154 Comments
User's avatar
Graham Cunningham's avatar

You don't have to be a fan of Putin to agree that you are right about the West's demonization of Russia.

Back in the early1990s, we had a real opportunity to bring Russia - a nation awash with European cultural history (Pushkin, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Tchaikovsky etc etc etc) - into some sort beneficial relations with the West. They wanted that. And we blew it...... big time.

Expand full comment
russian_bot's avatar

"And we blew it...... big time." - on purpose.

Expand full comment
Bill Jarett's avatar

Didn't "blow it"- that was not the plan.

Expand full comment
Graham Cunningham's avatar

What I mean is:

1) insisting that Russia instantly transmutes itself into a full-on 'liberal' democracy

2) having zero sensitivity to the realpolitik of pushing NATO and EU membership hard up the backside of places that Russia thought of as part of a Greater Slavic hinterland

Expand full comment
Jeano's avatar

We just wanted to strip a dying country of its wealth and resources, so we sent in the oligarchs to steal everything it could from the communist government. We put in a drunk who was complicit in all this with Slick Willy at the helm and Putin put an end to it. THAT’s why we hate Russia.

Expand full comment
Starry Gordon's avatar

The conflict between the Anglosphere and Russia goes back to, at least, the middle of the 19th century, so the "we" is pretty metaphorical. The central issue, then and now, is how to control the world and keep it safe for capitalism. Large, coherent polities like the Russian and Chinese empires whose rulers did not care to submit posed an obvious problem. It's not a matter of sensitivity.

Expand full comment
russian_bot's avatar

Earlier than that. There's also a religion issue - catholicism vs orthodoxy. At play in Ukraine as well.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jul 17, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
JackSirius's avatar

At some point we need to realize that Substack is either a) too technically incompetent to eliminate such obvious routine serial spam accounts, which is unlikely, or b) this type of spam attack is a sophisticated hack, probably by an imperial contract hacker, that Substack can’t seem to prevent, or c) Substack is allowing—even facilitating—the spamming of specific accounts.

I am hoping it is (b) and that Substack will soon sort it out. But I have wondered how long Substack would be able to resist the power of the imperial national security state and become just another censor of free, dissident speech. At this point, I’m worried the problem is (c).

Expand full comment
Bill Jarett's avatar

China is the international control model for liquidating the West. Thus the corrupt Establishment pushed Russia and China together.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jul 17, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Bill Jarett's avatar

Sorry, you warned me not to.

Expand full comment
Patrick Powers's avatar

I once heard of Russia in the 1990's, "everything was stolen."

Expand full comment
Toma's avatar

That's funny considering the entire US was stolen from the native Americans and we still can't seem to honor the treaty's we established with them.

Expand full comment
Mel's avatar

Russia is not our enemy!

Expand full comment
CarbonCopy's avatar

Exactly and neither is China! They are the enemy of our enemies not We The People!

Expand full comment
Eric Arnow's avatar

After 8 years of broken promises to implement Minsk, all the while shelling civilians and committing atrocities, the people of the Donbass implored Putin to protect them. The US has invoked the Responsibility to Protect doctrine to start wars, only the circumstances were provoked by the US in the first place. In the case of Donbass, Russia is accused of criminality for defending people who've been under attack, and with the certian knowledge that extremely serious attacks, both military as well as biological attacks were coming. Thus, West is doing exactly what Johnstone warns against. Sounding reasonable, when in fact ceding to actual Nazis their right to attack without reprisal.

Expand full comment
Literally Mussolini's avatar

This. This is the actual situation. The people of the Donbass have been treated horribly and do not want to be part of Ukraine.

One thing that I find amazing is that the propagandized people of the US support the same right of autonomy for the people of Taiwan--to the point that the US military might become directly involved. Same for ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia.

Expand full comment
CarbonCopy's avatar

You have to be in the "front of the bus" to have that consideration from the people so concerned with the crimes being committed against them and of course some type of profit for the "Great Protector of Democracy"!

Expand full comment
Patrick Powers's avatar

If the USA said anything that wasn't hypocritical I would be astonished. It's the foundation of everything they do.

Expand full comment
Jeano's avatar

Excellent

Expand full comment
Philip Mollica's avatar

For some historical perspective on Russia and Ukraine, listen to RFK Jr. interview portion with Lex Fridman. https://youtu.be/SzjEgaquNWc

And just to note, Bobby has said he will pardon Assange and Snowden Day One, and will work to negotiate a peace settlement between Ukraine and Russia.

Expand full comment
Letsrock's avatar

We had peace w Putin while Trump was in office. And every other country as well. How quickly y'all forget N. Korea.

Expand full comment
Philip Mollica's avatar

104,000 bombs dropped in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria during Trumps Presidency, and that doesn't include the stuff that's off the books in all the other nations we're illegitimately involved in. Let's not get carried away. Not all Trump's fault, even Pompeo said he could not reel in the CIA under Trump. And that's what desperately needs to happen.

Expand full comment
jamenta's avatar

And let's not forget Trump assassinated an Iranian General in broad daylight, which could have easily led to yet another Middle East war - if it weren't for the rational restraint of the Iranians.

There is this ongoing myth that Trump is some kind of anti-establishment billionaire, a working man hero - not the case.

Expand full comment
Philip Mollica's avatar

Yes, I think a lot of Trump's support is going to go to RFK Jr. once they get a wiff of what's up. He's like Trump Lite, everything you like without the bitter aftertaste lol.

Expand full comment
jamenta's avatar

It's surprising how so many are falling for the same old game that is being played with RFK Jr. in the democratic party.

Expand full comment
Philip Mollica's avatar

I thought so at first as well, and I think I'm pretty astute.

I no longer believe that's the case. This ain't Bernie II.

He has no friends in the DNC. Even with the DNC not being beholden to voters, he has some sort of leverage. I don't think he would be running if he didn't see a path forward.

Expand full comment
Letsrock's avatar

Trump inherited that conflict. He pushed for withdrawal against resistance from military industrial complex. He was engaged constantly fighting a fierce war against DS. Iranian Gen Soleimani headed anti-American attacks in Iraq. So much for their restraint. Get your facts straight.

Expand full comment
Philip Mollica's avatar

Not according to the Grayzone and the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, he was in Bahgdad to discuss a diplomatic rapproachment that Iraq was brokering between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Now we know that Saudi Arabia was already preparing to kick the U.S. to the curb, and I'm certain this incident had a lot to do with that. And Saudi Arabia has since signed a peace deal with Iran in spite of our best efforts to derail that.

Abdul-Mahdi said that Trump personally thanked him for the efforts, even as he was planning the hit on Soleimani – thus creating the impression that the Iranian general was safe to travel to Baghdad.

The U.S., and Trump specifically, set him up. Your U.S. Media has never reported that. I would suggest that you see where your facts are from before you take them at face value.

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/06/soleimani-peace-mission-assassinated-trump-lie-imminent-attacks/

Expand full comment
Letsrock's avatar

Never heard of the gray zone nor do I believe those sources not to cya. Trump is a peace loving man who did not want war or to start any. He inherited this mess.

Expand full comment
Philip Mollica's avatar

If you've never heard of them then today is your lucky day! One of the few sources of news that is not beholden to the US Corporate Regime.

Max Blumenthal, who just last week was invited to speak at the United Nations. Aaron Mate', prizewinning journalist. They will make a good counterpoint to your standard sources of news. Then at least you can make up your own mind when you have perspectives that are not corrupted by money.

Expand full comment
Society's Stinky Parts's avatar

Nah, he popped Soleimani to keep the other oligarchs from throwing him off the bus, as brokered by the eunuch Lindsey Graham.

Expand full comment
Third-Eye Roll's avatar

The problem with the current climate debate is the nonsensical assertion that simply transitioning from a petroleum-powered industrial platform to an electric-powered industrial platform is the solution. It's essentially claiming that the highly toxic processes involved in producing electric everything (and the totally ignored disposal problem) is somehow ecologically safe as opposed to the alternative. It also ignores the other huge inputs to climate change such as big-ag (crops as well as cattle); military activity (no such thing as 'green' bombs); over-development and its asphalt effects on temperatures, and western lifestyles of overconsumption, etc. If these other climate change contributors were erased, petroleum emissions from motor vehicles would have a greatly reduced effect on climate. All of this is to say that switching to an electric-powered industrial platform isn't the panacea that even thinkers I admire, such as Caitlin, seem to fall for. It's the industrial platform itself, regardless of how it's powered, that is the problem. And it's the dependence -- of even the people who see that truth -- on the toxic industrial platform to survive and navigate their lives, that pushes it to its ultimate endpoint: gradual but imminent collapse. Choosing to drive off the proverbial cliff in an electric car still ends in disaster.

Expand full comment
Third-Eye Roll's avatar

Thanks for the link. Not only is 'degrowth' unacceptable to the establishment, even a steady-state economy is unthinkable to them. Truly insane: "wetiko", as the Native Americans call it.

Expand full comment
Toma's avatar

Degrowth , reduced consumption and population decline would all hurt the corporations. Which is why the media is crying over declining birth rates. One of the best things that could happen but it is being portrayed as a catastrophe.

Addendum

It's taking away the fun and profits of killing us with bombs. Oh my.

Expand full comment
Patrick Powers's avatar

I thought Biden's campaign slogan should have been "keep the scam going."

Expand full comment
Third-Eye Roll's avatar

I like that! That's pretty much what the POTUS's job is.

Expand full comment
Society's Stinky Parts's avatar

"If other people stopped eating I could have my SUV"

Expand full comment
Patrick Powers's avatar

I never saw how electric cars were going to do any good at all. 80% of electrical power comes from fossil fuels. So we have a huge industrial movement based on falsehood. SOP. The first megarich corporation made it by selling a quack cure for the plague.

Expand full comment
Toma's avatar

The "Green electric solution" is going to be the biggest disaster in the world.

Solar and wind power are unreliable for full-time production of electricity and will require massive amounts of batteries which have limited lifespans. What to do with the toxic chemicals from them?

Any time energy is converted from one form to another losses are incurred. A typical coal fired power plant is approximately 30% efficient. Transmission lines incur a 10% loss. Charging batteries loses another 5%. The batteries themselves also incur losses and degrade drastically over a few years reducing capacity. The most efficient way to power a vehicle is an internal combustion engine. This is all high school physics.

EVs have to carry 1000 to 2000lbs of batteries which further reduces efficiency and will greatly effect safety in collisions. Not to mention spontaneous combustion as has happened with a few Teslas. Electric motors are far heavier than aluminum block ice engines. And one of the main selling points of EVs is they have "no tailpipe emissions". It's almost a true statement since they don't have a tailpipe but the coal fired power plant has a really big smoke stack. My favorite lie is how we're going to plug our EV into the grid to use the batteries overnight to sell the power back to the grid. In the morning you can hitch up the oxen to tow the vehicle to the charge station and wait an hour or more to recharge.

To add insult to injury the electric grid is already under capacity and ill maintained. A solar flare or EMP could destroy it in a day.

The details of this folly would take a book to describe but space here is limited. We're being lied to but is that surprising?

The only reason for the green energy solution that I can see is to make the elite richer by forcing people to go all electric. Musk GM and all the rest are going to be delighted.

Expand full comment
Third-Eye Roll's avatar

Actually, there is a book that details the follies you mentioned. It's called Bright Green Lies, co-written by Max Wilbur, Lierre Kieth and Derrick Jensen. It's statistically dense reading, but well worth it.

Expand full comment
Toma's avatar

What I cannot believe is the fact that Bidens plan for this is hardly challenged with all the engineers in this country. If anyone needs proof of how much is being censored, this is it. I'm not an opponent of solar or wind power but application for the national grid is insane. I hardly touched upon the problems with it. Thanks for the info on the book.

Expand full comment
Third-Eye Roll's avatar

You're welcome, and I hear ya. There is so much in the U.S. that isn't challenged by those who are supposed to do the challenging.

Expand full comment
Society's Stinky Parts's avatar

You're using your numbers emotionally, which is a sign of a property owner lying.

>Solar and wind power are unreliable for full-time production of electricity

So? Use it when it's available instead of being a cranky middle-class whiner who thinks the world exists to bend to their every urinary urge.

Expand full comment
Toma's avatar

It's clear that you either never read my comment or can't understand it. You're oversimplifying the entire situation. The green energy policy is a piece of propaganda which is going to be a disaster.

Try this book

Bright Green Lies, co-written by Max Wilbur, Lierre Kieth and Derrick Jensen.

I'm not against solar or wind. I've installed them and they are great in a place where the grid is unavailable. If you want to find out what it's going to be like go shut off the main breaker to your house and leave it off for a week. Reality will sink in.

"of being a cranky middle-class whiner who thinks the world exists to bend to their every urinary urge."

You couldn't be more wrong on all counts.

Expand full comment
CarbonCopy's avatar

Take a look at Toyota! The same way of generating electricity from hydrogen can also be used for combustion with the only pollution being water! This is the solution. Just because the truth has been basterdized and turned into profit doesn't mean it isn't true. It is very easy to produce hydrogen and everything can be done with it without pollution. BMW has had hydrogen fuel cells in some of their cars for 20 years and no one seems to know this.

Expand full comment
Toma's avatar

I wish I could jump up and down,clap my hands, and yell "yaaaahhh" but there are some practical difficulties with hydrogen. The biggest is containing it. It's the smallest known molecule and the gas has to be highly pressureized. Containing is the real problem. NASA still has problems.

The second problem is generating it as it's energy intensive, but wind and solar would probably work. These are probably the difficulties BMW and Toyota ran into. I doubt there would be any backyard mechanics left. Then on the humourous side, in cold climates the water would have to be recovered or the roads would turn into skating rinks.

When they first started the go green energy solution hydrogen was one of the proposals but to generate the hydrogen it was going to be extracted from coal by steaming it using coal to generate the steam. Huge net loss for CO2 emissions but huge net gain for Exxon and the rest. It's still probably the best solution overall but will take years to develop and I doubt we have the time left.

Expand full comment
CarbonCopy's avatar

Once again I would say look to Toyota who has been doing deep research and design into this. They have had the "Mari" <<I believe how it is spelled for years and now have gone into a full blown production of refuelling stations and everything. I am a firm believer in investing in knowledge and not the military which is the only way out of this mess. Oh and by the way they get 300 hp out of a 1.5 litter engine! Amazing!

Expand full comment
Toma's avatar

I think that Toyota is the best vehicle on the market. I've heard a bit of the Toyota research being done but never looked at it in depth. And I agree with everything you say. Nothing I mentioned previously are insurmountable and maybe Toyota has already solved the problems. Since it won't benefit Exxon we won't hear about it in the US.

Expand full comment
Michele Branch's avatar

Let’s also consider the vast amount of dirty mining to produce each battery.

Expand full comment
Michele Branch's avatar

The tons of carbon dioxide produced before the car is bought - mining manufacturing and shipping.

Expand full comment
One Existence's avatar

"And one of the main selling points of EVs is they have "no tailpipe emissions". It's almost a true statement since they don't have a tailpipe but the coal fired power plant has a really big smoke stack."

Absolutely agree - despite the many other aspects I could point out regarding this "logic" I will stick to the most hidden and pernicious one - the more you decouple cause and effect - not deliberately but out of HUBRIS AND ARROGANCE - the less ANYONE can see the IDIOCY of it and the main driving force being FIAT CURRENCY ....

THE HOUSE OF CARDS IS CRUMBLING - despite the all the "rescue missions" of THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN ...

Expand full comment
CarbonCopy's avatar

While some of what your posts here is partially true you are apparently unaware of the emissions restrictions done on power generation from coal. The "smoke stack" you are imaging here has no smoke! There are numerous scrubbers which remove almost all the toxic chemicals from the output of the power plant emissions. Also some plants use recycled trash to produce electricity others Gas Turbines which will burn most any type of fuel. You can't bullshit me I am an Electrical Engineer who has worked my whole life in the industry. (retired). Hydrogen is the solution.

Expand full comment
One Existence's avatar

I don't know what you are referring to or whether your comment is meant to address my comment....

Just in case for everyone else coming along - I wasn't by any means addressing any technological, environmental or physical issue but rather a psychological, moral, societal... one. But according to your "response" I have to assume this went over your head... BUT thank you for displaying your engineering expertise... whatever that means, because THE TRUTH stands on its own only LIES need approval by an institution, degree, affiliation... no matter what the merit of the argument!

Expand full comment
Toma's avatar

Much of it stems from the educational system in the country which teaches and advocates "Ignorance is Bliss". "Let's all focus on deciding what gender we want to be today!"

Expand full comment
Patrick Powers's avatar

Michael Moore made a movie about all this. The Ds were displeased.

Expand full comment
Toma's avatar

Must have been the Ds turn for idiocy.

If nuclear war don't get us, EVs surely will.

Expand full comment
Third-Eye Roll's avatar

Even with the rapid increase in alternative energy, fossil fuel use continues to increase; a major reason is because of what you mentioned: the need for petroleum inputs to create those alternatives.

Expand full comment
CarbonCopy's avatar

The largest most dangerous polluter on the planet is the US Military. Rain that in and we could easily get an extra 20 years of clean planet!

Expand full comment
Letsrock's avatar

Stopping Chemtrail spraying from commercial airlines, in fact minimizing commercial flight and ending the chemtrails spewing over the oceans from huge ships would be a start. Reforestation and stop clear-cutting land.👍

Expand full comment
CarbonCopy's avatar

I don't see anywhere where Caitlin claims that electric cars are the answer. There are many ways to generate electricity without coal or nuclear reactors look at Iceland. The whole country has clean (and free!) electricity.

Expand full comment
James Filbird's avatar

What's the difference between Leftists and Liberals?

The simplest distinction between liberals and leftists is that liberals support capitalism and want to make changes within it, while leftists vouch for an alternative economic system entirely. For example: where a liberal would theoretically support the inclusion of gay people into the U.S. military, a leftist might oppose the military in general, believing the U.S. military to be a harbinger of death and therefore deplorable no matter which marginalized groups are represented in its ranks. Where a liberal would support laws heavily limiting civilian gun ownership, a leftist might support the arming of the masses, and particularly of the marginalized groups of society, because the disarming of those groups has historically allowed for violent government suppression.

It is helpful to consider the idea of reform versus revolution; a liberal believes that the system is overall redeemable if it is reformed through laws and social change, while a leftist believes that the system itself is the problem and only a revolutionary restructuring of that system would truly do any good.

Expand full comment
Philip Mollica's avatar

These terms, also including Progressive, have been so distorted and leveraged as to lose all meaning. We need new terms that can't be hijacked - perhaps like the "FuckTheSystems", or the "TweakTheSystems", or most accurately in most cases, the "WhatDoISayToContinueToGetReelectedAndEnrichMyself".

Expand full comment
Third-Eye Roll's avatar

"Muddying the waters" has been a wildly successful domestic psy-op for decades.

Expand full comment
Patrick Powers's avatar

Hmm, that's a clever solution to the media's power of Orwellization.

https://science1arts2and3politics.substack.com/p/the-orwellization-of-words

Expand full comment
jamenta's avatar

People fall in a wide spectrum. The problem with identity politics is it pigeon holes a person, and this can easily then be used as a propaganda tool to silence that person because he/she is bad and you are good. Political operatives and political propaganda today are masters of pigeon holing, of simplifying/generalizing issues (such as Ukraine vs. Russia) into the "you are either for us or against us".

Not all "liberals" believe only change within is possible, nor do all "leftists" believe in some kind of violent revolution doing away with all that might be beneficial in a system. It's not all black and white. But it is exactly this type of pigeon holing, this type of black and white propaganda, that divides human beings into ideological camps that then are exploited by many ruthless sociopaths for their own self-serving ends.

I think a good current example one can point to is the SAG-AFTRA strike. Obviously, hollywood actors and writers fall into a broad spectrum of ideological beliefs - not all of them are "socialists" or "capitalists". Not all of them are Democrat or Republican or Green Party Independents. But all of them have united against the tyrannical corporate greed in Hollywood and the film industry, to fight back against what is clearly an inhumane injustice toward their labor: where an unequal amount of profits are being exploitatively sucked out of their labor - so many can no longer enjoy the fruits of their labor in a humane fashion. This does not mean all actors and writers are therefore to be labeled as Socialist revolutionaries.

By the way, one of the finest pro-labor speeches I've heard in decades one can listen to here by Fran Drescher. It was extraordinary (and historic): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4SAPOX7R5M

Expand full comment
bill wolfe's avatar

"a leftist might support the arming of the masses"

No. The "left" does not support the violent overthrow of governments - that's what the right and fascists do.

Expand full comment
Jeano's avatar

The way I see it is that the liberal is a leftist who depends on the system he/she wants to change to live his/her comfortable (I.e. extravagant) lifestyle. So where did all the leftists go? They went to the bank, every one. When will they ever learn?

Expand full comment
The Revolution Continues's avatar

I agree with you up to arming people. Not all Leftists believe in arming folks. Some of us are radical pacifists. But we do believe in getting rid of the corrupt system as it stands today. You can't "incrementally reform" actions that are harming the working people--such as not providing them with food, shelter, health care and education.

Expand full comment
Emily Sue Rosner's avatar

As always... BRILLIANT WRITING, Caitlin Johnstone!

Expand full comment
Sari Tähtinen's avatar

Thank you Caitlin🙏

Expand full comment
bill wolfe's avatar

"The mainstream position in the west is that Putin invaded Ukraine solely because he is evil and hates freedom"

Not quite. The mainstream propaganda (lie) is that Putin is an authoritarian dictator seeking to restore the Soviet Union via military conquest of Ukraine and then the rest of eastern Europe.

Expand full comment
Literally Mussolini's avatar

This lie allows the US to frame the current situation in the Ukraine War as a victory for itself: "The brave, freedom-loving Ukrainians, with our generous support, have foiled Putin in his plan to roll up to the border of Germany."

Expand full comment
Patrick Powers's avatar

That's a good thing. Then they can quit without losing face.

Expand full comment
Literally Mussolini's avatar

That's true! Here's hoping that they start tomorrow.

Expand full comment
Patrick Powers's avatar

As soon as it becomes a cost center they'll pull out. Ukraine is a huge liability. That's why Russia refrains from conquering and occupying it. They can't afford it. This is also why the West is trying to provoke Russia into doing that.

https://science1arts2and3politics.substack.com/p/why-russia-doesnt-want-to-conquer

If the provocation fails then as a fallback the US will buy assets at knockdown prices. Multinational corporations get all the rebuild contracts. The Ukrainians get nothing, carrying on as debt slaves.

Expand full comment
Society's Stinky Parts's avatar

I don't think I want them turning inward with their triumph, considering the information control plans they have in store. Their turning inward with their embarrassment might or might not work out better for us, but whatever it is won't be purposeful, in their favor, or a better position for their long-term planning.

Expand full comment
Patrick Powers's avatar

"I am incapable of embarrassment." -- Commander Data

Expand full comment
Kirsten's avatar

Re "the biosphere is showing us many, many other signs of looming collapse." - don't ignore or forget that there are many possible causes for this. This paragraph is in the same article as you wrote about the Overton window. The Overton window of the corporate media tells us that this is due to global warming caused by CO2 levels. Where did the phrase "97% of scientists" believe this? This came from a literature review of scientists who have published on climate change. It's a false claim that 90% of all scientists believe that global warming is caused by CO2 levels and that this is catastrophic for the planet.

Other contributors: 1) all the toxic chemicals that have been dumped into our environment for decades now? These criminals polluting our environment have not been jailed, and that is contributing to habitat collapse. 2) geoengineering, look up the documentary "the dimming" to find out more. 3) weather manipulation and whether warfare has been developed since at least the 50s. How much is it being used today? We have no idea. But this is one of the most powerful technologies for war and for good. Don't be naive and think that nations have not developed this capacity and are using it. 4) other types of technologies affecting weather in the habitat. If HAARP can heat and bend the planet's ionosphere, how else is this technology and others like it affecting our planet?

Expand full comment
jamenta's avatar

"or forget that there are many possible causes for this.

False. About as false as the crackpots who claimed Sandy Hook was fake.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jul 17, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
jamenta's avatar

^ Crackpot alert!!

Expand full comment
Loon's avatar

Caitlins articles are fascinating for the GCHQ headquartered in Cheltenham England to read.Its where the 5 Eyes secret surveillance system employing over 20,000 people and financed by the taxpayers to ruin , interfere, destroy any narrative which isn’t keeping Australia, Canada, New Zealand USA, England safe from its evil citizens.

Look no further for its existence than in the comments here with

“ Caitlins 06565 @gmail.com Send me a mail privately”

Now I receive two newsletters from Caitlin!

One is the voice of evil in a masquerade costume and wants you to update your private information which Caitlin will never do.

The humanness they espouse in wanting for all of us to be safe from disinformation is hard to swallow as they devour their own mother, democracy with its freedom to express thoughts.

What they do is illegal but their hunger to devour is overpowering.

How can we made safe from this monster infecting like a lethal virus our people?

Expand full comment
The Revolution Continues's avatar

"Assange is the greatest journalist who has ever lived."

No truer statement ever made. He has to be--or else why are they trying so hard to keep him silenced and to silence anyone who acts similarly?

"The only people who hate leftists more than rightists do are liberals, which is a bit funny because rightists think leftists and liberals are the same."

I hate being labeled as a "liberal" or a "neoliberal"! I just politely correct people now and say, "No, I'm just your garden variety eco-socialist. You're free to call me a communist if you like, but never ever confuse me with being a neolib. I don't like being insulted. Thank you."

Expand full comment
The Revolution Continues's avatar

Anyone else feel the same way about being mislabled? Am I being too sensitive, or am I educating the public?

Expand full comment
Patrick Powers's avatar

I don't pay any attention to labels. I don't use them or even think about them. Discuss specific issues and actions instead.

Expand full comment
Daniel Geery's avatar

I am puzzled why serious attorneys well practiced on First Amendment issues don't go after any/every MSM that made much hay, not to mention $$$, on Wikileaks revelations. Is there any conceivable reason why THEY should not be up on espionage charges for using Julian's work?

Expand full comment
Society's Stinky Parts's avatar

The media spun the Snowden revelations in time and concept toward the interests of the ownership class and the system that allows them to exist in their accustomed style, and quieted a lot of online organizing that could activate too quickly for them to quash. Why would they be prosecuted for serving the interests of their society's property regimes? Functional societies pass out bling for that.

Expand full comment
Jack Lomax's avatar

I reckon Caitlin has got this one wrong. In her closing statement she advocates as much force as is needed to fix the problem. And that is fine and correct if you are a policeman needing more force simply call for reinforcements . Bur here we are talking of the most heavily armed system in the world which would not hesitate to use large nuclear weapons if it became necessary, I would love to see the American Empire consigned to the dustbin of history. But it will have to nonviolent massive opposition. And if that doesn't work sadly we will all soon be in the dustbin if history .Except there will be no dustbin and no history

Expand full comment
Doris Wrench Eisler's avatar

Assange exposes the face of the West, and it's a fascist face. Our support of Ukraine , even though we know it's a loser, proves that beyond any doubt. John Pilger fills in a lot of details in his essay: the Coming War: Speak Up, Now. He cites a Banderist pamphlet that proclaimed to Ukrainian Jews: 'We will lay your heads at Hitlers's feet'. This is the Banderist legacy, still highly visible and honoured in Ukraine today, that we support in our recognition and support for Zelensky, the unfortunate captive of the Azov element. The element Russia would not tolerate in its original "operation ". But the West for reasons of state and private profit, ignores this element, and turned a limited and clear-cut operation into an all-out war, with Ukraine the big present loser, and with residual effects of mindless Russophobia about to turn Europe into a pauper state. We will be lucky to escape with our lives before this insanity of ecstatic hatred and misplaced fears ends.

w

Expand full comment
Jo Waller's avatar

Yes campaigning for the right to use oil is campaigning for increased centralisation as well as more control and profits for the elites who own it. The effects of global warming with make us even more dependent on big corp and those already buying up land.

They would destroy the earth for profit. Not only are we letting them, we are protesting their right to do so.

I believe this was the plan all along. Those who saw through the Covid hoax (which was all about the money), to whatever extent, were targeted by industry with a climate control agenda involving cartoon villains in Switzerland. Our rights to eat dead animals and fly on holiday are being taken away! We must eat more dead animals and use more oil!

The oil industry has funded climate denial and attacked scientists personally, using the same dudes responsible for tobacco doubt, since the 60s. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/do-anti-vaxx-and-climate-denial-have The truther movement has fallen for the pathetic scientific arguments hook line and sinker because they believe in a fake political agenda.

Expand full comment
Bill Jarett's avatar

Poverty kills. Covid 19 has killed 6.9 million people World-wide. According to the UN the lockdowns caused 30 million people to starve to death.

Expand full comment
Jo Waller's avatar

This is a truly tragic and terrible. I hadn't heard that figure. I believe it.

I don't personally think that covid killed anyone, I think it was pollution, despair and the medical interventions, I think the pandemic was just a non-specific DNA amplification technique https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing

but within the context of the wilful murders of 30 million people it doesn't really matter

Expand full comment
Society's Stinky Parts's avatar

The state should think more about feeding people than protecting property rights, then.

Expand full comment
Bill Jarett's avatar

Ahh, but you mis the fact that the property rights are what gets you the food production. The examples of the failure of communist run farming are near universal.

Expand full comment
Society's Stinky Parts's avatar

Hmm, should I believe thousands of historiographical works spanning centuries, or should I believe the condescending idiot trying to project love and other emotional errors onto sacred imaginary friends "giving" us gifts.

Expand full comment
Society's Stinky Parts's avatar

Yes, believing in imaginary friends is inane, as is all theology.

Expand full comment