As the “new Churchill” Zelensky (having moved up in the world from making a living by playing the piano with his dick) struts the international stage in military fatigues while pausing occasionally to check on the state of his Swiss bank accounts and mansion in Israel, the West endlessly contrasts our boundless freedoms with Putin’s totalitarian police state. But nothing is further from the truth. Zelensky has now reached the stage where all opposition media outlets have been closed down, opposing political parties have not just been disbanded but their assets seized as well.

Welcome to the international rule-based order, an order which permits America and its lackeys to engage in piracy on the high seas, robbing the assets of foreign nationals and states and bombing to oblivion countries that “hate our freedoms”. Ah yes, I’m referring to those freedoms that we in the West enjoy which the rest of the world, or more accurately the enemies du jour conspicuously lack. In those benighted countries the media is controlled by a fusion of the permanent government and billionaires, only one narrative is permitted, there is in reality only one political party although others with superficial differences are allowed to play within strictly defined parameters, ordinary citizens opposed to the approved narrative are restricted to samizdat outlets, offend against a prevailing shibboleth and you get fired, fined or maybe jailed. Whereas on the other hand in the freedom-loving democratic West it’s…..well actually it’s pretty much the same, isn’t it?

Having been destroyed mentally and physically Julian Assange now faces life behind bars for practicing journalism. Real journalism, not its ghastly simulacrum that dominates the ‘profession’ today. Bear in mind that the Obama Administration sought to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act but balked when it was pointed out that bastions of the free press such as the Washington Post, New York Times and The Guardian would also have to face prosecution for publishing classified material. And that’s what Wikileaks did: They published classified material, they did not steal it. Back in the days when we had real journalists this happened all the time. But it could have been worse for Assange: “Kidnapping, assassination and a London shoot-out: Inside the CIA’s secret war plans against WikiLeaks”. Ah yes, that international rule-based order again.

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws” observed the Roman historian Tacitus. Stalin said something along the lines of “give me enough laws and anyone can be convicted of anything”. I imagines that he wasn’t referring to the finer points of the legal process here, rather the creation of an environment whereby everyone walked in fear of the State. The same process has been underway in the freedom-loving West for many years and has now reached a stage whereby it would be comical were not so menacing for ordinary people. In Britain you can be jailed for ‘staring’ at someone. And yes, some guy has already spent a few months in the slammer as the guest of HRH for that very offence. When and in what form does staring become an offence? Aha, that’s the point. You get your collar felt by the boys in blue if the ‘victim’ deems it to be offensive. This principle dates back to the notorious McPherson Report (the eponymous author has recently kicked the bucket, I’m pleased to tell you) whereby the ‘victim’ of a racist attack determines whether something said or done was ‘racially offensive’. “Perceived to be” to use McPherson’s ruling which at a stroke dispensed with the system of law that dated back to the Magna Carta. Because when the law becomes whatever a particular individual deems it to be there is no law.

As the philosopher of democracy Robert Dahl explained a generation ago, the first prerequisite of democracy is effective participation. But participation is now restricted to a number of uniparties. Any political party not conforming to the official narrative becomes marginalised and is ultimately rendered powerless. Remember there were political parties in most of the old Eastern Block Communist countries. But they operated within rigidly defined parameters. Just like in the freedom-loving West. And think about this: The British public has shown itself overwhelmingly opposed to mass immigration in poll after poll, going back more than fifty years. Yet the immigration went on in utter disregard for the wishes of the electorate. Last year alone, under a so-called Conservative Government, almost one million people immigrated to Britain. That’s adding a city the size of Liverpool or Glasgow in a single year. Democracy? Freedom? Will Of The People?

I close by inviting you to consider the reaction of a Fascist or Nazi who had gone to sleep in the early thirties and awoke today from his long slumber. His first assumption would be that his side had emerged victorious from whatever global conflicts might have ensued. He’d see a world ruled by an undemocratic partnership between the State and big business. The only jarring inconsistency being the sight of Labour and Socialist politicians at the apex of the political process.

Yes, let’s raise a glass to the freedom-loving West.

Source