Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn's Substack

The deeper the belief in the righteousness of the cause, the easier it becomes to love the war that serves it.

Norway identifies itself as a model of a liberal and tolerant peace-oriented nation. Yet, a collective mindset has developed with intense distrust and loathing of anyone who deviates from the government’s official truth and war narratives.

Here is a social experiment to test the claim above. I am a professor of political science, but I am also a politician running for Parliament. My recently established political party is primarily an anti-war party, and we started a poster campaign on public transportation in Oslo. The core message was that we are for negotiations and against weapons for the war in Ukraine. This seemed like a reasonable position as Norway previously had (until 2022) a policy of not sending weapons to countries at war (as it escalates and can make us a participant), and our country used to advocate for diplomacy and negotiations as the path to peace.

Norway has abandoned these policies and unified under the new mantra that “weapons are the path to peace”, and we have boycotted basic diplomacy with Russia for more than three years at a time when hundreds of thousands of young men died in the trenches. Was our peace-oriented nation ready to at least consider the argument that we should return to our former policies of negotiating instead of fueling the war with more weapons to fight the world’s largest nuclear power?

Daniele Ganser
Journal of 9/11 Studies

The “Strategy of Tension” in the Cold War Period *

[06/02/14] Historians today and in the coming years face a challenging task: they must write the history of the events of September 11, 2001. What they write will be taught in history classes. But what will they write? Will they write that Osama Bin Laden sent 19 Muslims to launch a surprise attack on the U.S.? Or will they write that the administration of President George W. Bush was responsible for the attack, either constructing it or deliberately permitting it in order to shock the U.S. population and to create a pretext for increasing military spending and attacking Afghanistan and Iraq?

Having examined much of the data related to the 9/11 events, I am convinced a new and thorough investigation is needed. But when I have questioned the official narrative of 9/11 in my native Switzerland I have encountered vigorous objections from people. Why would any government in the world, they have asked, attack its own population or, only slightly less criminal, deliberately allow a foreign group to carry out such an attack? While brutal dictatorships, such as the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, are known to have had little respect for the life and dignity of their citizens, surely a Western democracy, the thinking goes, would not engage in such an abuse of power. And if criminal elements within a Western democracy, in North America or in Europe, had engaged in such a crime, would not elected officials or the media find out and report on it? Is it imaginable that criminal persons within a government could commit terrorist operations against innocent citizens, who support the very same government with the taxes they pay every year? Would nobody notice? These are difficult questions, even for academics who specialize in the history of secret warfare. But in fact, there are historical examples of such operations being implemented by Western democracies.

In this essay, I will not deal directly with 9/11 but will look at what we can learn from history. I will report on some of the newest academic data about secret warfare during the Cold War. A secret military strategy that targets domestic populations with terrorism does indeed exist. It is called the “strategy of tension.” And it was implemented by Western democracies.

John Waters

‘What I hope I’m conveying is a country that has lost its soul, lost its direction, lost its moral compass, and lost its sense of any direction or meaning in any context publicly or at all.’

Send In The Monks! This interview was recorded in mid-December with Dan Proft of the American Greatness channel, Chicago, on his show, Counterculture, and broadcast on Tuesday last, January 2nd. In several respects it represent the clearest statement of my position as an Irishman for this, perhaps the most critical year of the war that is now four years old. It is time we stopped allowing ourselves to be menaced and bullied. It is time we declared our non-negotiable position. Mine is that I intend to speak and act in the coming year as I have spoken and acted for the past four, bending not one inch to threats or intimidation, speaking the truth, including hard truths, regardless of who may choose to take offence, and conveying to those usurpers who have misappropriated the levers and instruments of our republic that it is time for them to cease and desist.

John Waters

"[E]ach migrant abroad became as though a mobile force-field of ideological power, which neutralised many of the rights of those into whose former territories it sought to encroach." — John Waters, ‘Bullied Towards Extinction’

I am threatened by the Irish police with prosecution for 'incitement to hatred,' 'racism' and 'anti-semitism,' on the basis of an article containing nothing remotely resembling any such quantities.

On Tuesday last, October 17th, at 17.40, I received the following communication from ‘Don Griffin Detective Sergeant Dun Laoghaire Detective Unit’:

💬 Dear John,

Reference to complaints relating to articles appearing in The Irish Light "The Uncensored Truth”

I am contacting you to let you know that the Gardaí at Dun Laoghaire have received complaints about the contents of two separate articles contained in The Irish Light Newspaper, of which I understand you are the Journalist. The first complaint relates to an article in Issue 16 with front page headline ‘Ireland is full.’ It is alleged by the complainant that the related contents are offensively racist and Anti-Semitic. A second and separate complaint relates to what is alleged to be an Anti-Semitic article on pages 22 and 23 of Issue 17.

It is envisaged that the articles will be submitted by file to DPP to make a direction on whether or not the said articles constitute a possible offence under Section 2 of the Prohibition of the Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989. Prior to the submission of this file I am inviting you to comment, if you wish to do so, on the articles’ potential to offend. For that purpose you can arrange to attend at Dun Laoghaire Garda Station where I could meet you on any date at your convenience. You can contact me by email [here he provides an email address and phone number, which I have omitted here to protect his privacy] if you should require any further information.

Yours sincerely,

Don Griffin Detective Sergeant
Dun Laoghaire Detective Unit

John Waters

"When you rinse it right down, the PC/Cultural Marxist revolution has as its objective the emasculation of the white male and the eradication of all values and power systems which are laid at his door, including religion, tradition and the normative family."

One of the legacies of the 1960s ideological culture to the present is what is called ‘political correctness’ (PC), which the average citizen perceives as a weird and slightly infuriating agenda to stop people talking about certain things, but in an irritating rather than a worrying way. The restricted topics form a pattern of sorts, but it is difficult for the uninitiated to say what it is. There is a general sense that it has to do largely with sexual preferences and ‘gender stuff’, feminist diktats and what is called 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism'.

The phrase 'political correctness’ has tripped off the lips of alleged conservatives for so long that it is no longer a tool of clarity. 'PC' is generally regarded as a prim, precious, faintly amusing obsession with the relentless promotion of 'equality', and ‘rights' for what are called ‘minorities'. Most people are unsure why such areas are subject to a particular regime of untouchability, but don't really worry about it too much because there are lots of other things to worry about already and, without getting into too much detail, they are broadly in favour of things like ‘rights’ and ‘equality’.

A standard meme of modern political discourse is the intellectual who, when challenged that some element thrown up by political activism or activity is ‘political correctness gone mad’, simply grins and shakes his head and says: ‘If I hear one more time this nonsense about political correctness, I'm going to start screaming!’ This manner of implying that PC is simply a perverse and eccentric invention of the enemies of ‘equality' and ‘rights’ is just one of the weapons in the armoury which has been developed to protect the very phenomenon being denied. Similarly, depictions of a continuing orchestrated conspiracy, which allow activists operating under the general banner of what has become known as ‘Cultural Marxism’ to dismiss claims of political correctness as 'conspiracy theory'. The point is that the conspirators are no longer around and are not needed now, having long ago constructed a mechanism that operates more or less by its own momentum.

What is called ‘PC’ is actually a highly disturbing climate of censorship, by which the advocates of an extreme radical programme of social transformation have succeeded in advancing their ideas and activities under its cloak of censorship and inhibition. In truth, what is called ‘political correctness' is actually a kind of force field thrown up around a phenomenon sometimes called 'Cultural Marxism', a mutated version of the original, directed at changing fundamentally the way Western societies conduct their everyday existences in the most intimate areas of their family and community lives.

Katherine Watt
Bailiwick News

Orientation for new readers

Excellent new post by Sasha Latypova on Dec. 10, 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200

■ July 26, 2023 - Population Control Policy. Why would my government want to kill me? Don't they need the GDP growth?

💬...It is important to realize that there is no scientific or humanitarian basis in “public health policies” as they exists today in the United States and globally. That machinery exists to drive the population control policy. There is no scientific or humanitarian basis mandating vaccinations with now close to 100 different poisons. Vaccines do not create health. Yet, this is squarely among the UN’s “sustainable goals.
💬 The public health system must be dismantled, because it is a camouflaged warfare program actively engaged in controlling and killing civilians under emergency pretexts and lies.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

On interpretation of selective silence

Some things are difficult for some leading voices among the Covid-times anti-tyranny voices to say publicly. Four of those things:

1. Vaccines and biochemical weapons are interchangeable terms for a single product class jointly manufactured and distributed by pharmaceutical companies and the US military for use by militarized health care providers on targets.
2. Observed harms caused by use of biochemical weapons labeled as vaccines, on targets, are intentional.
3. Intentional infliction of pain and death, on targets, using biochemical weapons labeled as vaccines, is State-sponsored. Governments have done it to their people in the past, are doing it right now, and clearly indicate their plans to continue doing it in the future.
4. State sponsorship of the intentional injury and killing of people is coerced through central bank control of money, such that governments are under the direct daily control of central banks, and democratic rituals (such as elections and legislative activity) are performative only. Government officials who try to refuse sponsorship of intentional mass murder (i.e., by speaking or legislating in authentic, non-performative ways) are subject to overwhelming reprisals: currency destruction, economic collapse, lockouts from international financial transaction systems, fomented internal civil disorder, government overthrow and assassination.

Covid has been a global demonstration that financial control mechanisms (banker behavioral control of governments) and political, medical-military ‘public health’ control mechanisms (government behavioral control of civilians) work as designed and installed. Through the real-time Covid lens, it’s become possible to discern the same demonstrative, murderous hand at work in conducting civil and world wars, famines and economic collapses, especially in the last three centuries.

John Waters

‘The most damaged survive today as limbless trunks, others whose legs and arms were reduced to digital “flipper” extrusions from the shoulder...’ – Harold Evans on Thalidomide's casualties

Diary of a Dissenter: A Week From My Window.

SUNDAY. We head into the cithole centre to have lunch with some visiting friends — all women, as it happens — from Italy, Hungary, England and Brazil, whom we had not seen for several years. These are sharp and highly successful people, mostly members of a particular Catholic lay-movement. But the lunch would have been an eye-opener had we been buying in with anything more than mild optimism to talk of A Great Awakening.

Everyone is warm and friendly, but there is a slight edge to things, which sharpens perceptibly when the conversation touches on certain topics. The recent funeral of Pope Benedict XVI is one example: They love, or used to love, him very much, but now this love has a jagged edge because of the brooding presence of Bergoglio in the chair of Peter. Their movement is pro-papacy, regardless of incumbent, so they fall silent at any broaching of topics like Benedict’s dramatic abdication, the strange shifts and lurches things have taken in the past decade, the bizarre statements of the man claiming to be pope, and so forth.

But we keep things non-committal on those topics, and so it is de Covid that eventually threatens to end the lunch prematurely. We had marked them in advance as likely deplorables, but alas!, these good people have not the faintest notion what’s been happening in the world. I have a policy of not broaching the topic, but also, when the fictional drift of the conversation reaches a certain indeterminate pitch of delusion, of implementing my iron rule: If they don’t know, you have to tell them.

So I do. This part of the conversation kicks off with Rita contributing to a discussion about air travel and the information that we are currently prohibited from entering the US, on account of being unjabbed, triggering some eggshell-walking. I stay out of it as long as I can, until it becomes clear that our guests are all either totally on board with the vax mandates or are keeping schtum.

John Waters

The world’s governments have waged a two-year war on behalf of rich, powerful interests seeking to destroy the sovereignty and futures of their own peoples. This war now enters its most lethal phase.

A crime is being committed on an ongoing basis, all across the world, free and unfree. It is a crime of commission and omission, and arguably the most serious in either category that has ever been perpetrated. We are facing multiple crises but our governments tell us only about crises that are not crises, or at least not crises that involve us, as opposed to affecting us. Effusing moral blackmail in all directions, they shruggingly point towards the war that they started with the precise intention of creating an alibi for themselves, so as to avoid the wrath of their peoples and the punishment that ought properly to await them.

In Ireland, three months ago, the ‘crisis’ that had allegedly assailed us for two years — the ‘crisis’ of a ‘deadly’ disease — evaporated overnight to be replaced by the ‘crisis’ of a war in a country nearly 2,500 miles away. At first sight, it seemed unlikely that such a conflict might affect us in any substantial way, but immediately our Government announced that it would be taking an unlimited number of refugees from the affected country, guesstimated at 200,000 — into a country whose government has for the past decade declared itself perplexed and powerless in the face of a housing shortage affecting 10,000 of its own citizens. Instantly, those who thought that a war in Ukraine was none of our business were ‘proved wrong.’

We who have been seeking to confront the attempted destruction of our lives and societies occurring over the past two years have many times speculated as to whether the dominant note of the political responses might more correctly be ascribed to stupidity or to wickedness. The jury remains out. Stupidity, as we have noted, is no excuse, especially considering that these politicians have been proactive in pushing potential lethal poison serums and preventing people exercising fundamental freedoms on foot of a refusal to accept them. These are not victimless inanities. There must, we have ruminated, be some legal limit on the stupidity of people who exercise public power, especially when that stupidity leads to loss of life or serious injury, which in this case is most certainly the case: a dramatic uptick in working-age mortality in multiple countries of 40 per cent and more.

John Waters

"The only good news I have today is that they – I mean those criminals we are supposed to recognise as ‘our side’ – are going to lose. A ‘higher power’ will intervene...to deal with the perpetrators of this, The Vilest Crime in History." – John Waters

FRIDAY – This year, New Year has been for me a moment of reevaluation not just of the past year, but the past three, which merge into one in my head. I saw a cartoon somewhere recently that made this point rather well: a guy complaining that ‘2020 has been the longest year’ he’s ever experienced, and another guy telling him: ‘Dude, it’s almost 2023!’

I need to pinch my arm hard when I remind myself that its nearly 24 months since we first started talking and writing about the ‘vaccine’ die-offs — and still the media are implacably ignoring it (For the most part anyway: Jimmy Rhatigan of the Kilkenny Press stands alone in the mainstream for his reporting on the issue. His reports focus on Patrick Walsh’s continued delving into the local mortality stats, and as such manage to tell a much bigger story, which of course Walsh is prosecuting on multiple levels, as I reported last week and hope to do again next week.)

The mainstream avoidance of the issue cannot continue, but my advice to people is to beware of cornered rat syndrome as the truth continues to bleed out in spite of the best efforts of the journaliars. We know enough to understand that the people behind this have no consciences and no scruples, and will therefore pull any stunt they think might work by way of distraction or misdirection.

John Waters

I remember the first day of January, 1973 as though it were last Monday. I was 17, studying (or, mostly, not) for my Leaving Cert, which I was to sit the following June. Over the Christmas holidays, as was my practice, I travelled with my father on his ‘stagecoach’ runs, helping with the mailbags and newspapers, emptying the pillar boxes, acting as door-opener for passengers, and generally riding shotgun. Normally, the mailcar was a clamour of argument, disagreement, insults, laughter and the occasional shouted ‘Yahoo!’ This day it was different — funereal, mainly in deference to my father’s mood, which was uncharacteristically morose. ‘This’, I heard him say to passenger after passenger, ‘is one of the worst days in Irish history!’ The decision to join the ‘European Common Market’, voted on by the Irish people the previous May, and carried by a landslide of 83 per cent to 17, with a turnout of 70 per cent, came into effect that day. My father, who had been one of 211,891 Irish people to vote against joining, believed membership would lead to the destruction of the Irish farming and fishing industries, and make us the paupers of Europe. He insisted that the required trade-offs — especially the exchange of sovereignty and natural resources for infrastructure and subsidies — would erode our longterm capacity for self-sufficiency, bringing with it renewed dependency, deceptively easy money, increasing debt and a degeneration of our political class. He was right on every score. If he were alive today, he would take no pleasure in his ‘vindication’, even though the evidence is to be seen all around.

This perspective was as though in my blood, and I articulated it for many years, encountering a high degree of abuse and ridicule along the way. The argument against Ireland’s membership was especially unpopular during the 1980s and early 1990s, when large amounts of structural and cohesion funding became available and Ireland was a net beneficiary of community largesse.