Space Force expansion unmasks Biden as Trump?

Donald Trump's opponents ridiculed the US Space Force, which was originally presented as a flagship policy of his presidency and somehow indicative of the flaws of his leadership.

We were expected to believe that the Space Force somehow distinguished Trump from what would have been Clinton’s policies. However, in reality, everything would be the same, regardless of who led it and took responsibility.

Joe Biden, far from scrapping the "Trumpian" branch of the US military, kept and is expected to expand the Space Force, creating a Space National Guard, this being one of his own supposedly unique decisions. This time, the initiative for more of exactly the same thing is coming from the other party, as if the two parties are one and the same.

President poser

The same tendency to have a leader claiming responsibility for whatever the state desired anyway, is true of other moves, such as the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Had Trump ordered that withdrawal, it would have be portrayed as a uniquely “Trumpian” move by the idiots who instead made apologies for it only because Biden did it.

What we see clearly shows that presidents are just opportunists and posers for photo ops, who have no real policy ideas and just claim ownership for whatever the permanently attached limpets and advisers from the military and intelligence junta are simply doing anyway.

The unelected state

The US state places no value in the American people, and everything it does is for the expansion of its own power at the nation's expense. The corrupt intelligence services who spied on their own people, and were exposed by Edward Snowden as crooks, were driven to protect themselves from the people. The most aggressive American policies, such as propaganda and torture, are devised not to help the American people but to protect the self-serving individuals in charge from embarrassment, overthrow or prosecution. We can see this from the pursuit of Julian Assange, whose only threat was to the careers of torturers and war criminals, and he will now be handed over to them for torture.

The real leaders, who govern by expertise rather than the approval of the public, really invent American policies and oversee them over decades.

The real leaders are the statist party of “professionals” who wander in and out of government, the press and think tanks, being respected wherever they go, regardless of the results of their ideas. Hapless elected officials act as empty suits for the junta’s agenda, showing no difference from each other except the manner of their words. This reduces democracy to a puppet show for the weak-minded, as the “professionals” purposely avoid standing for election and likely don't bother even voting, yet frequently mention the word "democracy" as deception.

Read More »

Journalist goes to dungeon, as scribblers embrace war

Julian Assange is expected to be extradited soon, once the order is approved.

At the same time, the loyalist war hysteria related to the fighting in Ukraine dominates what is left of a supposedly free press. It should be noted that while Assange faces punishment, the journalists presented as legitimate by governments and the media are increasingly deranged and embrace violence, wishing all manner of censorship, adversity and even death on people who disagree with them.

Sponsored screeds

Jean-Paul Marat referred to a majority of journalists as “prostituted scribblers” who come to the aid of whoever is able to buy the most power or wealth, to be sycophants. This is most clearly the case in the United States and the United Kingdom alike, where approving and getting behind the most heavily sponsored “cause” as its cheerleader is now the only recognised or approved form of journalism.

In Ukraine, our journalists may simply be the photographers of corpses, on hand to be sent wherever a dead body is found, to photograph it and caption it as the work of the “aggressors”, thus rewarding whoever found the corpse and drinking the propaganda of the blood, regardless of how such a body came about and scarcely with any interest in its former identity.

Dominant discourse

Most of the labelled “independent media” appears to be falsely labelled thus, and a majority of “journalists” seem not to be journalists but in fact vile combatants, who would deserve no protection internationally and in fact their death or absence would have no effect on people’s access to truth, and may even be met with cheer. The same cannot be said of the victim of the state, Assange, whose very punishment is the result of him increasing people’s access to truth (that much is not denied even by governments themselves, which hold it against him, preferring instead scribblers who parrot their justifications for increased murder and misery).

One can only hope things are not so bad.

Read More »

Russia could swap Navalny for Assange

Assuming that the persecuted Australian publisher Julian Assange is taken into US custody following the UK's probable failure to provide any kind of justice for him, Russia should offer Alexei Navalny in a prisoner swap.

This in no way is intended to lend credence to the idea that either man is an international spy, as figures from both the Russian and American governments have claimed, but to acknowledge that each man is the other's parallel. Who is the good, the bad, and perhaps the ugly would depend on which of the two nations should refuse such a swap.

Navalny the politician, Assange the publisher

It should be quite telling that Russia's most famous dissident is a partisan politician, whereas the West's most famous dissident is a nonpartisan publisher. Navalny is sometimes falsely presented as a whistle-blower, yet what he does is make partisan propaganda films boosted by foreign media with an interest in regime-change in Russia. Assange, in contrast, never presented any message or agenda, and simply published raw data that exposed government officials in the act. Assange is everything Navalny pretends to be.

Navalny really seems to be the kind of traitor the US government accuses Assange of being. He roots for NATO forces amassing on Russia's frontier, and supports Western sanctions against his own country's defence and industrial sectors. From this, Russians can know Navalny is a Guaido.

It should be suspected that, were a hypothetical swap offered, Russia would almost certainly want to get rid of Navalny but the Americans would never let go of Assange. This should tell us something.

The test of the miserable little worm

Assange was instrumental in exposing the truth about America being a regime of murderers in raw, unedited video, and is effective at continuing to expose America's regime no matter where he is, whereas Navalny was always just America's favourite candidate to rule Russia. As such, a Julian Assange in Moscow would likely be very useful to the Russians, but an Alexei Navalny in Washington is probably useless to the Americans.

Assange is an undisputed icon of truth and selfless, virtuous journalism, invaluable to all the world's nations. Navalny is the dishonourable propagandist whose goal is power, not revealing facts to the public. He is, to quote a certain former UK Member of Parliament, a miserable little worm.

The profound inferiority of the West's championed dissident, this failed politician, in contrast to a journalist who exposed their regimes, would be undisputed in the event of inevitable US refusal to take the rotten Navanly in exchange for Assange.

If Assange dies, might Navalny then die?

It is likely that an entirely innocent and humble Julian Assange will die in the cruel custody of the American despots who hide behind the democratic pantomime, and who could not tolerate the humiliation at the exposure of their regime's crimes. In such an event, the Russians could similarly eliminate Navalny in turn, and this would be no loss as far as the world or even the United States is concerned.

A swap offer would give the Americans a difficult choice: either expose the worm they support in Russia, by showing their refusal to take him, or send Assange to Russia and risk a resurgent WikiLeaks. A successful swap would be a coup for Russia's reputation, and a failed swap would be equally incriminating for the US and make the US hesitant to harm Assange.

The Americans have a disgusting regime, whose leaders turned as red as gammon when their war crimes were exposed, and the world's focus should stay on them rather than Russia.

Read More »