Pepe LUENGO

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

En los últimos años alguien está poniendo el mundo patas arriba. Los gobiernos ya no gobiernan; delinquen. Los médicos ya no curan; hacen de la enfermedad un negocio. Los jueces ya no juzgan; manipulan la justicia. Los científicos ya no hacen ciencia; hacen pseudociencia. Los medios de comunicación ya no informan; desinforman. Las religiones ya no predican amor, sino odio… Y así podríamos seguir con una lista interminable.

¿Te has parado a pensar en que todo lo que nos enseñaron desde pequeñitos puede que sea una gran mentira? Hay una evidencia: la gente que se atreve a cuestionar las cosas llega a la conclusión de que absolutamente todo nuestro sistema esta cimentado sobre mentiras. Da igual por donde empieces (Estado, gobierno, democracia, sistema financiero,…), todo es una farsa. Y los acontecimientos que estamos viviendo últimamente, como la reciente “pandemia”, el cambio climático antropogénico, la invasión de Ceuta o cualquiera de las guerras actuales, más de lo mismo.

Todo lo que nos contaron sobre la necesidad incuestionable de someternos a un gobierno, sobre la función que desempeña el sistema financiero, sobre el papel del Estado, incluso sobre la libertad que supuestamente disfrutamos en las democracias occidentales son flagrantes mentiras. Mentiras, por otra parte, que nos fueron inculcadas por padres y educadores sin ser conscientes de que nos contaban una milonga. Sin embargo, estas mentiras son mantenidas y acrecentadas por políticos y medios de comunicación a sabiendas de que son mentiras.

La realidad es que estamos gobernados por una panda de plutócratas, agencias gubernamentales y poderosos lobbies bancarios que manipulan el mundo con total impunidad.

En el transcurso del tiempo, una banda de banqueros internacionales ha creado un sistema de control financiero privado para dominar la política de cada país y la economía mundial. Familias de banqueros como los Rothschild, Morgan, Warburg, etc., junto con la masonería y otras organizaciones nada transparentes como el Club Bilderberg, el CFR. o el Club de Roma, han establecido un cártel financiero y de poder internacional durante los últimos 200 años.

Siendo los amos del dinero -tomándose muy en serio el lema de “quien controla el dinero gobierna el mundo”- se han hecho los dueños de los respectivos gobiernos que manejan a su antojo.

Los amos del mundo han creado una sociedad disfuncional, donde si no cumples con los estándares establecidos -trabajar y consumir toda una gama de productos innecesarios- eres considerado “persona non grata”, por decirlo de una manera suave. Nos han programado para competir con nuestros semejantes y para que nuestra vida sea un cúmulo de metas profesionales y económicas, donde el fin último es la acumulación de bienes materiales. Luego, cuando te mueres, todas esas metas que conseguiste y los bienes materiales que acumulaste se quedan aquí. Lo único bueno que dejas –si es que lo dejas- es tu legado del conocimiento; el resto, un montón de cosas superfluas. Así que la pregunta es: ¿merece la pena tanto esfuerzo?

La mayoría de la gente que peina canas sabe por experiencia propia que esta es una forma de vida demencial que, sin embargo, se ha extendido por todo el mundo. Porque disfrutar de la vida –y cuando hablo de disfrutar de la vida no me estoy refiriendo a viajar en un crucero de lujo, etc.- no requiere ningún esfuerzo. Basta con deleitarse con las experiencias sensoriales que nos brinda la vida en cada momento, disfrutar de las maravillas de este extraordinario planeta azul y compartir conocimiento y alegría con nuestros semejantes.

Cuando tienes salud, familia y amigos que te quieren, una actividad provechosa y ningún conflicto es que la vida no te va nada mal. Entonces, ¿por qué se empeñan en convencernos de todo lo contrario?

El día que dejemos de escuchar en nuestra mente todas esas retahílas programadas sobre el éxito, la competitividad, la codicia y el miedo a todo lo que no se encuentre dentro de nuestra zona de confort es cuando realmente empezaremos a vivir. Porque la vida no es más que eso que sentimos cada mañana al despertar, y no una programación continua de nuestro tiempo, por parte de otros, que es lo más valioso que tenemos en esta vida.

La nuestra es una civilización profundamente enferma. Una civilización donde se le ha dado la vuelta a todo: hombres que ahora son mujeres y viceversa o delincuentes que tienen derechos y víctimas que no los tienen.

Veamos, a modo de ejemplo, el reciente caso de la invasión de Ceuta. En Ceuta los invasores son protegidos por el gobierno que sufrió la invasión y sus gobernados, los Ceutíes, abandonados a su suerte. Y lo más incongruente: el país invadido da las gracias al país invasor y tilda de fascistas y xenófobos a los invadidos que piden una solución. Esta es la locura a la que hemos llegado en una sociedad distópica, donde se le ha dado la vuelta a todo.

La pregunta es: ¿cómo ha sido posible esto? Pues mediante la contaminación de nuestras mentes a través del relato. Porque quien controla el relato controla nuestro pensamiento; quien controla nuestro pensamiento controla nuestro comportamiento; y quien controla nuestro comportamiento influye en nuestras opiniones, estado de ánimo y, por supuesto, en nuestros miedos. Por lo tanto, llegar a ejercer una influencia de la percepción del mundo que nos rodea se ha convertido en la manera más sutil de ejercer el poder. Por cierto, esto lo hace de maravilla nuestro Presidente de Gobierno, Pedro Sánchez.

Pero las cosas son de esta manera porque la mayoría de la gente ha aceptado voluntariamente la esclavitud, ya que el ser humano es el único animal en la naturaleza que se deja gobernar. La absurda idea de elegir un amo que le controle y domine es lo mejor que ha podido salir de su cabecita. Obviamente, es el gobierno quien desempeña el papel de amo. Por lo tanto, la sumisión al gobierno, y el voto para legitimarlo, hace responsables de la situación actual a todos aquellos que siguen estas prácticas. Y lo más incongruente. Si lo han querido así ellos mismos, ¿de qué coños se quejan?

El “populacho” –pobre e ignorante- parece empeñado en su propia desgracia. Ha perdido su dignidad dejándose despojar de su riqueza y su libertad sin la más mínima resistencia. Y aunque bien es verdad que desde tiempos inmemoriales ha sido pobre e ignorante, es a partir del Covid-19 cuando, además, se ha vuelto extremadamente imbécil. Y así no hay manera.

By Glenn DIESEN

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false.

1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the dismissive comments from the university – no arguments are apparently required.

It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounce as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic?

I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument.

I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”.

2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental “human rights organisation” that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war.

3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they “debunk”?

My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era.

My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war.

My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists.

Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.

Original article: glenndiesen.substack.com

Depois de pressionar Washington a manter o apoio a Zelensky, as lideranças europeias enfrentam um novo desafio: convencer Trump a abandonar as oportunidades de aproximação com Moscou em favor dos interesses de Bruxelas.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Desde o encontro entre Donald Trump e Vladimir Putin em Anchorage, em agosto de 2025, os governos europeus têm trabalhado para impedir uma mudança significativa na política americana em relação à Rússia. Para as lideranças da União Europeia, qualquer entendimento entre Washington e Moscou representa um risco à estratégia adotada desde o início do conflito ucraniano. Por isso, seus representantes intensificaram os esforços para convencer Trump de que as propostas russas não merecem confiança e de que o apoio militar a Vladimir Zelensky deve continuar.

Essa campanha conseguiu preservar importantes elementos da política ocidental de confronto com Moscou. Entretanto, a situação no campo de batalha continua desfavorável para a Ucrânia, enquanto os governos europeus demonstram dificuldades para apresentar uma perspectiva realista de vitória. A insistência em prolongar o conflito tem um custo crescente para os próprios países europeus, que precisam conciliar suas ambições geopolíticas com problemas econômicos e sociais internos.

A questão fundamental é saber até quando Trump estará disposto a acompanhar essa estratégia.

O presidente americano tem demonstrado que suas decisões dependem de uma combinação de interesses econômicos, objetivos políticos internos e cálculos de poder. Sua relação com a Europa é marcada por desconfiança em relação às elites tradicionais, que frequentemente tentam apresentar suas próprias prioridades como obrigações comuns do Ocidente. Trump, por sua vez, prefere negociar diretamente e cobrar contrapartidas concretas de seus parceiros.

Essa postura explica por que a aproximação com Moscou continua sendo uma possibilidade relevante. A Rússia possui recursos naturais, capacidade industrial e importância estratégica suficientes para tornar a cooperação bilateral atraente para setores econômicos americanos. Mesmo em um ambiente de rivalidade política, existem oportunidades que um empresário experiente como Trump dificilmente ignoraria sem uma razão convincente.

O recente acordo de comércio de diesel, com a Rússia exportando toneladas de combustível para Washington para aliviar o aumento nos preços, foi um exemplo muito interessante das possibilidades de negócios estratégicos e lucrativos entre ambos os países. O levantamento parcial de algumas sanções econômicas americanas foi, no mesmo sentido, uma sinalização de que esta parceria pode progredir ainda mais no futuro próximo.

Em acréscimo, o comércio de energia é apenas uma das áreas em que os interesses americanos podem divergir das preferências europeias. A normalização de determinadas relações econômicas com a Rússia poderia beneficiar empresas dos Estados Unidos e ampliar a margem de negociação de Washington. Para Trump, a possibilidade de obter vantagens concretas constitui um argumento importante em favor de uma diplomacia mais flexível.

A União Europeia, contudo, tem interesse em deteriorar as relações russo-americnas o máximo possível. Sem o envolvimento dos Estados Unidos na guerra, os governos europeus teriam maiores dificuldades para sustentar militarmente a Ucrânia e manter a pressão sobre Moscou. A proclamada autonomia estratégica europeia continua limitada pela dependência de capacidades militares, inteligência e recursos americanos.

Por essa razão, Bruxelas precisa manter Trump comprometido com uma política que em nada corresponde às suas próprias prioridades. Seus representantes podem recorrer à pressão diplomática, à retórica sobre a segurança europeia e aos vínculos históricos da aliança atlântica. Resta saber se esses instrumentos serão suficientes para impedir que o presidente americano explore alternativas mais vantajosas para Washington.

A Rússia, nesse cenário, tem motivos para acompanhar com atenção as divergências entre os dois lados do Atlântico. Moscou pode defender seus interesses nacionais por meio de negociações diretas com os Estados Unidos, sem aceitar que a União Europeia determine previamente os limites de qualquer entendimento. Uma relação bilateral mais pragmática também poderia reduzir o espaço de atuação daqueles que apostam na continuidade indefinida do conflito.

Naturalmente, Trump não oferece garantias de uma aproximação duradoura. Sua política externa é imprevisível, e os setores americanos favoráveis à confrontação com a Rússia continuam exercendo influência. Os europeus ainda dispõem de instrumentos para tentar condicionar as decisões de Washington.

Entretanto, a margem de manobra de Trump permanece considerável. Ele não chegou à Casa Branca para preservar os interesses de uma elite europeia que frequentemente critica e tampouco precisa aceitar todas as suas avaliações sobre a Rússia.

A verdadeira disputa será pela definição dos interesses que orientarão a política americana. Se Trump concluir que a negociação com Moscou oferece benefícios superiores aos custos da confrontação, a pressão europeia poderá perder força.

Para Moscou, essa possibilidade representa uma oportunidade diplomática. Para as lideranças europeias, constitui um alerta sobre os limites de sua influência. E para Trump, é a chance de demonstrar que a relação transatlântica não lhe impõe uma obrigação permanente de seguir as prioridades políticas da Europa.

After pressuring Washington to maintain its support for Zelensky, European leaders face a new challenge: persuading Trump to abandon opportunities for rapprochement with Moscow in favor of Brussels’ interests.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Since the meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Anchorage in August 2025, European governments have worked to prevent a significant shift in American policy toward Russia. For European Union leaders, any understanding between Washington and Moscow threatens the strategy they have pursued since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict. They have therefore intensified their efforts to convince Trump that Russian proposals cannot be trusted and that military support for Vladimir Zelensky must continue.

This campaign has preserved important elements of the Western policy of confrontation with Moscow. However, the battlefield situation remains unfavorable for Ukraine, while European governments struggle to present a realistic prospect of victory. Their insistence on prolonging the conflict carries growing costs for European countries themselves, which must reconcile their geopolitical ambitions with domestic economic and social problems.

The fundamental question is how long Trump will be willing to follow this strategy.

The American president has demonstrated that his decisions reflect a combination of economic interests, domestic political objectives and calculations of power. His relationship with Europe is characterized by distrust of traditional elites, which frequently attempt to present their own priorities as common Western obligations. Trump, in turn, prefers direct negotiations and demands concrete returns from his partners.

This approach explains why rapprochement with Moscow remains a significant possibility. Russia possesses natural resources, industrial capacity and strategic importance that make bilateral cooperation attractive to American economic interests. Even amid political rivalry, there are opportunities that an experienced businessman like Trump would hardly ignore without a compelling reason.

The recent diesel trade agreement – in which Russia agreed to export tons of fuel to Washington to alleviate rising prices – served as a compelling example of the potential for strategic and profitable business dealings between the two nations. Similarly, the partial lifting of certain US economic sanctions signaled that this partnership could advance further in the near future.

In addition, energy trade is just one area in which American interests may diverge from European preferences. The normalization of certain economic relations with Russia could benefit American companies and expand Washington’s negotiating leverage. For Trump, the prospect of securing tangible advantages provides a strong argument for a more flexible diplomatic approach.

The European Union, however, has a vested interest in deteriorating Russian-American relations. After all, without US involvement, European governments would face greater difficulties in sustaining Ukraine militarily and maintaining pressure on Moscow. Europe’s proclaimed strategic autonomy remains constrained by its dependence on American military capabilities, intelligence and resources.

Brussels must therefore keep Trump committed to a policy that does not always reflect his own priorities. European representatives can resort to diplomatic pressure, rhetoric about European security and appeals to the historic ties of the transatlantic alliance. Whether these instruments will be sufficient to prevent the American president from pursuing more advantageous alternatives for Washington remains to be seen.

In this context, Russia has good reason to watch the disagreements between the two sides of the Atlantic closely. Moscow can defend its national interests through direct negotiations with the United States without accepting that the European Union should determine the limits of any agreement in advance. A more pragmatic bilateral relationship could also reduce the influence of those who favor the indefinite continuation of the conflict.

Naturally, Trump offers no guarantees of lasting rapprochement. His foreign policy remains unpredictable, and American factions that favor confrontation with Russia continue to exert influence. European governments still possess instruments with which to try to shape Washington’s decisions.

Nevertheless, Trump’s room for maneuver remains considerable. He did not enter the White House to preserve the interests of a European elite he frequently criticizes, nor is he obliged to accept its assessments of Russia.

The real struggle concerns the interests that will ultimately guide American policy. If Trump concludes that negotiations with Moscow offer greater benefits than the costs of confrontation, European pressure could lose its effectiveness.

For Moscow, this possibility represents a diplomatic opportunity. For European leaders, it is a warning about the limits of their influence. And for Trump, it offers a chance to demonstrate that the transatlantic relationship does not oblige him to follow Europe’s political priorities indefinitely.

Not for the first time, there is a conspiracy among members of the established parties to exclude one element of our politics and make it effectively taboo, says Prof James Alexander: they want to keep the 'stasis quo'.

The post Notice How the Establishment is Trying to Defend the Stasis Quo appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.