Sunday 17th of January 2021

sometimes cartoonists tell a porky with deceit...


When will we get to the truth?

In this erroneous cartoon, the anti-trump cartoonist Mike Luckovitch pushes on the debunked fantasy that Putin helped elect Trump in 2016. Whether we like Trump or not, whether we like Putin or not, we should know that we are taken for fools in this funny cartoon… Our original information in regard to the Trump/Putin axis appears to have been concocted by a Democrat desire to prevent Trump being elected and they created, under the direction of Hillary Clinton, a fake narrative, the like of which we saw with the war on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. The presently unravelling Trump/Putin deceit shows the stint was quite well organised, with the “Steele dossier”, some spying going on the Trump campaign personnel, eventually jailed — not for Russian connections — but from various misdemeanours, including tax evasion and lying to the FBI. But Russian links? Zilch, zero, nada, nothing...

Meanwhile, Brennan, the killer-by-drone, sings Imagine by John Lennon on Twitter (see: the john lennon of the CIA...)… We need to read between these deceitful lines. When Brennan writes “…and Navalny, we’ll be half way there”, we should start digging at the possibility of a plot — a grand Western conspiracy. One would suggest, by study of previous official governmental conspiracies that Navalny has been used as a Western plant to weaken Russia’s resolve. I know, it sounds like loony conspiratorial theorist Gus Leonisky has gone off the rails but things add up. Or do they not?

Unlike Trump (or previous US presidents) Putin isn’t reactive, but generally pro-active. But something happens in the world, like the fart of a fly being too loud, the US responds by either wars or sanctions or drone assassination — or stealing, like the oil in Syria. But in fact this is the active plan of the US administration: find any pretext to advance forward and make the "enemy" (Putin, Xi, etc) act in a reactive manner: place them on the back foot — always having to defend themselves.

President Bush-the-Lesser went to war in Afghanistan and against Saddam, plus used drones to target “terrorists” — often killing more civilians as co-lateral damage. In the mind of the US Pentagonal boffins, those civilians eventually would have become “terrorists” or supported terrorists by having wedding parties. So there. Sorry, but...

Obama, the spruiking god of Nobel Peace Prize, went to war against seven countries, including the destruction of Libya, under false pretences, such as the “Arab Spring”, itself a concoction of uprising inspired by MI6, designed to shift the power of the Shia Muslims into the hands of the Sunni Muslims, themselves allied with the most corrupt kingdom on the planet, Saudi Arabia. 

The murder of journalist Amal Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy, in Turkey, should have let us know that the Saudis were prepared to carry a bad image no matter what, rather than have the rotten truth be exposed. Yes, we should believe that Khashoggi was about to release all what he knew about the “Arab Spring" and the plot to defraud the Shias in favour of the Sunnis. That the US were quite mild about the murder of Khashoggi, despite the usual blah blah blah condemnations, should tell us that the US boffins would have secretly been happy about the murder. Why? Should Khashoggi have revealed that plots of US/Saudi Arabia, not just his disapproval of the behaviour of the little shit-prince, a world of international deceit would have come into light.

But let us not go too far ahead here. It is always the case, like the war against Saddam was a "failure of intelligence" (bullshit) that, should some governmental conspiracy be exposed, the governments of the US, the UK and the other five eyes, have secondary defence lines with which to deflect the shit-storm. 

The aim of the game? What is the aim of the game? We’ve already touched on this subject many times on this site. The end game is WORLD DOMINATION BY THE USA. At any cost. You do not have to accept this view. But at least you should analyse the way the game is being played. For example, the US are always bickering with the United Nations. Why? Using one’s grey matter, one should be able to see that the UN represents an “alternative” world government towards a unified humanity. We’re still far far far away from there, but the steps are made. This goes against US ambitions. So, with various methods, from smothering fake love under Obama to animosity under Trump, the anti-UN is played by the US. Defunding WHO and getting the Saudis to run the ”Human Rights” commission at the UN are part of the panoply to reduce the UN’s credibility and efficiency. The UN running the global warming IPCC that is being shot daily by the denialists and the fossil fuel industry, and the Russians and the...

So what of Navalny? I would not trust Navalny in a million year. He may be a nice guy or the best leader ever not to lead anything, he looks like he always overdoses on “truth the American way". The accidental reveal by Brennan, should actually give us a clue that Navalny is a US stooge, if we did not know this already. Put a conspiratorial cap on your small shrinking head and analyse the possibility… Recently Navalny has been poisoned. We are told he was poisoned by Putin’s mob. There is a possibility that this was the case. Say Navalny was about to reveal damaging information about Putin and his cronies. But he is not fully eliminated… This is where the next stages of the plot do not make sense. Navalny is allowed to go the Germany and be revived, from where he can blame Putin for whatever… and reveal "all". When we are told by the Western press that Putin is ruthless in eliminating his rivals, we should wonder why the “murder” of Navalny was botched. We know that Novichok acts in minutes… And we know that some cockroach baits, based on nerve-gas technology, leave the same traces as Novichok. We should be convinced that had the Putin mob tried to kill Navalny, he would be dead. A half-murder is too sloppy for Putin and convenient for the West. 

Navalny is the darling of the West. He is portrayed in the Western media as a formidable equivalent to Putin. He is not. This a Western lie. Yet, dead, moribund or alive, Navalny is playing a role in upsetting the Kremlin — ON BEHALF OF THE WESTERN FORCES. Becoming a martyr of Putin’s nasty desire can only create havoc for Putin. Any fool can see this. You're not a fool, are you? Martyrs created more Christians than they frightened the dumb populace, until Christianity became embedded with the power of Emperor Constantine… The trick was done. The trick isn't new...

Now the Europeans are played like fools… They are told they’re not pulling their weight in funding their own armament/defences… So what do the Europeans do? They let the “grumbling” US become their default armament/defences on their own European soils. Yippie!

The Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI and most of the “intelligence” agencies in the USA are masters of deceit. We all (we all should) know this… Would they do the extra yards and poison Navalny? And make Putin carry the can? They did similar stuffs many times over with various tactics… with Saddam, with Bin Laden, with Gaddafi and with Assad — then the Ruskies said enough is enough… Bloody annoying Ruskies...

A small contretemps but hey, the game is still being played… Let’s sanction Russia and destroy this NordSea 2 pipeline because “he”, Putin, poisoned Navalny… Fun, fun fun… 

This of course is only “conspiracy theory”… Cartoonists are good at deceit. Sometimes they tell a porky with deceit. More often than not, they tell the truth with deceit... Not Luke... I mean not Mike Luckovitch...

Gus Leonisky
Master of disgusting disguises...

the nobel prize of literachur...

Analysis by Vincent Dowd, Arts Correspondent

Even in their own country, few poets achieve true fame with the public in their own lifetime. But Louise Glück has been awarded almost every prize an American poet might hope for.
Among many other awards she took a Los Angeles Times Book Prize and spent a year as America's poet laureate in 2003/4 - though perhaps with a degree of reluctance at first. 
Louise Glück (it's pronounced Glick) has made clear she sees herself as a private person. When she was given the Poet Laureateship she told the Boston Globe newspaper: "I have very little taste for public life." She added that she had thought she wasn't "the sort of person they'd ever look at". 
Her first volume of verse - Firstborn - came out in 1968. Many of her works since have dealt with human emotion, childhood and the nature of life - often family life. 
To sample her work, head for the short lyric Nostos (a Greek term meaning Homecoming). 
The first lines are characteristic, being about memory: 

There was an apple tree in the yard —
this would have been
forty years ago... 

And the powerful last lines state one of her strongest beliefs:

We look at the world once, in childhood.
The rest is memory.

Her collection Ararat was described in the New York Times a few years ago as "the most brutal and sorrow-filled book of American poetry published in the last 25 years". Sadness and grief are certainly a frequent part of what she writes - yet she's seldom a depressing writer. 
Glück's name was not widely touted this year as a possible Nobel laureate. Until now she has not been much read outside the US. At the age of 77, Glück can look forward to many new readers - and they can look forward to discovering a poet of insight and humanity.



2px presentational grey line

Criticism of last year's winner
Last year's choice of Austrian novelist Peter Handke led to wide criticism.
Handke was a known supporter of the Serbs during the 1990s Yugoslav war and spoke at the funeral of former Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, who was accused of genocide and other war crimes.
Last year also saw Polish author Olga Tokarczuk belatedly announced as the winner of the 2018 literature prize which had been suspended for a year after a sexual assault scandal and financial misconduct allegations rocked the Academy.

Normally, winners receive their Nobel from King Carl XVI Gustaf at a formal ceremony in Stockholm on 10 December, but the pandemic means it has been replaced with a televised ceremony showing the laureates receiving their awards in their home countries.






I DON’T KNOW what the American poet Louise Glück said when the Swedish Academy informed her that she won this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature, but I know what she should have said: “Thanks, but no thanks.”


October is the season of the Nobel Prizes, when a handful of people are catapulted into fame and fortune due to the philanthropic legacy of the inventor of dynamite. Four of the six prizes named after Alfred Nobel are generally uncontroversial — physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics — but the peace and literature prizes arouse passions. There is good reason to be dubious of the peace prize, which has gone to some great people and organizations but also went to Henry Kissinger and Aung San Suu Kyi. Yet it’s the literature prize that, in its current form, has definitely outlived its usefulness and caused great damage.


Last year, the Nobel Prize for Literature was awarded to Peter Handke, an Austrian writer who created a set of impressive literary works in the first part of his career but since the 1990s fell into a morass of genocide denial. In recent decades, Handke wrote at least a half-dozen books and plays that downplayed and denied the genocide committed by Serbs against Muslims during Bosnia’s war. Handke even attended the funeral, and delivered an eulogy, for the former leader of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, who died while on trial for war crimes.


Literary awards have consequences in the real world. The Serb ultra-nationalists whom Handke defends are heroes to violent white extremists throughout Europe and in the United States. By giving a Nobel prize to Handke, the Swedish Academy, which selects the literature winner, essentially ratified a conspiracy theory embedded in his work: that Muslims represent a threat to Christians they live with. Handke’s genocide-denying books, rather than being relegated to the rubbish, were vested with the authority of the Nobel Prize.

The Swedish Academy is a strange organization. It has just 18 members who are appointed for life and who select new members by secret ballot — and the country’s king must approve them. The decision to give the 2019 prize to Handke is not the only evidence of the organization’s unfitness to manage the literature prize. The Academy had to postpone the 2018 award because of revelations that for decades it had abetted sexual harassment and rape by the husband of one of its members. Once that scandal broke open, thanks to the investigative work of journalist Matilda Gustavsson of Dagens Nyheter, the dismal response of the male-dominated Academy included forcing out a female member, Sara Danius, who was pushing for sweeping reforms in its ranks.


In a way, we can be thankful for these scandals because they are reminders of the need to implement a root-and-branch reform of the Nobel literature prize. For much of its existence, the prize generally served as a referendum on the best in Western literature. For that task, the 18 members of the Swedish Academy were a serviceable jury. But more than ever, the reach and aspiration of the Nobel literature prize is truly global. It is laughable and tragic that an award of such influence should be controlled by a tiny and secretive group of Swedes, let alone ones who have shown themselves to be abettors of sexual assault and genocide denial.


The Nobel Foundation, which oversees all the Nobel Prizes, would do the world a huge favor by firing the Swedish Academy. I don’t have a precise proposal for a replacement, but it would seem wise for a world literature prize to be decided by a diverse jury for whom non-European languages — such as Chinese, Hindi, Arabic, and Urdu — are first or second languages. And it would be wise to not have these jurors appointed for life, because unassailable privilege is an inherent force of rot.


It was expected that the Swedish Academy would announce a “safe” choice today who would not invite criticism — that is to say, an individual who unlike Handke does not support genocide and is not European and is not male. Glück, a celebrated and uncontroversial poet who lives in Massachusetts, checks every box. The Academy, in this scenario, hopes it will have ridden out its scandals and shown that it can do the job. But let’s not be fooled. The Swedish Academy is fatally flawed. It will do wrong again because it cannot surmount its inherent limitations


The Nobel Foundation has not shown a willingness to do what it should. That’s why Glück should refuse the award — to force a desperately needed change that would benefit the world’s readers and writers. Glück would become materially poorer by passing up the $1 million prize money, but she would probably become more famous and, who knows, that could lead to more book sales. Writers are supposed to be forces of conscience, so standing up to the Swedish Academy would be fitting. It has happened before: In 1964, Jean-Paul Sartre refused to accept his literature Nobel.


That’s a lot to ask for, of course. There is a halfway point — accept the award but ceaselessly call out the Swedish Academy, which has little backbone. Bob Dylan, the literature laureate in 2016, didn’t even issue a statement of thanks and sent Patti Smith to the award ceremony, and he still got the check. The year is 2020, a time of emergency. It’s the moment to challenge corrupt institutions rather than thank them.



Update: Oct. 8, 2020
This story has been updated to note that Louise Glück was announced as the winner of the 2020 Nobel Prize for Literature.



Correction: Oct. 7, 2020
An inaccurate reference to the Nobel Foundation being based in Oslo has been removed.

Read more:



Why did Handke get the Nobel Prize?

Was it because he expressed an idea that the war designed to dismantled Yugoslavia was a crock, part of the greater West’s plan to “divide and conquer” on its way to destroy Russia? There has been some interesting revisionism of this war launched by the Clintons, under the thumb of the Pentagon, itself under the direction of war-hawks of the US deep-state. You have the choice to follow this war from the perspective of the “United Nations” under the pressure of the USA providing the “raw information” or from the other side seeing something totally different… A lot of what was said in the Western media was bullshit and much trauma was badly represented by vested interests. The US deep-state's point was that “Yugoslavia had to be dismantled by whatever means” and the Kosovo pretext was good enough to go and split the differences. We cheered and UNDERSTOOD NOTHING.

Handke basically explained that the Western viewpoint on Yugoslavia was a crock. Several top investigative journalists also expressed this point of view, but many of them had to leave the Western front so to speak. There were some shocking mistakes made on all side and rather than solve this problem by peace, the UN under the leadership of Clinton chose to go to war, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE USA DO BEST: WAR.

Handke saw this very clearly. This is why many Western Journalists don’t like him as a Nobel Prize Winner: he does not follow the lead as dished out by Washington, like they do, even if they say they don’t. “That” war was far more deceitful than the war on Saddam.

So why should Louise Glück reject the Nobel Prize for literachur? Is it because it places her in bad company or because her work stinks of the usual scratch my back I’ll scratch yours prize circuit, in which only one clever person can get the accolade of the roundabout at every turn? 

I know how the system of award works. Well I think I know… You could be the best of the best, you won’t have a chance to get a gong... If you are the average person of the moment and have been seen at the opening of every envelopes, talking to people (who could be judges of envelopes in waiting) or are the flavour of the month — say you belong to an ethnic group now pandered after years of slavery to allay some guilt, you have a chance of winning something in the awakening. 

Louise Glück should accept the prize gleefully and not be bothered that few populacious people will not read her work. We have no idea why we should indulge in reading her stuff. Personally, I think her poetry is average, not mind-boggling beyond the stars… Her poetry isn’t going to revolutionise our understanding of planetary configuration, nor that of our general Pompeo fist-fights. It’s alright though, standing with a bit of lucidity that many great writers have written about, since Plato… So good luck to her for being a good poet in bad Nobel company.

Carry on writing... You might learn something... We all (we all should) do.