ever thought that? And so, in astonishment, the headline at the time of the Russian state news agency “Novosti” read: “Prussia’s Glory on Moscow’s Red Square.”

Six years earlier, on September 25, 2001, Vladimir Putin had given his famous speech to the German Bundestag. Then, at the 2007 Munich Conference on Security Policy, before Putin’s speech, the conference’s chairman, Horst Teltschik, spoke of further developing the German-Russian partnership. Putin then set out his vision of the future.

Putin explained what a monopolar world looks like and clearly said that a monopolar world is not a good thing for Russia or for the rest of the world. The man really didn’t mince words. There were all the important people in NATO sitting in the room. Did they think the man was fantasizing in front of them? There were also the hardliners from America sitting there and they would have had to do nothing more than at least respond to Russia’s proposals, discuss them and try to settle the world’s problems together in peace.

Because after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in fact, the world was set for peace. Therefore, in the 1990s, Germans like me traveled to what was then Leningrad to study Russian and to bring about international understanding. The great model was the reconciliation after the Second World War with France. This happened in a very simple way: German youth learned French and traveled to France. And the French came to Germany. Twinning of cities and towns soon after. It was a great success. And exactly this approach would have brought about eternal peace between Russia and Germany. That simple? Yes, that simple.

Today, unfortunately, we have to ask ourselves whether the German Armed Forces Music Corps will ever play on Moscow’s Red Square again? Because the Germans have decided to send weapons that kill Russians instead of the music corps.

Once again, as has been the case for over 100 years, there are powers at work that want to destroy. Once again, there are powers at work that want to destroy, above all, the friendship between Russians and Germans. And therefore, after the undesirable period of rapprochement, there must be war again in Europe. So that Germans and Russians do not live in peace. Of course, this behavior is directed not only against the interests of Germans and Russians, but also against the interests of Europeans. Without the Europeans having anything to say in the matter. We only know, we are told again and again, that Russia is to blame for the war. A good war for us, then. Which we have to win.

To our reassurance, we hear daily from the Western media that the West, officially represented by Ukraine, will indeed win this war against Russia. It has actually been winning it since the beginning of 2022, right after the start of hostilities. But to be on the safe side, in the meantime NATO has delivered gigantic amounts of war material to Ukraine. And it keeps making more promises of miracle weapons to guarantee victory, so to speak. It may interest you to know what is the state of affairs in July 2023? When will Russia finally be defeated?

The situation from the Russian point of view

As I learned when I was an officer in the Bundeswehr, it is always helpful to understand the situation from the perspective of the other side. The other side claims that in February 2022 the Russians did not suddenly decide to invade Ukraine. That would not have been possible. After all, the logistical requirements for such an action are so enormous that they require long-term planning. My guess of the development is therefore as follows:

After the supposed Minsk peace agreement in 2014, Putin very quickly realized that neither Ukraine nor the West intended to fulfill the terms of the agreement. Soon, Russians witnessed the West’s arming of Ukraine. How should they interpret this development? Well, for the Russians, the situation finally presented itself clearly: there will be war. One way or another. It will first be a proxy war between NATO and Russia, with the threat of direct confrontation later.

After the Russians came to this realization, they planned how this war would go. They had to learn what a war in modern times looks like. A war with the new weapons that had never been used in a war of this kind. It would not be a war like 50 years ago. The Russians decided that under any circumstances they would dictate the terms of how this war would be fought. Then they considered what weapons they would need to do it and in what quantities. And then they set to work.

The Russian war economy is not a private economy. It is not influenced by profit aspects. On the contrary, the cheaper the better. Whereas in the West, the war economy is a private economy. The more expensive and the more complex and the more complicated the better. Even if they wanted to, the arms companies in the West cannot provide the quantities of munitions needed for a long war at short notice. They don’t have the necessary production capacity. The Bundeswehr, for example, could not wage war for more than two weeks at most. Then the stocks of ammunition would be exhausted.

Russia knew this war was coming and was and is prepared for it. Once again, NATO did not and does not have the quantities of weapons, much less ammunition, necessary to win a war against Russia. Most importantly, NATO has the wrong weapons.

 The art of war in the 21st century

It is said that generals always fight the last war. And accordingly they invest in war equipment. Therefore, the strongest military power on earth, the Americans, have eleven aircraft carriers and nine helicopter carriers, more than all other countries combined, which, however, in 2023 will be of no more use than as excellent targets. A single hypersonic missile and the billion-dollar thing with thousands of sailors sinks to the bottom of the sea.

Tanks still have some justification, but only in conjunction with other weapons. If a tank unit does not receive protection from the air, the tanks are an easy target. As we now know, even the Leopard tank is not a miracle weapon. It burns like all other tanks. Besides, before the Leopard appeared on the battlefield, the Russians already knew how to take it out.

Now NATO wants to send fighter planes. Again, in the world of modern technology, these are very expensive but relatively easy targets. The ammunition you need to shoot such a nice plane out of the sky is much cheaper than the plane. And the same ratio applies to all other equipment used for combat by NATO. Expensive but not decisive for war. And mostly much too complicated for the Ukrainians.

Quality over quantity? The U.S. military budget is gigantic compared to what Russia spends on armaments. But that’s not saying much. Therefore, a quantitative comparison of military budgets alone is a nonsensical simplification.

What counts? What decides? Well, Russia deploys previously unimaginable quantities of missiles and shells that dominate the battlefield. And Russia has the best air defense system in the world. They also have the best hypersonic missiles in the world, against which there is no defense. The Russians can spot and then destroy any (any!) target in Ukraine via satellites and drones and spies. The Russians therefore dictate what happens on the battlefield. They have total control over what happens.

 Russia’s strategy

The maxims that have stood the test of time for thousands of years are, “Know your enemy and know yourself, and in 100 battles you will never be in danger.”

“A wise warrior will impose his will on the enemy and will not allow the enemy to impose his will on him.”

“The whole art of war is based on cunning and guile”

“Always keep the enemy under pressure and never let him rest.”

Russia has managed to impose its will on the enemy, to shape the battlefield according to Russian ideas, and to fight with weapons in which Russia has a huge advantage: Artillery and missiles.

And so the Russians storm the enemy’s fortresses from a mostly safe distance. They show great patience in doing so, because they want to minimize their own losses. Most Ukrainian soldiers die without ever having seen a Russian soldier.

And still the majority of the Russian army is in reserve. Why? Because Russia cannot rule out the possibility that NATO will intervene directly. The Russian army is now designed and equipped to deal with NATO in a conventional confrontation.

However, the events a week ago surrounding the Wagner Group may ultimately reveal that not only Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner Group, but also some Russian generals, are losing patience and do not see why this conflict is being dragged on and on. Understandable from their point of view. Because they know that Russia can bring this war to an end. Putin, however, has a different view: the longer the war lasts, the less the West’s war-fighting capacity. The more tanks and planes and other war equipment are destroyed in Ukraine, the smaller NATO’s chances.

 Russia’s allies

By far the largest part of the world is on Russia’s side, since it is obvious that this is ultimately a war of the U.S. against Russia. And the world is simply fed up with the bullying, intimidation and military domination of the U.S. We are witnessing a turning point.

Russia’s most important ally is, of course, China. In an emergency, China would certainly supply Russia with munitions and weapons. So, since China has virtually unlimited production capacity, the West cannot possibly win this war with conventional weapons.

As I said, the West is not prepared for war. Correcting that would take years, as the capacity to do so would have to be built up in the private sector. Meanwhile, there is already a shortage of ammunition in Ukraine. Moreover, the Ukrainians’ air defenses have totally collapsed.

The Ukrainian soldiers have no choice but to die. They have no chance to win this war.

 Man as a factor of influence

In America, when a soldier is promoted to the rank of general, you can assume that this is primarily a political decision. A general is a politician in uniform. Therefore, a U.S. general can make mistakes without consequences. After the disaster in Afghanistan, not one U.S. general was fired. No one is responsible.

In Russia, generals belong to a military elite. These are real men who live as generals and often even die as generals on the battlefield. And who bear responsibility. And who are therefore also fired.

You only have to look at the so-called political elite in the West, as it is presented to us daily on television. They are a bunch of whiners. They will never win a war. Because they are incompetent, corrupt and live without honor. And because they don’t live in reality. The politicians in the West live in a fantasy world. And the generals have to adapt to this fantasy world and say things that are politically desirable. NATO is nothing more than a vicarious agent of the interests of the United States of America. The Europeans have nothing to say. Nothing. Especially not the good Germans.

This became clear once again last week when Putin showed off the agreement already negotiated last March to seal the peace between Russia and Ukraine. Ready to be signed. But then Boris Johnson appeared and convinced or forced the Ukrainians not to sign. Because the West wanted and wants this war. NATO absolutely needs this war. Peace would be a disaster. What should NATO do then?

 

The escalation of the West

The war began with an attack on Kiev. After the peace treaty was negotiated in Turkey, the Russians withdrew. But in the end, nothing came of the treaty. And so the war took its course as we know it. It is a war of attrition with gigantic material battles in which the Russians will have the upper hand because they are attuned to this kind of war. The West, NATO, every single NATO member, is completely overwhelmed. They’re blowing up big time, but all the world can see there’s little of substance there. The West is playing poker. Russia is playing chess.

Now that the last card of their poker game has been exhausted, the only further escalation left for the West is either a false flag event of truly provocative dimensions or nuclear war.

Russia’s biggest fear, therefore, is that the West will go berserk and use any means to at least keep going. Russians know the mentality of people in power in the West. They understand what makes psychopaths tick. A psychopath doesn’t back down. A psychopath does not lose. A psychopath destroys everything before admitting defeat.

Psychopaths are mental patients. The West is ruled by mental patients. How else could you provoke a war that you can only lose?

 The personification of war

No war without propaganda. No war without lies. Since the prehistory of the war plays into Russia’s hands, since the course of the war plays into Russia’s hands, and since the prospect of victory for the West tends toward zero, the West decided to wage a pseudo-moral war, and at least win that one, to keep the war boiling. Thus, this war became the “Putin war.” One no longer speaks of Russia. One speaks only of Putin, of the man who, according to various US presidents, has a deep black soul that they have looked into. No, the outpouring of bullshit in the West is beyond the pale: Appearance over reality. Advertising and propaganda over truth. And also the merciless, uninterrupted dumbing down of the people has to be, because otherwise the whole fraud will be exposed.

We are all lucky that Vladimir Putin is currently in power in Russia. His self-control is admirable. His patience is admirable. And his wisdom. A true statesman.

The claim that Putin must step down is completely absurd. The probability is very high that a much more aggressive president will then take his place. Because there is a boiling in the Russian people. The Russian people want to bring this war to an end. Which would be possible if the Russian army finally went on the attack. At the moment, the Russian army is bleeding the Ukrainian army dry. To what point this will continue is completely open. But at some point there simply won’t be any Ukrainian defense of any significance. The Russians will overrun the rest. An entire generation of Ukrainians is being sacrificed right now. Not for Ukraine. For the West. Because Ukraine can only lose in this war.

So the alleged “Putin war” is pure propaganda. This approach is aimed at your feelings. This approach is designed to prevent you from turning on your brain to ask some questions. Therefore, the Ukraine conflict is also excellently suited to advance the manipulation of the people and the dumbing down of the people. If you will, a continuation of propaganda after the Covid stories. This massaging of the psyche of the people is an essential part of NATO’s objective. Once you are soft kneaded, it is much easier for you to agree to the next step in the war as well.

My advice: Ask questions of Putin, of course, but above all direct questions to Scholz, Biden, Johnson, Macron and Co. As I said, the peace treaty that Putin showed us actually existed in March of last year. No one in the West disputes that. And it is also undisputed that the Ukraine negotiator was assassinated upon his return. Question: Why was the treaty not signed?

 A few words to the Greens

The blowing up of the Nord Stream pipes and the consequences of it were one of the greatest environmental disasters of all time. The collapse of the dam in Ukraine and the consequences of it were one of the biggest environmental disasters of all times.

But not a green soul cried out or screamed in protest. It seems not to have occurred to these Greens that war means one environmental disaster after another. So how in God’s name can a party that calls itself “The Greens” be in favor of war in general and this war in particular?

The whole hypocrisy of these NATO Greens, the whole hypocrisy of this dumbeddown generation, is once again being shown to the world. These dreamers want to save the world? How then? By destroying it?

In the case of the Greens, the same thing happened as with all other parties that were able to garner a certain share of the electoral votes and therefore had to be absorbed by the system. Because the system is the system is the system. The system is above everything. And all parties must eventually submit to the system. The process is simple: the complainers and idealists are thrown out, and the conformists and careerists then take over. The image is instrumentalized for other purposes, so to speak. See SPD. See the Greens. Always works. Must always work. So you can vote for whoever and whatever you want. Traffic light or not. It always comes out the same. That’s the way it has to be. That is democracy.

And while we’re on the subject of democracy: If you follow the discussions in Germany about the Ukraine conflict, you come across many discussions with many women, sometimes purely women’s discussions. Amazing. There seems to be a real female domination in Germany now. They even babble about war. They have no idea. But a lot of it. Just as the parties were instrumentalized, so were the women. One could have assumed that women in politics are definitely in favor of peace. Always. After all, they are women. But since women are much more emotional than men, they are also much easier to manipulate. Therefore, the more women in politics, the better for the rulers of this world. The more women in politics, the easier it is to manipulate the people.

Even in the Bundeswehr, women are jumping around. Ursula, the dreaded Minister of War, really cleaned things up there a few years ago. Although hardly anything worked then. But no matter. What is war readiness? Does it really have to be? Ursula, girl! And then another woman came along, also completely unencumbered by competence. Amazing. My thesis: The rule of women means the downfall of the world. It would be beautiful if it had come differently. But to speak of progress with these women… Really? The Baerböckchen? The von der Leyen? Merkel? God help us.

Link: https://www.anderweltonline.com/klartext/klartext-20232/lugen-und-propaganda-haben-im-krieg-ganz-kurze-beine/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

SEE ALSO:

saving planet dorky from coal-fired pizzas......

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMXejvS2u0o

MEP Clare Daly - speech from 24 Jun 2023

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

SEE ALSO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shf1JlbQSjs

 

the heartland explained...

 

https://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/29838

 

EU regime leaders stand at the ready of a zelensky victory....

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....