Black is always white for a reason

The characteristic thing about the Ukraine war – and indeed what many of us have noticed in the last two years or so over every new officially engendered panic – is that our State propaganda has moved from putting a particular spin on the facts to flooding the media with the diametric opposite of the facts.

It is clear to anyone analysing the situation on the ground that the Ukrainian regime is comprehensively losing ground, at an unjustifiably unsustainable cost in human lives, seeing that negotiation in good faith would have prevented the thing ever starting. Even if we discount as fakery things like the leaked Ukrainian government papers that speak of 190,000 Ukrainian casualties and the failure for various reasons of the disparate weapons systems coming in from the West, the military maps alone tell the true story.

Ukraine has gained no ground to speak of over the entire affair, so that Snake Island has to be spun as a notable victory, whilst the Donbas militias and their Russian allies have slowly been demolishing the defences built by NATO over the years and look like gaining the whole Donbas area soon. Meanwhile, the promised Ukrainian counter-offensive has repeatedly failed to materialize, on some reports because it will take until next year to get enough manpower and weaponry together. More likely, it has been abandoned as a hopeless cause.

The markets, too, show the utter backfiring of Western sanctions, weakening only our already mismanaged financial system whilst Moscow gains value and economic standing. At home, Putin has never been more popular.

Yet the story being told to the public here in UK is the opposite, as it is no doubt elsewhere in the Western Bloc (an anachronous term I re-use because the whole NATO strategy assumes there is still an Eastern Bloc – which there may well be once our actions have ensured the forging of new alliances across the non-NATO world).

Take, for example, this verbiage from our Defence Secretary. Russia is losing the war, Putin is on the back foot, and all it takes is for the West’s resolve in providing weapons to hold for Ukraine to win a resounding victory.

As it has from the start of the war, Wallace’s position starts from ignoring the Russians’ publicly stated limited war aims: to liberate the Donbas, de-Nazify the country and remove an escalating military threat on its own border. They have never stated any ambition to rule Ukraine. Those aims have not stalled, though the intractability of Zelensky under the arm-twisting of Johnson and the rest may have made the operation slower than they might have hoped. Conquering Ukraine was not only never a stated aim, but would be disadvantageous to Russia as it would mean controlling an anti-Russian population in the west. Whereas it is not hard to see that Donbas is, and always was, pro-Russian – and more so as their civilians have been treated as Ukraine’s enemy and hit with American missiles and Soviet butterfly-mines.

You would think that Wallace has a fair chance of getting away with his narrative with the British public, after the unjustifiable censorship of Russian news sources (never forget that we are not at war, and so have a basic right to free access of news sources that has been suppressed unlawfully). But the comments under the Mail article show that a large number of Mail readers are fully aware of the real situation, and even many of those who are not are asking what this foreign war has to do with us at a time when many here are struggling to make ends meet.

Clearly, though, Wallace wants us to believe that a Ukrainian victory over Russia is just over the horizon, and the question we have to ask is why it should be deemed desirable to lie so comprehensively to the voters he is supposed to serve.

The most benign explanation, I suppose, is Group-think. Perhaps everyone in the government really does believe the Plucky Democratic Ukraine narrative, and are unaware of the percentage of their high-tech arms going to Ukraine’s Black Market, the horrendously wasteful slaughter at the front, the political totalitarianism of Zelensky’s regime, the shelling of civilians, and so on. Perhaps, as one old intelligence officer has said, today’s intelligence agencies have become so politicized that they feed politicians what they expect to hear, not what is true. Perhaps the entire apparatus of State here is totally unaware of being manipulated by the US Deep State and the Military Industrial Complex.

Well, if all that is true, then it proves that our political class are dolts or quislings, unwilling to question what millions of ordinary people across the West are finding to be an evil tissue of lies. Why pay any respect to such people?

Any other explanations are less benign, if willful stupidity is not considered evil in itself. And I can only think of two.

The first is that people like Ben Wallace and the rest of the politiclones are corrupt and conscious collaborators with the dark forces that want to keep the war going “to the last Ukrainian” in order to profit materially from arms sales. Or they hope to gain ideologically from weakening Russia’s ability to hinder the globalist world order whose planning is no longer even seriously disputed. Their own children are not dying when they speak so glibly of Ukraine wanting to fight to the last man. Even if our own forces were more explicitly involved, it would only be the deplorables’ children suffering dismemberment or PTSD, as ever.

In this case stringing along the public would simply be intended to keep us willing to continue paying the arms manufactures to wipe out a generation of Ukrainian conscripts whilst feeling virtuous about it. And, of course, to unite us politically around our warmongers so they retain the power and money to build the globalist cage around us and snap the door shut, eventually.

A more worrying, and more criminally insane, motive involves the demonstrated preference, both in the present conflict and Western interventions back to Vietnam, for false flag operations. If Ukraine lost the war, but the globalists refused to back down on their ambitions, then it would become necessary in their eyes to escalate hostilities to the level of a World War. Since defeat is already staring them in the eyes, they need to prepare a way of starting such a war without revealing themselves to be the demonised monsters they are.

However, if the drip-feed of propaganda successfully steers the public mind to believe that the madman Putin is desperate and close to losing both the war and his own position, it would be that much more plausible for, say, a nuclear missile to land on the increasingly expendable Kiev, and be blamed on the Russians flailing around in their frustration. Cue mutually assured destruction, together with the desired drop in population and fossil-fuel use by the “First World”. Agenda 2030 achieved by Plan B.

This is by no means incredible: the Ukrainians have already risked a major nuclear disaster, no doubt under NATO supervision, by shelling a power station occupied by the Russians, and the media have dutifully reported that the Russians shelled it themselves in order to… well, Russians are all mad savages, didn’t you know? Sure, they have called on the UN for a formal inspection, but that’s a trick as the UN can’t authorise that unless the facility is returned to Ukrainian control (do I hear you say “Bullcrap”? You’re right. Putin’s as likely to nuke himself for propaganda purposes).

As propaganda, this attack is on a par with attacking a POW camp of Azov fighters with a Himars missile, and expecting us to believe that the Russians had any conceivable motive, or opportunity, to do it. But there is a difference between engineering moral indignation over Western war-crimes projected on to the Russians, and actually poisoning Western Europe with radiation cloud. If our masters are willing to risk a larger-scale Chernobyl to implicate Putin, why would they baulk at a full nuclear war?

It is not the heinous nature of the deed that would prevent such a plan being put into full effect. It is that, were such a false-flag to be implemented and used to launch a world war, then the entire BRICS community, those populations across Africa, Asia and South America who have shown increasing signs of disillusion with the hypocritical “democratic” West, and a substantial portion of the populations of Western nations themselves, would know, or certainly believe, that it was people like Ben Wallace, and those to whom they are beholden, who were the real instigators of the war the world has dreaded since 1945.

And in such a world as that, no politicized legal systems would protect the real perpetrators from the angry mobs. That being the case, maybe they should try back-tracking on the lies before it’s too late for them.

After the War – Jon Garvey

Avatar photo

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Politics and sociology. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Black is always white for a reason

  1. Robert Byers says:

    I agree the media is not neutral but a player in the war and so corrupts the truth, as usual, to help Ukraine.
    Russia is the bad guy. The invador and I want to see them lose. they will not unless Russia really does buckle under mORAL pressure. Economy won’t work.
    yet the media being so involved excited my suspicion long ago. HMMMMM
    I don’t believe they care about ukrainians or the integrity of Ukraine boundaries.
    I suspect they hate and oppose any nation state deciding on right and wrong on issues of identity and boundaries. Russia is breaking this by acting on thier own interests which are immoral and illegal.
    I accuse, by way os public suspicion. Hmmmm.

    • Avatar photo Jon Garvey says:

      Whatever the rights or wrongs of Russia, it is the West – and especially USA and Britain – which is prolonging a hopeless war by supplying weapons, urging on Ukraine to keep feeding in cannon-fodder, and dissuading them from negotiation.

      • Robert Byers says:

        yes. I agree. i agree no more weapons etc and instead a negotiated peace. this because as a christian i believe the priority is not killing people. Terrible to reward invaders but its about prioritys.
        Yes every weapon and dollar is consent to whoever gets killed by it. only self defence/or capital punishment for murder justify killing. thats the Christian equation. its a close thing of coarse with a armed invador.

Leave a Reply