# 112 – Ukraine – It’s Not A Spectator Sport

War! – Who is it Good For?

Mutual aid, invasion, military operation, call it what you would like. It does not matter innocent civilian victims are killed, maimed, and lives destroyed by armed conflict. Why? Because central governments are evil. It does not matter if they are democracies, monarchs, fascists, dictatorial or socialist they are part of an evil, psychopathic society.

They are not good at balancing budgets, providing health care, education, fighting pandemics, and maintaining infrastructure. However, they are great at starting violent, bloody, and destructive wars. Then when they fail like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, they double down on a new one. This year, the Ukraine model might be the last ever. (nuclear war)

What purpose does war serve? To claim more servants to tax. To rally more of those sunshine patriots that cheer as the naive sign up to kill or be killed? The military-industrial complex needs to sell more armament and weapons to keep profits high. Is it just a cheap production of a new network series? After all, it has all the necessary plots; murder, international intrigue, heroes, villains, real special effects, and it has a corporation willing to sponsor it. Maybe it is as simple as determining the biggest bully on the block.

War – A Spectator Sport?

It is not a sporting event where people act like fans and choose a team to root. No, it is more like a cock fight where you root for the death of one roster over the life of another. The point is that the event is inhumane. Most of us are disgusted by the event and stay away. We do not pick a rooster to patronize, lionize or supply weapons.

Unlike governments, we do not attend or scour the earth in pursuit of cock fights. So, why do I see media personalities, Hollywood celebrities, neighbors, family, and friends picking sides? Does it matter who is killing who? Diplomacy stops the killing.

Can You Say – Diplomacy?

Diplomacy is a series of concessions to gain a purpose, a give and take process. Biden has said that Ukraine will not be approved for membership into NATO. And back in 2015, the US officially recognized the Minsk Agreement for the autonomy of the Donbas as part of a peace process. Obama, Trump, and Biden never pressured the Ukrainian leaders to enforce the Minsk agreement. Nor have they ever taken steps to stop NATO expansion into eastern Europe. In reality, they voted to approve NATO membership for Eastern European nations.

Presidential candidate Biden promised a presidency of diplomacy. He has failed. NATO expansion to the east has long been one of the Russian concerns. Biden blew a diplomatic action that would have stopped Russian troops from rolling across the Ukrainian border.

Putin’s Birdseye View

Putin, a former KGB colonel, came to power in 1999 after the disastrous rule of Boris Yeltsin. That same year, Putin watched as America conducted a 78-day bombing campaign on Serbia, the Balkan nation that had historically been a protectorate of Russia. Also that year, three former Warsaw Pact nations, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, were brought into NATO. Then in 2004, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, and Bulgaria were admitted into NATO. Three of those counties were former republics of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.

What boogyman are US arms and the NATO alliance protecting these countries? The answer is Russia and Putin would be stupid not to realize that. Last Monday, Putin said that during a Clinton visit to Moscow in 2000. He had asked Bill Clinton about the prospects of Russia joining NATO. Putin would not reveal the actual response but pointed out subsequent US policies like “support of the terrorists in North Caucusus, ignoring Russian demands and concerns, withdrawing from the arms limitation treaties, and so on.”

Last week, Putin said that for eight years, he had tried to bring peace to the Ukraine situation in a way that would keep the breakaway republics as part of Ukraine. Consequently, he has no alternative but to announce Russian recognition of the two republics. He signed mutual aid treaties with both republics. The Russian mutual aid package began by demanding Kyiv immediate stoppage of all hostilities. Otherwise, Putin added, all responsibility for a possible continuation of the bloodshed will be on the consciousness of the regime ruling in Ukraine.

With no response from the Ukrainian military, a Russian version of Shock and Awe ensued. Russian forces decapitated Ukrainian missiles and everything that supported the Ukrainian military forces. They hit the HQ of the Armed Forces of Ukraine stationed in Donbas. This blow to the Ukrainian General Staff severed control of all its troops.

Accusations of a Russian invasion are blaring across mainstream media. Is Putin using recognition of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent republics as an excuse to bolster his peacekeeping forces, or has Russia initiated an invasion? It appears Russian armed forces are doing what Putin defined as a “special military operation (…) aimed at demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine”. I assume his declaration to demilitarize includes neutralizing oppositional military forces. No matter what the excuse, crossing over the border is wrong.

The western media is not asking, Why does Putin feel it necessary to make this move at this particular time? He believes that the Ukrainian government that came to power after the 2014 coup is illegitimate, corrupt, and is a threat to Russia. The U.S.-sponsored coup ousted an elected leader that was very popular in the Donbas.

Ukraine History – Pre-Maidan 2014 Coup

In the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, Viktor Yanukovych was declared the winner. Later that year, as a result of the Orange Revolution, he was removed from power.

Yanukovych returned to power in 2006 as prime minister in the Alliance of National Unity until snap elections in September 2007 curtailed his power once again. Amid the 2008–09 Ukrainian financial crisis, the Ukrainian economy plunged by 15%, Russia briefly stopped gas supplies to Ukraine in 2006 and 2009.

In 2010, Ukraine needed an experienced leader. Ukrainians elected Viktor Yanukovych president once again with 48% of the votes. It is important to note much of his support came from eastern Ukraine, especially the Donbas provinces.

Maidan Coup

In November 2013, Viktor Yanukovych began moving away from the European Union partnership and chose closer ties with the Russian Federation partnership offer. The European Union and supporters were incensed, protesters went to the streets. The path to the Euro-maidan coup chartered. Fringe groups sided with the pro-European Union protestors. Yanukovych felt threatened enough to flee to Russia. In February of 2014, Ukraine Parliament voted to remove him as president once again and set an election for May to select his replacement.

During the Euromaidan coup, pro-Yanukovych and anti-Maidan protesters took to the streets in the Donbas. They occupied the Donetsk regional state administration (RSA) building for six days. Their protests involved violent clashes between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan protesters in Donetsk. Separatist groups seizures control over police stations and government buildings in Donetsk and other cities in the Oblast.

Post-Maidan

Ukrainian transitional president Oleksandr Turchynov launched a full-scale anti-terror military operation to reclaim the Donbas buildings. Ukrainian forces made a series of attacks into the Donbas against the rebels. The Ukrainian government forces blockaded cities throughout the Donbas and continued their anti-terror operation. In April, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts held referendums to determine their future status. The results established two new republics, Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.

Meanwhile, Petro Poroshenko, running on a pro-European Union platform, won over fifty percent of the presidential vote, therefore not requiring a run-off election. His policies angered the Donbas: he opposed the constitutional protection of Russian as a recognized language in ethnic Russian regions; he intensified Ukrainian nationalism; supported decommunization; and administrative decentralization. All measures further infuriated ethnic Russians living in the Donbas opposed.

Poroshenko immediately launched a War on Terror against Russian-speaking separatists in the Donbas. The civil war has dragged on for years, claiming up to 15,000 lives. His newly installed government empowered neo-Nazi militias and ultra-nationalist factions of the coup. He did little to rebuff western Ukrainian stereotypical beliefs that easterners in the Donbas are a thug culture, a Soviet cesspool, and backward.

Ukraine Today

Today Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a former actor and comedian, has been serving as the president of Ukraine since 2019. Zelinsky promised to end the Ukrainian conflict with Russia as part of his presidential campaign. His attempt to engage in dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his promises to end the war in Donbas have all failed. These squandered promises have resulted in Russian military forces rolling across the Ukraine border.

Ukraine is not a western democracy. I would call it a coup-ocracy controlled by mafioso-type parties, gangs, special interest groups, and US puppets. It is a country that savory characters leverage their power and influence for selfish returns. Ukraine is so unstable that a coup could break out over the weather.

I do not know what the Donbas offers that makes it war-worthy. I do know that after the 2014 coup removed their popularly elected president, Donetsk and Lugansk voted to leave Ukraine. It is called a secession. In a democratic world, some might even call it a declaration for independence. However, in an indentured world, the masters will battle for their property. Remember Abe?

# 111 – O Canada, We Stand On Guard For Thee

Compliant, obstinate, and defiant are words used to describe a behavioral response to authoritative edicts. Authorities treat people differently based upon which behavior they demonstrate. The compliant rewarded, the obstinate coerced, and the defiant persecuted. Canadian truckers were essential workers defying covid as they delivered goods for the Zoom crowd. They were considered heroes. 

In 2020, when thousands of farmers from all over India traveled to the capital city of Delhi, Trudeau insisted, “Canada will always be there to defend the right of peaceful protest.” Fast forward two years to last Wednesday when he told the Canadian Parliament trucker, ”blockages, illegal demonstrations are unacceptable, and are negatively impacting businesses and manufacturers… It has to stop.” 

Trudeau evades the fact that he can stop it immediately. Concede to the truckers’ simple demands; end mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations and the government tracking system used to enforce them. Instead, he first resorted to name-calling. Recently he denounced those Canadian truckers as fringe, racists, misogynists, criminals, and terrorists. The hero status is fleeting when you change from compliant to defiant. 

Monday, at a news conference on Parliament Hill, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that he invoked the federal Emergencies Act so that ”the federal government is ready to use more tools at its disposal.” He is not talking about more phillips screwdrivers and wrenches. He is talking hammers. Yes, and with an abundant supply of hammers, everything looks like a nail.

Trudeau justifies his action “is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people’s jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions.” Protecting jobs is the most interesting of these. His mandated lockdowns and labeling of non-essential workers prevented many Canadian from working.  

Not About Covid

Is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the darling of liberal media and the first “Woke” democratic leader of western democracy, exposing the true nature of governmental authority? Left-wing, right-wing, liberal, conservative does not matter. The monopolistic power of government is intoxicating.

Trudeau’s confrontation with the truckers is state dictates versus freedom of choice. It is a battle between state dictates in the name of safety and security versus family, church, the community choice. It is a challenge to the “rule of law” versus responsive governance. It is a struggle between the independent workers versus the Zoom society. It’s a conflict that pits real-world human interaction against the splendors of online isolation; the experiences of working men and women versus the professional experts. It is a clash between the life experienced crew and the formula quoting, statistics referencing prognosticators. 

First, it was a lockdown, then social distancing, followed by mask mandates, its vaccine programs, and finally vaccine mandates and passports. All initiated to convince the public that only state power can make them safe and secure. They imply since the state can save, its leaders are the only legitimate source of authority. Proud men and women will not tolerate this level of arrogance for long.  

The leaders suggest that only the state is qualified to keep the population educated, healthy, safe, prosperous, and satisfied. Without their intervention, things will go badly. They believe that the family, the church, and the community, are all inadequate to secure human well-being.   

Trudeau claims he instituted the vaccine mandates to save and secure. Without him, the reasoning goes, the population would suffer and die from Covid. The political logic is inescapable. Leaders, like him, believe they alone are fit to govern and that there is only one path to follow. They insist that opponents to their mandates are just obstacles that need to be removed. 

Trucker Threat?

The truckers represent a threat to Trudeau. They have a social and political power that they independently achieved and garnered by their status amongst the working class. This socio-economic class represents the last bastion of self-sufficiency and independence in a modern society such as Canada and the United States. 

In today’s economy, the professional classes like; doctors, academics, teachers, and civil servants mostly derive their incomes and status from the state built on regulatory apparatus that only the state can provide and enforce. 

Then there is the underclass, who most often rely on the state for their needs. They pose no threat to the state’s legitimacy. The state prefers this existence and wishes all of society were that way. A population entirely reliant on the state would never question its growth of power and its legitimacy. 

The truckers are making a stand for the independent working class. They gather incomes from private sources, owners of small businesses, and employees of small and medium-sized enterprises. They are independent-minded that see self-sufficiency as a virtue and rely on themselves and their relationships with others rather than the state. They earn their money using a skill that others value and pay for their service. 

They represent a barrier to state authority because they do not need it. To them, the state frequently stands in their way. They see a problem and want to find a solution for themselves. They want to make up their minds about whether to take a vaccine, wear a mask, and assess their health-related risks. 

The modern state has waged a covert war against the independent. At every step, it seeks to regulate their business affairs, restrict their liberty, and confiscate their prosperity. There is always a purportedly good reason for this. But it contributes to a whittling away of their independence and strength. They are squeezed, squashed between the welfare-reliant underclass and the white-collar professionals who draw their wealth from the state. 

Justin Trudeau’s contempt for the truckers is genuine. He sees them as a challenge to his political future and an increasing scope and scale for governmental authority. His authority has waned during this crisis. His reaction to this protest will determine his political future. 

Trudeau and all bureaucrats derive their legitimacy from their positions of rulership. Whether elected or appointed, their number one prerogative becomes job security. Their jobs are reliant on convincing the population that they are necessary. Necessary to impose lockdowns and mandates? Necessary to freeze bank account and seize personal money based on charitable donation? Do government-enforced “necessary dictates” help or hinder? 

With no government-imposed mandates, would we have treated covid symptoms more effectively, would there be a lesser economic and social impact, would there have been fewer covid deaths? Would we have more freedoms? Yes!

# 110 – Dallas Buyers Club – We Need A Sequel!

There Is Nothing You Can Do About It!

Not many statements make me angrier than when the indoctrinated and misinformed bloviate “there is nothing you can do about it.” It is the standard narrative parroted when referencing treatment for covid symptoms. 

In late 2020, the Mexico City government initiative a covid treatment program. Based on worldwide positive results for ivermectin (IVM), the city handed out nearly 200,000 kits that included four IVM pills. The program started in December 2020 when hospitals were overwhelmed with COVID cases spiking.

Residents who tested positive and had mild to moderate symptoms received kits. The city distributed 83,000 kits resulting in a 52% reduction in hospital admissions among those who had received the kits. Later reports indicate a 70% reduction in hospital admissions.

The government spent just under 29.3 million pesos (USD 1.4 million) on 293,000 boxes of IVM. José Antonio Peña Merino, the head of the Mexico City government’s Digital Agency for Public Innovation (ADIP), said in May 2021, “the medical kit was a significant factor in the reduction of hospital admissions and course possible deaths.”  

The Mexico City Health Ministry stated that the distribution of ivermectin to COVID-19 patients was not an experiment. The IVC treatment program, initiated from the recommendation made by a group of expert pulmonologists and infectious disease doctors, took into account the stage of the pandemic, which had claimed the lives of many Mexicans. 

A medical abstract study “to measure the effect of Mexico City’s population-level intervention –an ivermectin-based Medical Kit, in hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic,” resulted in a significant reduction in hospitalizations among patients who received the ivermectin-based medical kit. The range of reduced hospitalization is 52%- 76% depending on model specification. The abstract concluded that “the study supports ivermectin-based interventions to assuage the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health system.”

IVC is an approved medication in Mexico, used to treat many parasite infections and other diseases with great success. The ministry said that the distribution of ivermectin to ambulatory COVID-19 patients is safe, cheap, and without adverse effects. IVC is also an approved medication in the United States to treat parasite infections and other diseases. Mexico approved the distribution of ivermectin as an ambulatory treatment for covid. The United States does not. Warning! Crossing the Mexican border may reduce hospitalization from covid by 50% – 70%.

Everyone should watch the academy award-winning film Dallas Buyers Club to get a snapshot of the powers that the Fauci cabal uses to ensure the profits of Big Pharma at the expense of the ill. I’m not counting on today’s Hollywood heroes to produce a sequel to Dallas Buyers Club exposing the Fauci cabal’s covid pandemic abuse. Brain fog from mask-wearing and asbestosis from cowering in basements might be more appropriate themes.