Democracy: the people choose.
Oligarchy: a few people choose.
Autocracy: one person chooses.
Technocracy: experts choose.
Theocracy: preists choose.
Eurocracy:

Putin managed to turn all of Europe into one big maidan.

This is omnipotent god-level stuff, considering Russian media has been banned across Europe for years now.

Maybe Putin learned mass telepathy in the KGB.

We now have conclusive evidence that Russia is controlling and directly involved in the Paris Riots.

Sending hundreds of billions of EU taxpayers money into the black hole of Kyiv, while ignoring domestic problems has nothing to do with it.

🇺🇦Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦

So weird that a guy who rebranded the DoD to the Department of War wants you to believe that Confucianism -- an ancient philosophy that promotes morality, respect, education, family, and peaceful coexistence -- is a threat to American national security.

Musk desperately wants you to believe that the military version of Starlink has nothing morally to do with him.

The Berghof was where Hitler preferred to talk about Nazi business and make Nazi plans, located lower down on the slopes. The Eagle's Nest was basically a Trump Tower.

Good spycraft would have placed the camera behind a framed Bandera picture, using one of his pupils for the peephole.

Starshield runs on the same infrastructure as Starlink. Musk somehow believes that a virtual legal division between the two networks somehow makes it moral to supply Ukraine with one but not the other.

Same infra, same backbone, same gateways. Starshield is basically a VPN for the US military with its own encryption and terminals, which amounts to a virtual partition.

x.com/grok/status/21…

Incidentally, this map shows that Russians, Belarusians, Poles and Ukrainians have remarkably similar paternal ancestry profiles, considerably more so than Swedes and Finns, for example.

This would be easier to take seriously if the British media hadn’t spent decades predicting Russia’s imminent collapse.

Apparently, the difference between journalism and propaganda is the nationality of the person making the prediction.

'Do you understand that we can't be against Russians — we are the same people'

— Vladimir Zelensky, 10 years ago

The resurfaced clip now goes viral on X

😂A woman carrying a box of clothing out of a looted Zara store during protests in France told a man who called the theft “haram” that she was Jewish.

“You say I am Muslim, but it’s haram,” the man told her.

“Who told you I was Muslim? Is it written on my forehead? I’m Jewish,” the woman replied.

Senator Lindsay Graham was literally fake and gay.

When it comes to consenting adults your private life is your private life, but, as a powerful Senator, the closeted Graham publicly opposed gay rights, especially marriage.

BoomerBook is freaking hysterical. Even when you explicitly label a post as AI content, people still come into your comments, non-stop, to debunk your content as AI-generated.

We are perfectly aware of this, dear Kim! Stay tuned! 😎

🚨 BREAKING: The Supreme Court of Canada will hear the federal government’s appeal over its invocation of the Emergencies Act.

Two levels of court. Four judges. All found that the federal government acted outside its legal authority.

Yet the government has decided to spend more ng those rulings, all the way to the Supreme Court.

When this began with extraordinary emergency powers used against citizens protesting government policy, we really have to question what the government is spending public money to defend: the public interest, or its own power to silence political opposition?

What is the value to Canadians? What is the point? How does this serve the public?

Why must citizens spend years paying to challenge government overreach in court, while also funding the government’s lawyers through their taxes? Why is it so hard for government to respect people’s rights and do the right thing in the first place? How is any of this reasonable or fair?

Canadians are left paying both sides of a legal battle that should never have been necessary. Imagine if the government put that same effort and those resources into serving the public.

Doesn’t that sound nice?!

Euro-NATO wants to expand its "sentry" presence in the Black Sea:

On October 22, the European Parliament adopted a resolution proposing the deployment of an EU naval operation in the Black Sea, while NATO called for the development of the Black Sea Sentry initiative.

bulgaria.news-pravda.com/en/world/2026/…

The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false.
1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the m the university - no arguments are apparently required.

It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounce as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic?

I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument.

I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”.

2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental "human rights organisation" that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war.

3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they "debunk"?

My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era.

My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war.

My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists.

Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.