In the Russo-Ukrainian war, US propaganda has exploited a time tested syllogistic sophistry. First you identify the nation at war with the individual who leads the nation. It is not Russia’s war on Ukraine, it is Putin’s war on Ukraine. Then you identify the individual with Hitler. At various times, Hilary Clinton, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Zbigniew Brzezinski have all compared Putin to Hitler, as have James Clapper, Kevin McCarthy, Polish President Andrzej Duda, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and others. What powerfully follows psychologically, is that, since the war is a war against “a second Hitler,” any method used to stop him is morally and militarily justified.
While average Ukrainians suffer amid NATO’s proxy war against Russia, business is booming for the surrogate baby industry, which requires a steady supply of healthy and financially desperate women willing to lease their wombs to affluent foreigners.
Naturally this list is subjective to an extent, and probably contains some mistakes and things that I missed. However, I think the top 3 are somewhat obvious and its no great surprise why I chose the regimes and dictators that I did. My criteria was their death toll, their reactionary power and influence, and also their plans and the resulting death toll, even if some of those plans were not fulfilled.
In 1912 Woodrow Wilson was an unlikely Democratic candidate for the presidency, a sometime law professor and president of Princeton who had only served in public office for two years, as governor of New Jersey. But then it would be an unusual election, with a three-way fight. When the incumbent, William Howard Taft, defeated Theodore Roosevelt, his predecessor in the White House, for the Republican nomination, Roosevelt ran as a “Progressive”, splitting the Republican vote and allowing Wilson to win the presidency with little more than two-fifths of the popular vote.
CN Editor Joe Lauria was one of 644 Twitter accounts that secretly formed part of Hamilton 68’s fake “dashboard” that wrongly influenced major media about alleged “Russian influence.”
“NATO does not want to allow self-determination of the Russians”
Interview with Prof. Dr. iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas, international law expert and former UN mandate holder
Current affairs in focus: Were the elections in the Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaparozhye and Kherson oblasts in accordance with international law?
Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zaya: Referenda are fundamentally a human rights-compliant method of “taking the temperature” and determining the will of a population. Art. 1 of the UN pact on civil and political rights stipulates the right of self-determination for all peoples – including the people of Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaparozhye and Kherson – and of course the people of Crimea.
Article 19 of the Covenant stipulates the right of all people to freedom of expression. There is nothing more democratic than referendums. However, the UN has failed here. The UN has held self-determination referendums in Sudan, Timor-Leste and Ethiopia/Eritrea. But only after tens of thousands of people had been killed. The UN should have intervened earlier and held preventive referenda.¹
Are referendums irrelevant if they are not conducted by the UN?
Of course, popular referendums are important, even if international bodies ignore them. Of course, there are referendums all over the world, which unfortunately are not organized and carried out by the UN, but solely by the affected population themselves, for example the 1962 referendum in Algeria, which led to independence.²
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.