Freelander

When I heard that Netflix was going to stop broadcasting in Russia, my first thought was: “Oh!, but was Netflix allowed in Russia at all? How imprudent!”

I mean: I’m a freedom enthusiast, and generally am not in the least for banning anything. I believe in free market and, in principle, support people’s possibility to access whatever services and goods they want or need of their own will, even though most person’s ability to choose what’s best for them leaves much to be desired: ideally, in my opinion, choice should come alongside education… But I’m drifting towards a too complicated debate here. For the moment, suffice to say that — well, if someone wants to watch whichever channel or online content, then let them do it.

However, when it comes to Netflix (or HBO, Amazon Video, Disney Channel, DW, etc.), I confess that my belief in liberty wavers quite a bit, and no longer know if I’m pro freedom of choice above all other considerations. And this is so because… well, Netflix and the like are such powerful indoctrinating tools that might even be labelled and treated like toxic: the same as governments regulate and restrict to the average layman the intake of certain drugs, least he poisons himself, so should perhaps be done with the venomous contents fed to uneducated or unprepared societies by those media platforms. Indeed, all of their video productions are manufactured to subtly –yet very efficiently– shape, when not manipulate, people’s minds in order for all of us to think in very much the same way, share identical values and have matching opinions: gender ideology, femin(az)ism, multiculturalism, identity politics, LGBTIQism, climate change, veganism, abortion, animalism, euthanasia, indigenism, welcome refugees, open borders… you name it! Such ready-made ideas are been seeded on most of the world’s population by –though not only– the mentioned platforms. Therefore, Continue reading →

In view of Russian military forces’ huge superiority over Ukrainian ones, it comes quite clear that, no matter how many weapons and mercenaries the latter receive from NATO, Vladimir Putin’s victory over Volodimir Zelenski -aka Joseph Biden- seems inevitable unless the Athlantic armies take direct part in the conflict. Otherwise, there’s no use for the Ukrainian troops -particularly their Azov philo-nazi regiment- in taking their own civilians hostage -by preventing them from reaching safety via the humanitary corridors- and using them as human shields anti Russian soldiers, who fight handicapped by strict orders to absolutely minimize civilian casualties; and there’s no use, either -except for increasing the suffering and deaths of their own people by absurdly prolonging this war-, in keep receiving the ongoing ammunition and armament loads so hypocritically sento to them by Europe (and not for free, by the way), not really for Ukrainian nationalists to stand a chance of winning over their enemy, but for them to hold fast for as long as possible in the hope that the Russian people, who are the ones who -very unfairly, by the way- suffer and endure the US-imposed embargo, finally get tired and arise against their government in claim for a regime change; which is the hegemonic agenda’s real goal in this fight.

But the eventual Russian victory would mean, in fact, nothing less than Continue reading →

Whatever the end of the Russian “special military operation” in Ukraine be, we can be sure of this: Europe countries’ electorates will have been persuaded about NATO’s essential existence, and -neglecting any possible initiative to dissolve an organization which, in truth, lost its theoretical purpose more than three decades ago- will grant their leaders a carte blanche to engage in enormous increases of their respective defense budgets. With the excuse of a peremptory protection from the Russian bear, NATO’s European members will spend fabulous amounts of extra money on weapons – defrayed, of course, off the taxpayers’ pockets. Chancelor Shcolz has already anounced upping Germany’s military expense in 100 billion euros next year, the rest of NATO countries this side of the ocean to follow suit in some degree, plus other non-NATO nations as well. How much total? A few hunded billions?

And a huge proportion of these expenses in armament, technology and war equipment will likely engross the profit of US military industry, which is by a landslide the world’s top arms exporter. Ineffable delight for the Deep State; the same powers, by the way, who fostered the coup d’etat in Kiev 2014 (disguised as an spontaneous popular revolt called Euromaidan) to oust the by then Ukraine’s democratically elected president and sit, in its place, puppets like the actual Volodimir Zelenski, obedient to Washington’s guidelines.

There is, besides, a second outcome we should also take for granted: gas and petroleum futures (determining actual prices) will remain in historical highs for many months to come (though, paradoxically, the present global demand of such commodities is lower than in the recent past), which makes profitable for US fracking companies to turn on again -they’re already doing it- the expensive and polluting shell industry for hydrocarbons extraction, and whose production will be bought by silly Europeans twice as costly as what we’d pay to Russian suppliers. Cunningly enough, the very US buys hydrocarbons from Russia at a lower cost than it fracks them. But, as Ursula von der Leyen has recently said, “The sacrifice for the liberty of our Ukrainian brothers has also a price for Europeans, and we must be ready to pay that price”. In short, more market and profits for the United States.

Thus being things, if we now apply political analysis’ rule #1, “qui prodest?“, to the armed conflict in Ukraine, it comes as obvious that its main economic profiteer is the USA; therefore, it turns out as quite likely that, contrary to what West governments and their media payroll try to make us believe, this situation has been brewed, or at least favoured, by the said beneficiary. Gas, oil and weapons (besides other globalist, strategic and hegemonic goals, too obscure -yet unquestionable- for me to analyze) are mighty enough reasons for the White House to turn a deaf ear on the legitimate and reasonable security claims the Kremlin has been making these past years on Ukraine’s neutrality, and for the dubiously elected president Biden -another Deep State crippled puppet- to keep pushing his Russian counterpart towards the reckless step he’s ultimately taken. Which step, by the way, is nothing but a self-fulfilled prophecy: first we pester the bear and, and once he finally thrusts his pow, then we justify the pestering… and the assassination, if possible. But probably Russia, for the past decades, did not entail more of a threat to the West than that created by the same West when keeping alive the NATO and expanding it eastwards.

Gas, oil and weapons are also mighty reasons to help prolong this war much longer than necessary, and thus we’re witnessing such absurdity as, instead of stepping in between two contenders in order to stop the quarrel, o even -if we dared- boldly intervening in support of the part we perceive as weaker/righter, what NATO does is selling arms by the loads to Zelenski, and “morally” backing him up with sanctions to Russia, so that our protegé won’t stop fighting or save its lives, but rather slowly bleed out for as long as possible; not because Europe doesn’t care, but because it all goes for the superior cause of God blessed Uncle Sam’s profit.

Under pretence of a concern–clearly unsincere–for the somewhat harmful NOx emissions (nitric oxides), we’re now told in Spain that the European Union promotes a fight against fuel-oil that our Government will be seconding by — guess how? Yes: increasing the taxes and other hinders. A fight, though, whose main beneficiaries won’t be neither the atmosphere nor the citizens’ health, but the automobile industry and, of course, the Internal Revenue. Why? First, because fuel-oil being more polluting than petrol is anything except a definitely settled debate. Petrol egines emit more COx (responsible for greenhouse effect) and fuel-oil ones more NOx (potentially damaging health), but emissions from cars complying with the latest Euro 6 standard are quite similar for both oil derivatives. Hence, were health and environment the issue, Governments would rather take steps in order to renew the fleet and get rid of the dated, more NOx/COx emitting units out there, instead of overtaxing fuel-oil, a step equally impacing older and newer diesel cars, despite the latter being up to five times less polluting than the former and, ironically enough, also a lot less polluting than older petrol cars. Second, because by badgering with taxes and hindrances all diesel cars undiscriminatelly, then all their owners will be pushed to trade them for petrol or hybrid ones, which all throughout Europe means over one hundred million cars ready to be replaced, rather sooner than later, by less penalized vehicle types. This is a spectacular figure, too enticing for manufacturers to not place them under suspicion.
And funniest of all, it’s our present socialist government the most eager to apply a tax raise that–mind you–will impact more severely the less well-off, who–as statistics show–are the ones who bought diesel cars to economize. Wealthier people usually prefer petrol. Therefore our PSOE will be penalizing their own voters. All of which strongly suggests that Continue reading →

It seems incredible that a Spanish citizen’s health card is only valid in one’s own autonomous community, and that one can’t receive medical care in the rest of the country without having previously formalized an absurd paperwork: the relocation slip, whose real purpose is no other than to put up domestic borders and hamper our constitutional right to freedom of movement.
I meant: it would seem incredible, conditional. It would seem incredible if it weren’t because even the worst blunder is possible in this split, self-apostate Spain; in this mutant country of made-up cunning regionalisms. But since anything can happen here, such are things. Both the kinglets of the autonomous taifas and the central government, in the height of their political ineptitude and ‘autonomistic’ blindness, have proved totally unable of agreeing on a coordinated and unlimber health system. On one hand, because those kinglets are only too eager to label as recentralization –and thus anatemize– any unifying policy a government might undertake, due to their semantic confusion –out of ignorance or demagogy– between centralize and unify. (Pity they didn’t learn better their own language.) Interestingly, by the way, they don’t mind to give away their personal data to Facebook so that Mark Zuckerberg can centralize the information in his servers, but they do mind the different autonomous comunities in Spain to coordinate and unify databases and medical services so as to remove setbacks on behalf of the citizens. And, on the other hand, because the central goverment is always afraid of being called terrible names like centralizer dictators, and therefore, not giving a dime for their people, they dodge the issue for not confronting the kinglets.
But the last straw in all this nonsense is Continue reading →

If there’s something characterising the contemporary social speech, leadered by journalists and politicians of every kind (imbued, in turn, by the global pensée unique), that is, rather than its populism and lack of character, the sweetened language in which their ideas come wrapped. I’m thinking of that softened vocabulary, made of euphemisms and slynesses, that shuns at all costs calling things by their name, lest reality makes sore our mealymouthedness’ thin skin.
Among the uncountable, almost infinite examples out there, these days stands out, for its sudden spreading, the word ‘migrants’, with which we must call the immigrants from now on, as the factories where the communication engineering is hatched have decided. Migrants! How harmless it sounds! The new term seems to wash off, like baptismal water, those aliens’ illegal condition; to endorse their pureness; to belie their resolve of settling down in Europe, and in short, to divest the migrational process of any aspect detrimental or burdensome for our own welfare. And, granted, our exquisite sensitivity — actually a guilt complex of which we can’t, or even don’t want to, heal — has swallowed the switch in one go without us batting an eyelid; and thus, in the record time of one day — just one day, reader! — the word immigrant has already been eradicated — nay: censored from our vocabulary.
As usual, the semantic magic has worked; and this is because in our trained Europe, where true critical spirits are endangered species, we can’t realize how we are being sneaked the goals nor how, with every new of these goals, those language masters are shaping — not to say manipulating — our opinion and taking us one step further away from anything resembling free thinking.