Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A prisão de Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor por suas associações ao escândalo Epstein está repleta de aspectos peculiares, tanto num sentido simbólico quanto num sentido histórico. A prisão foi realizada no dia do 66º aniversário de Andrew, em 19 de fevereiro de 2026, 666 dias depois daquele estranho evento em Londres, em 24 de abril de 2024, no qual um cavalo branco ensanguentado se soltou e cavalgou pelas ruas da cidade. Coincidência? Quem sabe?

A acusação, especificamente, envolve inúmeros relatos e evidências, deduzidos a partir dos e-mails de Epstein e de depoimentos de testemunhas, de que Andrew teria participado, acompanhado e colaborado no abuso sexual de mulheres de diversas idades, inclusive meninas potencialmente pré-púberes, e na tortura, também, de crianças e adolescentes – tortura com conotação ou contornos sexuais. Definitivamente, um comportamento atroz e repulsivo.

Andrew, que não é mais príncipe, duque, conde ou barão, tendo perdido todos os seus títulos e os direitos a eles associados, não obstante segue sendo irmão do Rei Carlos III, atual soberano do Reino Unido.

Se estamos nos referindo a polêmicas envolvendo a família real britânica, porém, a figura de Carlos III nos remete rapidamente à estranha morte da princesa Diana, que por um tempo foi esposa do rei britânico quando ele ainda era o príncipe de Gales.

Diana foi princesa de Gales e esposa do atual Rei Carlos de 1981 até 1996, quando se divorciou dele. Nunca saberemos os motivos reais do divórcio, para além das explicações dadas publicamente, as quais passam, por exemplo, por traições do príncipe, bem como pressões constantes da família real sobre ela. Mas aí então há aqueles que insistem que parte das tensões de Diana com a família real envolve segredos muito mais profundos sobre os quais a princesa teria tido conhecimento, incluindo aí o envolvimento de membros da família real com pedofilia e abuso sexual.

Não temos como ter certeza sobre qualquer coisa desse tipo, mas a amizade de Jimmy Savile com membros da família real britânica é, certamente, desconcertante. Jimmy Savile, falecido em 2011, foi um DJ e personalidade midiática britânica que trabalhava na estatal BBC. Mas ele é mais conhecido como sendo um pervertido aberrante que teria abusado sexualmente de centenas de crianças ao longo de décadas. Muito convenientemente, a mídia britânica esperou o falecimento de Savile para expor os seus “podres”. Quase como se todos já soubessem de tudo…

Savile teria conhecido pessoalmente o rei Carlos, quando ele ainda era príncipe, nos anos 70 do século XX, em eventos de caridade. Mas ele rapidamente teria se tornado surpreendentemente íntimo da família real, atuando como conselheiro em inúmeros temas. Segundo Diana, Carlos à época via Savile quase como um guru, um mentor. Savile chegou a dizer, porém, que ele conhecia a família real britânica há ainda mais tempo, desde os anos 60; tendo sido introduzido nos negócios da família real pelo lorde Louis Mountbatten, ex-governador de Burma…e notório pedófilo com predileção por menininhos.

Savile, porém, não era apenas um “consumidor”, ele era também um “fornecedor”. Pelo menos é o que diz seu sobrinho, Guy Marsden, que afirma que Savile organizava festas orgiásticas nas quais o diferencial era a “oferta” de crianças – meninos e meninas – a membros da elite britânica. O sobrinho de Savile diz crer que a maioria das crianças vinha de orfanatos e abrigos. Isso situa Savile numa função semelhante – ainda que talvez de menor envergadura – a Jeffrey Epstein. Savile, aparentemente, não era tão próximo de Andrew quanto ele era do príncipe de Gales, mas o próprio Andrew, numa entrevista infame realizada em 2019, afirmou ter passado muito mais tempo com Savile do que com Epstein.

Retornando a Louis Mountbatten, o tio-avô do rei Carlos III, além de amigo de Jimmy Savile, recentemente alguns vazamentos de arquivos levaram ao conhecimento público o fato de que ele teria abusado de dezenas, ou mesmo centenas de meninos. Uma parcela dos abusos teria ocorrido na Irlanda do Norte, no lar de crianças de Kincora, em Belfast – local em que o orfanato, aparentemente, servia como “bufê” de crianças para membros da elite política e militar britânica, tudo operado pelo MI5. O orfanato foi fechado em 1980, 1 ano após o lorde Mountbatten ser justiçado pelo IRA.

Não há muitos outros escândalos envolvendo pedofilia em conexão com a família real britânica, mas nem por isso deixa de haver outros escândalos sexuais graves.

Se voltarmos ainda mais no tempo, para o final do século XIX, chegaremos à época dos famosos assassinatos de Whitechapel. Canonicamente, 5 mulheres foram assassinadas, com o mesmo modus operandi, por um homem que tornou-se notório no folclore macabro como “Jack o Estripador”. Ninguém nunca foi preso, nenhum culpado foi descoberto, e as teorias abundam.

Uma das mais notórias, é a teoria que conecta os assassinatos à figura do príncipe Alberto Vítor, Duque de Clarence. Alberto, cuja reputação já foi historicamente afetada pela revelação de que ele frequentava um bordel masculino na rua Cleveland, em Londres, passou a ser considerado, com o passar do tempo, o principal suspeito de ser o notório serial killer. O seu conhecimento de caça seria suficiente para dar conta da parte técnica das mortes. Ademais, recentemente ficou comprovado que ele padecia de sífilis e/ou gonorreia, doenças sexualmente transmissíveis que, se não tratadas, levam à insanidade.

As teorias, em cima dessa hipótese, se bifurcam. Há alguns que alegam que o próprio assassino era o príncipe, acometido de surtos de insanidade que o levavam a retaliar contra prostitutas, vistas talvez, enquanto classe, como responsáveis por seu sofrimento. Outros alegam que os assassinatos, na verdade, teriam sido cometidos a mando da família real com o objetivo de ocultar escândalos sexuais nos quais o príncipe Alberto teria estado envolvido, incluindo um possível casamento secreto com uma plebeia, realizado numa taverna e testemunhado por prostitutas.

Diferentemente dos casos mais recentes, a verdade sobre Jack o Estripador e suas possíveis conexões com a família real britânica dificilmente virão à luz, especialmente por todo o tempo que já passou.

Ainda assim, certamente há algo de podre fluindo nas profundezas do Reino Unido da Grã-Bretanha e Irlanda do Norte.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Ukraine’s prosecutor general has uncovered a massive bribery and fraud case in which a private company supplied unusable mines and dangerous ammunition that did not meet technical specifications to the front lines, causing nearly $70 million in losses to Ukrainian taxpayers.

Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko announced on Friday that a Ukrainian company pocketed approximately $70 million in taxpayer money while supplying defective mines to the army.

A previously unknown private company signed five major government contracts with the Ministry of Defence, the Naval Procurement Agency, and the Logistics Command to supply various types of mines and ammunition worth a total of approximately 10 billion hryvnia (€200 million). However, according to the investigation, the company did not deliver the majority of the ordered products, while spending the advance payments, and the mines that were delivered were technically unsuitable for combat conditions. They did not contain enough explosives or did not work properly and often exploded in the hands of soldiers.

The investigation revealed that the perpetrators used a fictitious company that had no manufacturing experience. The company’s managers did not use public funds to manufacture high-quality mines but instead purchased equipment from a third party, which they then sold on to other companies. In addition, they embezzled the advance payments made to them for contracts that were never fulfilled.

There are currently ten suspects in the case, including the managers of the supplier company, accountants, and military procurement officials; four of them have already been taken into custody. The prosecutor’s office has indicated that it has filed a lawsuit against them, on the one hand to recover the public funds spent, and on the other hand to seek severe penalties for the suspects, which could include long prison sentences and confiscation of assets for those involved. According to the charges, the suspects caused a total of approximately $70 million in damage to the state: $13.3 million of this was wasted on faulty mines, and another $56.4 million was spent on setting up a production line that was never put into operation.

This is not the first corruption scandal of the Zelensky era. Last November, the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau uncovered a $100 million illegal cash flow linked to the president’s closest friends. Footage of luxurious apartments in Kyiv, one of which even had a gold toilet, and images of cash packed into sports bags shocked the Ukrainian public. Also in November, former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov was arrested for his involvement in a corruption case involving Volodymyr Zelensky’s friend, Timur Mindich. In December, a criminal organisation consisting of members of parliament was uncovered, whose members accepted money in exchange for their votes. Yuriy Kisel, who is at the centre of the case, also has close ties to the Ukrainian president.

Original article:  europeanconservative.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A major corruption scandal unfolding in Ukraine, centring on the embezzlement of an estimated $100 million from the state nuclear operator Energoatom, is revealing more than just high-level graft; it is exposing the complex and often contradictory dynamics of international geopolitics that African nations should be extremely attentive to.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Following a batch of newly released emails from Jeffrey Epstein, the late child offender, it appears thus far that U.S. President Donald Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing. So why is he acting so suspicious?

On November 12^th, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released some 20,000 emails from the files that suggested Donald Trump may have known more about Epstein’s underage sex-trafficking activities than he previously admitted.

In an email exchange between Epstein, who committed suicide in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial, and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein notes that an alleged victim had “spent hours at my house” with Trump.

“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump,” Epstein wrote in an April 2011 message to Maxwell, who is awaiting trial from federal prison in the United States.

“[Victim] spent hours at my house with him,, he has never once been mentioned,” he continues.

“I have been thinking about that…” Maxwell replied.

In another email between Epstein and journalist Michael Wolff from 2019, Epstein writes that [Victim] mara lago… [redacted]… trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever.. of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.’

While the email exchange looks tantalizingly close to some form of guilt on the part of the U.S. leader, it is not a smoking gun. That’s largely because the redacted ‘victim’ mentioned in the above email messages is none other than Virginia Giuffre, who was 17 years old when she was lured away from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club to work for Jeffrey Epstein.

Giuffre, who committed suicide in April, was deposed in November 2016 as part of her lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. In the course of the deposition she maintained that Trump never attempted to have sex with her. She also responded under oath that she never saw Trump at any of Jeffrey Epstein’s residences.

Over the years, Trump and Epstein had rubbed shoulders in elite social circles in New York and Florida. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, Trump said he had known Epstein for 15 years, calling him a “terrific guy” who was “a lot of fun to be with.”

In that same interview, Trump added, “it is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

So, if there is nothing more to the story between the disgraced billionaire pedophile and the American president, why is Trump and other top officials so reluctant to release the remainder of the files to public scrutiny? (The White House said the emails “prove absolutely nothing”).

Is the U.S. leader covering for himself or for others in the knowledge that there may be far more incriminating revelations in other messages? The answer appears to be obvious and self-evident, but whatever the case may be, Trump is putting intense pressure on Republicans to block release of the remainder of the files now in possession of the Justice Department.

CNN reported that the White House summoned representative Lauren Boebert – one of four Republicans in the House who have signed a special discharge petition to release the files – to a meeting in the Situation Room with the attorney general, Pam Bondi, and FBI director, Kash Patel, to discuss her position. Trump failed to get a reversal from Boebert, as well as other lawmakers contacted by the White House, including South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace. But the administration had other cards to play, it seems.

Perhaps Republicans and Democrats alike were of the opinion that a conveniently time government shutdown – the longest in history, in fact – would make the public forget about Mr. Epstein. If that was the goal it also failed. After the government reopened for business, the late swearing-in of the Democratic representative Adelita Grijalva brought the number of signatures on the discharge petition to the magic number of 218 required to force a vote on legislation demanding the release of all files on Epstein within 30 days.

Meanwhile, the U.S. president’s efforts to portray the files as part of an elaborate ‘Democrat Hoax’ is not working among his MAGA constituents, many of whom cast a vote for Trump specifically on the grounds that the files would be made public. In July, much to the anger and frustration of the Republican base, the Justice Department released a memo that pointed to a “lack of evidence” to continue with the investigation.

“This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list,’” the memo said. “There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

“No further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted,” the memo continued.

If the Trump White House was of the opinion that the American people would forget the Epstein case, they were sadly disappointed. They smelled a rat and they would not rest until the matter was brought to its final conclusion.

“The best-case explanation for the Trump administration on their mishandling of the Epstein case is rank incompetence,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, in a statement. “But the much likelier explanation is that Trump and wealthy people around him have things to hide.”

Will those hidden things be brought to the light of day? Unfortunately, it seems very unlikely. Even if the discharge petition passes the House, it still needs to get through the Senate and be signed by Trump, who certainly does not want to be seen as the person left holding the hot potato. The question remains: how much will the Republicans suffer at the ballot box if they continue to ignore the Epstein case?

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The whole of France has been in shock since the announcement of the spectacular burglary that took place on the morning of Sunday, October 19th, at the Louvre.

Nine crown jewels were stolen with disconcerting ease; eight are still missing. President Macron has pledged to do everything in his power to recover these priceless historical treasures, but his determination will not make people forget the incredible chain of negligence that allowed such a crime to succeed.

This is not the first time that the Louvre has been the scene of spectacular thefts, as this palace-museum, sometimes described as “the most beautiful museum in the world,” houses priceless treasures of universal art and history. “La Gioconda” herself, Leonardo da Vinci’s famous portrait of the enigmatic Mona Lisa, has been targeted on several occasions.

This time, it was jewellery that was stolen.

The newspaper Le Monde publishes the list and photos of the stolen pieces. The crown of Empress Eugénie, wife of Napoleon III, was stolen and then abandoned during the burglars’ escape. Its condition is presently “under review.” Also missing are Empress Eugénie’s pearl tiara, her diamond corsage bow, a reliquary brooch, a complete sapphire set with a tiara that belonged to Queens Marie-Amélie and Hortense, and a sumptuous emerald set belonging to Empress Marie-Louise, wife of Napoleon I.

Once the initial shock had passed, information began to emerge about the circumstances of the theft, which took place shortly after the museum opened to the public, between 9:30 and 9:37 a.m.

Videos of the theft are now circulating on social media. Photos and surveillance camera footage: everything is now well documented, providing a formidable instruction manual for anyone wishing to repeat the feat.

A lorry was positioned on the banks of the Seine, at the foot of the famous Galerie d’Apollon, which houses the Crown Jewels, i.e., the remains of the sumptuous jewellery belonging to the various dynasties that ruled France and which survived—only a few of them—the many episodes of revolution. It quietly set up, placing construction safety cones on the pavement to secure the perimeter. A basket mounted on a hoist allowed two of the four criminals to climb up to a window in the gallery, which they broke into in a fairly basic manner using an angle grinder. Once inside, it took them just seven minutes—a time that seems both very short and disproportionately long—to open a display case and steal nine pieces of precious jewellery.

Since the theft was reported, a series of painful revelations have come to light. Observers have noted the deplorable state of the windows in the Apollo Gallery, which presented little more than a flimsy barrier for the thieves to overcome. It is highly likely that other strategic locations in the museum are in a similar state of disrepair.

Another scandalous discovery: the display cases housing the jewels were replaced in 2019 with ‘ultra-modern’ models—which turned out to be much less secure than the old ones. At that time, the Louvre’s management decided to transfer the Second Empire jewels (previously displayed in other rooms) to the Apollo Gallery to display them alongside those from the Ancien Régime already on display there. In the middle of the prestigious gallery, curators had installed a reinforced glass display case in the 1950s to house the most precious items. This display case could be hidden away in a safe concealed in the decorative base at the first sign of danger. If this system had been retained, the jewellery would most certainly still be in the Louvre.

Beyond these material considerations, there is the question of human responsibility. The old protocol called for the immediate removal of the display case in the event of an alert. But that is not what happened on Sunday morning. The urgent action required of the officers was to “secure the people.” This led to a surreal scene captured by some observers on their phones: the burglars had seven full minutes to fill their bags without anyone physically stopping them.

Under these circumstances, Culture Minister Rachida Dati’s thanks to the security guards for their remarkable responsiveness leave one speechless. Without wishing to overwhelm them, as they were only obeying orders, was a ceremony staging public gratitude really appropriate when we know that no fewer than eight pieces of jewellery have simply vanished into thin air?

Finally, we learn that the appointment of the Louvre’s security chief in 2021, Dominique Buffin, was made recently on the basis of criteria other than competence, but rather to satisfy the requirement for the feminisation of senior staff in cultural institutions.

We are in France, where a culture of institutionalised irresponsibility has reigned for decades. Buffin will not resign, nor will Dati.

Journalist Didier Rykner, a specialist in art history and editor-in-chief of La Tribune de l’Art, a leading publication that catalogues, among other things, the numerous attacks on French heritage today, just published an explosive investigation, focusing on the incredible chain of failures that led to the theft of the Crown Jewels. Already, on X, some accuse him of “playing into the hands of the far right” when he denounces the negligence of the Louvre and the ministry.

Everything about this affair rings terribly false. “We will find the works and the perpetrators will be brought to justice,” President Macron solemnly promised. Can we believe him? Can we trust a moribund justice system that no longer knows how to exercise its legitimate authority?

A few days ago, the pretender to the French throne, Louis XX, descendant of Louis XIV and head of the elder branch of the Bourbons, spoke out several times in the French press to share his alarm at the collapse of the country forged by his peers. When the burglary was announced, it was the turn of Jean, Count of Paris, descendant of King Louis-Philippe and head of one of the younger branches, the Bourbons-Orléans, to issue a statement deploring the loss of these jewels—some of which belonged to his direct female ancestors. It is easy to see this theft as a metaphor for the state of decay of the country, which is incapable of safeguarding and passing on its treasures due to the negligence and mediocrity of its leaders.

The Louvre, once the seat of royal power, stands as a symbol for the entire country, where anyone who wants to can break in and ruin the legacy of centuries and national glory.

Original article:  europeanconservative.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Paedophilia is as old as humanity itself, the festering shadow at civilisation’s heel. Empires built marble monuments while children were violated in backrooms; abbots preached chastity while pawing altar boys; aristocrats toasted fine wines while trafficking street orphans. What changes is not the crime, but the cover story. Fast forward to now: on one side of the Atlantic, a Las Vegas sting targeting predators nets a foreign official— Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, a high-ranking Israeli cyber specialist with ties to Netanyahu—who somehow posts bail and jets back to Tel Aviv before his court date. On the other side, Britain seethes over Asian grooming gangs, with headlines screaming, communities raging, and politicians tripping over themselves to “condemn”. Different continents, same rot.

Let’s start with the hard numbers. In Rochdale, nine men—mostly of Pakistani heritage—were convicted in 2012 for systematically grooming and raping girls as young as 13. The sentences ranged from 4 to 20 years, though many were released early. Rotherham was worse: independent investigators uncovered the industrial-scale abuse of 1,400 children between 1997 and 2013, while authorities looked the other way, terrified of being accused of racism. Huddersfield was equally grotesque: 21 men were found guilty of trafficking, raping, and degrading dozens of young girls. The ringleader received life with a minimum of 18 years, while his associates collected sentences that stacked up to over 220 years in prison.

Now compare that with “white” grooming gangs. Peterborough’s Operation Erle put ten offenders behind bars for raping and exploiting vulnerable girls. Norwich saw a smaller but still brutal network jailed. Banbury and Oxfordshire also had notorious rings. But here’s the distinction: while white gangs committed heinous crimes, the Asian-heritage gangs often operated with larger networks, more victims, and longer timescales. Yet when sentencing comes around, the punishments are eerily similar. A gang with a handful of victims sees its ringleaders jailed for 20 years; a gang with hundreds sees sentences in the same ballpark. The result? The public perceives bias, as though the courts bend over backwards to avoid “looking racist”.

And this isn’t some accident of justice—it feels engineered. Like siblings played off against each other by a toxic parent, society is nudged into believing “they” get away with worse than “us”, ensuring mistrust runs hot and neighbours look sideways instead of upwards.

Nobody plays this orchestrated fury better than Tommy Robinson. His street theatre is always the same: Muslim grooming gangs, Muslim predators, Muslim culture. Never mind that Huddersfield’s ringleader was Sikh or that white gangs exist. In his world, all “brown men” blur into one amorphous threat. Why the tunnel vision? Follow the money. Robinson has long been funded by transatlantic donors with Zionist affiliations—Nina Rosenwald, the conservative heiress whose philanthropy is steeped in pro-Israel causes, and Robert J. Shillman, a tech billionaire with deep ties to the same. They’ve poured six figures into his coffers. Robinson’s outrage is for hire, and the product is division: amplify Muslim offenders, erase white ones, and ignore elite predators entirely.

Of course, paedophilia isn’t the property of one ethnicity, faith, or postcode. Christian sects have been a Petri dish for abuse. The Family International—once known as the Children of God—normalised “sharing” children with adults under the guise of spiritual obedience. Survivors tell of coercion, ritualised exploitation, and brutal silencing. The Jesus Army in the UK ran its own long con, with communal living masking a culture of sexual exploitation dressed up as “purification”. Both operated with the same formula: isolate members, sanctify authority, and weaponise theology.

Religious fanatics weren’t alone. Elites have always kept their own playgrounds. Freud’s Vienna had psychoanalysts obscuring abuse under theoretical jargon. The Franklin scandal in Nebraska revealed a child sex ring tied to political and financial elites in the 1980s. In Britain, the BBC and Westminster scandals—Jimmy Savile chief among them—showed how celebrities and MPs alike operated in plain sight, protected by institutional cowardice. During Keir Starmer’s tenure as head of the CPS, many now argue prosecutions that could have pierced these circles quietly fizzled.

And then there’s Epstein. A man who looked less like a financier and more like an asset handler. His little black book is littered with presidents, princes, and plutocrats. His ties to Israeli figures like Ehud Barak, Mossad and even Netanyahu were never deeply scrutinised. Epstein’s mansion was a theatre of leverage, a stage for kompromat. Attorney General Pam Bondi was even caught on tape suggesting hundreds of tapes exist—showing not teenagers, but prepubescent children being abused. This wasn’t a “lone predator”; it was a paedophile ring on an industrial-scale, justified to use as leverage, dressed up as a lifestyle.

Which brings us back to Israel. Alexandrovich’s Houdini act in Las Vegas wasn’t some fluke. Israel’s Law of Return lets Jews worldwide claim citizenship, and that legal quirk has become a lifeline for accused paedophiles. At least 92 alleged child abusers have fled to Israel under its protection. Worse, Israel’s own system is notoriously lenient: around 80% of sex offence cases are closed without indictment. Alexandrovich’s flight home was merely the latest chapter in a story where predators find sanctuary, not scrutiny. The irony is bitter: while Western media stokes hysteria about “foreign” gangs in Britain, the world’s only Jewish state has quietly become the most reliable bolthole for predators with the right heritage.

When you zoom out, the common threads snap into focus. Power without accountability breeds predators. Segregated communities, whether Asian gangs or Christian cults, provide cover. Institutions—from the Church to the BBC—value brand over children. Elites weaponise money, influence, and intelligence links to shield themselves. And the media? It picks which villains to magnify. Asian men get headlines dripping with ethnicity; white gangs are reduced to “lone monsters”; Israeli officials absconding from U.S. courts barely make the back pages.

The effect is deliberate. Stoke fear of immigrants to enrage the “natives”. Stoke fear of racism to paralyse authorities. Meanwhile, the truly powerful—the Epsteins, the Royals, the Hollywood elites—slip quietly through the cracks.

Paedophilia is humanity’s ugliest constant, but outrage needn’t be selective. Every child raped by a Huddersfield gang deserves the same fury as one trafficked in Peterborough, one preyed on in a parish hall, or one filmed in Epstein’s mansion. The demand must be universal: no sanctuary, no loopholes, no cover-ups.

We should not condemn whole races, religions, or classes. We should condemn individuals, institutions, and systems that protect predators. And we should demand reform so that impunity—whether in Rotherham council, Westminster’s corridors, or Tel Aviv’s arrivals hall—finally ends.

Because until the Alexandroviches of the world can no longer board a plane home, until elites can no longer buy silence, until the media stops playing tribal games, the shadowed playground remains open. And it is children, always children, who pay the admission price.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The HPSCI report proves indispensable for understanding what supposed intel Obama withheld from the intelligence community under the guise of executive privilege.

Documents released over the last month have exposed a post-election plot designed to derail President Donald Trump’s first term. The recently declassified material reveals former President Barack Obama sought to continue the Russia-collusion hoax Hillary Clinton had launched during the presidential campaign by directing select members of his intelligence community to craft the deceptive Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 election. However, a close reading of these documents reveals Obama holds even more culpability than previously discussed.

As The Federalist reported earlier, the CIA’s review of the ICA established Obama not only knew of and “condoned the politicalization of the intelligence community, but that the former president directed the politicalization.” According to the CIA’s “lessons learned” analysis of the deceptive ICA released by the Obama Administration, on December 6, 2016, then-President Obama directed “then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper to conduct a comprehensive review of all available intelligence and provide the IC’s best assessment of Russian activities related to the election,” ordering Clapper to complete the review before Trump’s inauguration. And according to former CIA Director John Brennan, the White House worked with him to “established crucial elements of the process,” including directing the CIA to take “the lead drafting the report.”

Last week’s release of the House Permanent Selection Committee on Intelligence’s (“HPSCI”) report summarizing the results of its investigation into the drafting of the ICA exposed further corruption behind the assessment that falsely reported Russia aspired to help elect Trump. That 46-page report revealed how, after the election, Brennan ordered the publication of three substandard intelligence reports which, along with the Steele dossier, “became foundational sources for the ICA judgments that Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.”

The HPSCI report also detailed the flaws in that intel, as well as how the ICA further misrepresented what the belatedly created intelligence reports stated. The HPSCI report further highlighted the extensive evidence omitted from the ICA — intel which conflicted with the Obama-ordered assessment’s conclusion that Russia aspired to help Trump. The Federalist summarized these top take-aways last week.

However, the recently declassified HPSCI report also revealed a more subtle — but equally significant — detail, namely Obama’s role in hiding intel from the analysts responsible for drafting the ICA.

While it is unclear what intel would be protected by congressional privilege, executive privilege rests in the president of the United States, meaning Barack Obama prevented the drafters of the ICA from reviewing relevant information.

What intel Obama directed Brennan and others to keep from those drafting the ICA is also unclear, but the recent release by Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, of internal emails related to the ICA suggest the material withheld under the guise of executive privilege, or elsewise, was extensive.

A little over a week ago, Director Gabbard released a report revealing that soon after Obama ordered the rushed crafting of the ICA, a top official in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) eighty-sixed an already completed President’s Daily Brief that concluded Russia had not hacked the 2016 presidential election. As The Federalist reported at the time, emails declassified by Director Gabbard indicate the ODNI “buried the PDB to provide the intelligence community cover to issue a contrary assessment concerning Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election — and did so, against the recommendations of a wide array of intelligence professionals.”

Director Gabbard’s report referred to this analyst as an “ODNI Whistleblower,” noting that he was shocked when asked as part of a FOIA request in September of 2019 to search email systems for material related to the Steele dossier, being told “the dossier was a factor in the 2017 ICA on the election interference in which an assessment of the document was added as an annex.”

“I am choosing my words carefully, for your awareness, because the premise of the message is concerning,” the ODNI whistleblower wrote in response to learning the dossier was relied upon in completing the ICA. Then, after explaining his role in the development of the ICA, the whistleblower stressed, “[i]t included no dossier reference that I recall.” Further, “[a]t no point did [redacted name] suggest that there was any analytically significant reporting that I was NOT seeing, with the exception of compartmented material.” And here, the whistleblower noted that he had “asked repeatedly” whether there was any analytically significant reporting because of “concerns” he held regarding a key judgment of the analysis.

“At no point did I see or consider what I gather is, or was represented to be, ‘dossier’ materials,” the ODNI whistleblower’s email to another member of ODNI continued, adding that he “heard second hand from [redacted name], ostensibly recounting words of then DNI Clapper, on the day of a briefing to current [then, I think, just elect] POTUS, about inclusion of dossier materials in a presentation to POTUS elect.  This was characterized as an unexpected and unwanted sudden and unilateral act by then DIR FBI Comey, and as a source of concern to the DNI.”

Here, the ODNI whistleblower is both right — and wrong. He properly concludes that he was deceived and excluded from things he was cleared for and had a need to know, but he inaccurately assumes that if the dossier was “compartmented” there was no concern.

But that does not explain why the Steele dossier was compartmented in the first place. Or rather, it does: to keep the honest analysts responsible for finalizing the classified and unclassified version of the ICA from discovering the shady and fake intel Brennan buried in the compartmented version.

In discussing the compartmentalizing of the intel for the ICA, the CIA’s report questioned “whether the extreme limitations on access to underlying intelligence within the IC during the ICA’s preparation was justified.” Here, the CIA stressed that the “ICA had been shared with more than 200 US officials.” “This is unusually high for such a highly compartmented product,” the CIA noted in questioning the compartmentalization of the materials.

While the compartmentalized version of the ICA has yet to be declassified, the HPSCI report released last week reveals large swaths of intel that were included only in the compartmentalized version and thus withheld from analysts working on the classified and unclassified versions. The HPSCI report stressed this point, explaining “the highly compartmented nature of the raw reporting made it difficult or impossible for most readers to see the foundational sources.”

For example, in the previously classified version, Annex A is entitled “Possible State-Level Election Network Breaches and Related Intrusions.” In contrast, Annex A in the Compartmented ICA is entitled “Additional Reporting from an FBI Source on Russian Influence Efforts.” Also omitted from the previously classified version of the ICA is the fourth bullet of supporting evidence for the assessment that the Russian “influence campaign aspired to help (Trump’s) chances of victory,” that referred the reader to the detailed summary and analysis of the dossier.

The HPSCI report also revealed that the Compartmented ICA explained that it made “some judgments based on the reporting of an established clandestine source with secondhand access through identified subsources.” “The source is well established, and other examples of reporting have been corroborated through other streams of human and signals intelligence,” according to the Compartmented ICA. The Compartmented ICA added that that “established source with secondhand access provided us our only specific information on President Vladimir Putin’s order to pass collected material to Wikileaks: the timing of the formal influence campaign; the existence of specific, planned Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) efforts; some specific details of Putin’s views of Secretary Clinton; and the reported role of the Federal Security Service (FSB) hacking operations related to the US election.”

That single source had reported in July that “Putin had made this decision [to leak DNC emails] after he had come to believe that the Democratic nominee had better odds of winning the U.S. presidential election, and that [candidate Trump], whose victory Putin was counting on, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.” Then after Obama directed Brennan to craft the ICA, the former CIA director ordered that purported intel to be documented — something that had not been done at the time the source made the claim. It then served as the sole source of classified information cited in support of the conclusion that Putin aspired to help Trump win the election.

But that single-source intel remained compartmentalized, preventing those reviewing the classified and public versions of the ICA from learning of those flaws. In fact, the previously classified and public versions of the ICA made no reference to the single “clandestine” source discussed in the compartmentalized ICA. Instead, the noncompartmentalized reports stated that “[m]any of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.” The noncompartmented ICAs also represented that “[i]nsights into Russian efforts — including specific cyber operations — and Kremlin views of key US players like President-elect Trump and Secretary Clinton derive from multiple corroborating sources.”

Given the many problems with the single-source reporting used to supposedly support the idea that Putin aspired for Trump to win, it is readily apparent why Obama’s minions sought to keep that “intel” compartmentalized. In fact, it is only now, nearly five years after HPSCI, under the leadership of then-Chair Devin Nunes, completed its investigation into the ICA, that Americans are learning these details. Before last week’s declassification, the HPSCI report remained sequestered at CIA headquarters: Even the current HPSCI chair lacked access to the report until recently.

With the compartmentalized version of the ICA still classified — and possibly still compartmentalized at the CIA — the HPSCI report proves indispensable for understanding what supposed intel Obama withheld from the intelligence community under the guise of executive privilege or by directing Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and crew to limit access to the materials.

Not only does this represent a scandal in its own right, but Sunday on Sunday Morning Futures, former HPSCI Chair Nunes told Maria Bartiromo he believes the Biden Administration raided Mar-a-Lago in part to look for a copy of the HPSCI’s report. Given the former Republican congressman’s track record in exposing the Russia-collusion hoax and the corruption of the intelligence community, DOJ, and FBI, odds are he’s right — and that would mean the conspiracy launched nearly a decade ago by then-President Obama continued after he left office and well within any statute of limitations.

Original article:  thefederalist.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

An SIS (Secret Intelligence Service) officer lies from his first day in the Service. It is part of his cover….As the years go by, the lies take over from the truth and morality accepts the other demands which are made on an officer to get the job done. MI6 Chief Anthony Cavendish, cited on page 378.

Kincora, Britain’s Shame: Mountbatten, MI5, the Belfast Boys’ Home Sex Abuse Scandal and the British Cover-up begins by telling us, in the starkest baby English, that Lord Louis Mountbatten, uncle to King Charles, regularly buggered the children of Kincora Boys Home before the IRA blew him to smithereens on 27 August, 1979.

Before proceeding into the meat of the book and the precedent the cover up of this scandal has for the Epstein scandal and the fake charges MI6 have leveled against Russian President Putin and Russian child trsarina Maria Lvova-Belova, it is important to note that though Chris Moore, the author, and Ed Moloney, who wrote the foreword, have excellent track records as investigative journalists going right back to the start of the Irish Troubles, the dogs in the street, myself included, have known all about this scandal for just about as long, and that the powers that be have done nothing to redress them or the child sex scandals of Jimmy Savile and Sir Edward Heath, who remain, even in death, protected species by MI5, whose motto is defende regnum, to defend the realm at all costs..

The Kincora Boys Home was an orphanage in Protestant East Belfast run by Protestant Royalist killers, all of whom were in the pay of MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence agency and many of whom were, since the 1966 Malvern Street murders, implicated in the murders of Catholic civilians, who were offed as part of Britain’s efforts to bring Ireland to heel.

To criminal outfits like MI5, there are no such things as goodies and baddies. All is information flows which only hold value if they can be leveraged to advance those monsters towards their desired ends of defending their concept of what the Realm is. Thus, the fact that the brother and father of IRA godfather Gerry Adams were, along with Denis Donaldson, his “womanising” right hand man, serial child rapists and MI5 informants, was of consequence only in so far as it could turn the entire IRA into an instrument of perfidious British rule. The fact that those savages sodomised children was not important but, as with Epstein’s targets, the fact that that could be leveraged to defend the Realm was.

As with the Catholic perverts, so also with their Protestant counterparts, who were the very embodiment of Frank Kitson‘s countergangs. The fact that MI5 boss Sir Maurice Oldfield, Lord Mountbatten, Anthony Blunt and lots of Albion’s other top brass liked to bugger boys would have been of no consequence to MI5’s finest if they had not been able to leverage their depravity to further their own warped regnum defenda cause.

Although buggering little boys is, shall we say, not quite cricket, our earlier article about Epstein’s Orgy Island already noted that child rape is barely rated as a venial sin when committed by the high and mighty but it is, of course, dynamite if weaponised against MI6’s Russian enemies, and thus the ridiculous charges of child kidnapping against Putin and Lvova-Belova who, MI6 would have us believe, bathe in the blood of new born babies, a charge that would not have been out of place against those MI5 agents at the centre of this book. Preposterous as those Russophobic charges are, mugs fall for it, even as they ignore the mountains of evidence against MI6, Mossad and the IRA.

Kincora is a different and much darker kettle of fish and Moore, as well as those working with him, are determined that the MI5 perverts, who greenlighted this mass abuse, should be named, shamed and caged.

Moore goes back to the beginning, to the late 1950s, when Kincora opened its doors to a dozen young boys, who were put under the care of Joseph Mains, a prolific Protestant paedophile with no relevant experience or qualifications in child care. Raymond Semple, his number two, was also a part of Belfast’s underground paedophile movement and likewise had no relevant skills, experience, education or aptitude that might have qualified him to take charge of the vulnerable young boys he buggered. All he had was his voracious sexual appetite and a long list of friends in high places who wanted access to the hog heaven of Kincora’s little Belfast boys.

One such friend was William McGrath aka The (aptly named for reasons I will not dwell on) Beast of Kincora, another paedophile who became Kincora’s third employee, who introduced British MPs Ian Paisley, Jim Molyneaux and Sir Knox Cunningham to Hog Heaven and who also ran the Tara Protestant murder gang in cahoots with Oldfield and his other MI5 handlers who now had, in Kincora, a perfect honeytrap even Jeffrey Epstein might have envied.

Although McGrath and the others got light prison sentences when they were eventually flushed out, the core of Moore’s book is trying to flush out the bigger fish MI5 honey trapped in Kincora and, again, Moore goes back to the early 1960s to bring all that to light. He shows how MI5 and MI6 groomed the groomers and used McGrath’s extensive network not only to entrap more vulnerable boys in their vice rings but to slaughter Catholics, and to keep well-placed perverts like Mountbatten happy by allowing them to have their orgies with Kincora’s press ganged charges.

Although Kincora reads like the tawdriest of black novels, unlike the Putin/Lvova-Belova affair, all of it is true. The British secret service not only used the young boys of Kincora Boys Home as sperm buckets for their bosses, for British Royalty and for whoever else they wanted to placate or compromise, but they used the boys’ charges to organise the wholesale slaughter of Irish Catholics as well. If you want to get a grip on how far into the gutter the Epstein networks go, check out Moore’s book as an appetiser.

Not that what has emerged so far is in any way palatable. As well as the unspeakable crimes against children Mountbatten, Oldfield, Blunt, Cunningham and the rest of the Realm’s flunkeys committed, there is the massive MI5 cover up, aided and abetted by the British Parliament and the British judiciary. And that is before we factor in that the British realm has locked away the most incriminating Kincora files until 2085, that the British Realm has conducted seven whitewashing tribunals to further rid their collective memory of this indelible spot on what passes for their character, that MI5 have doctored key evidence and that the 2021 Third Direction case has ruled that MI5, like semi-mythical figure James Bond, has a licence not only to kill but to engage in any form of criminal activity, such as buggering boys, as long as it helps to defend the Realm. Regnum defende but no rectum defende for vulnerable children is their motto.

Though Chris Moore and those he mentions in his acknowledgements have done their duty by tenaciously following this story over the last many decades, others in a position to take up the baton must now step forward to put MI5 where it belongs, which is in the dock. Not only should, for example, the Russian authorities be republishing this work in as many languages as they see fit, but they should be meticulously going through it to expand on its every accusation so that it can throw the whole lot of it back at Perfidious Albion, as a prelude to doing the same with the whole Epstein affair and drowning MI5 in the slurry of their own sleaze.

*Chris Moore, Kincora, Britain’s Shame: Mountbatten, MI5, the Belfast Boys’ Home Sex Abuse Scandal and the British Cover-up Merrion Press Dublin, 2025.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Over a decade after a report into the sexual abuse of at least 1,400 children by men in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, evidence has emerged showing that local police not only knew of, but were allegedly involved in the crimes.

Five women exploited by grooming gangs have so far given statements to solicitors saying they were also sexually abused by police officers. Witness statements from 25 other victims have described police working alongside the gangs or turning a blind eye to child sexual exploitation.

Former chief inspector of social work Professor Alexis Jay’s harrowing 2014 report was the fourth into child sexual exploitation in the South Yorkshire town.

Jay’s report detailed vulnerable children being plied with “gifts” like drugs and alcohol, beaten, threatened and passed around for sex between adult males. Jay said the 2002 research “contained severe criticisms” of the police, council and other agencies for ignoring the problem, and warned that her estimation of victim numbers was likely “conservative.”

Right-wing forces seized on media headlines around Jay’s report that concentrated primarily on the ethnicity of the perpetrators, most of whom were identified as being of British-Pakistani origin. Five men were jailed in Rotherham for child sex offences against girls aged 12-16, with further cases in other similarly impoverished northern towns.

As the WSWS noted at the time:

Right-wing newspapers and politicians are utilising the report for their own ends. The scandal, they claim, has little to do with poverty and everything to do with a so-called political correctness that abandoned “white school girls” to “Muslim gangs.” Such is the febrile atmosphere surrounding the Rotherham report that fascist groups such as the English Defence League and Britain First are virtually camped out in the town, which has also become a target for the anti-immigrant United Kingdom Independence Party.

This filthy campaign helped to distract from a subsequent police investigation into historic child abuse (Operation Stovewood) and the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC)’s Operation Linden— investigating complaints about South Yorkshire Police’s (SYP) handling of reports of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

Switalskis Solicitors continued documenting repeated allegations by the victims of the collusion and involvement of SYP officers in their exploitation. Amy Clowrey, Director of Switalskis’s child abuse compensation team, said they had hoped these would be unearthed through Operations Stovewood and Linden, but “That never happened.”

Operation Linden concluded in 2022 after eight years. The IOPC upheld 43 complaints against individual officers in 91 investigations. Eight officers faced misconduct and six gross misconduct charges. No officer lost their job or faced criminal charges.

Clowrey said the matter only finally went back to SYP’s Major Crime Unit in October 2024, after sitting with the Professional Standards Department (dealing with officers’ conduct, not criminality) for more than a year.

Since December 2024, three former SYP officers have been arrested on suspicion of historic sexual offences between 1995 and 2004. Not one has been charged.

The IOPC concluded in 2022 “that SYP fundamentally failed in its duty to protect vulnerable children and young people during that time.” Former IOPC investigator Garry Harper, who worked on Linden for two years, told press bluntly that Linden was “an abject failure from beginning to end,” and SYP “managed to evade almost any accountability.”

Switalskis passed its dossier of 30 survivor testimonies detailing abuse to SYP. The firm is attempting to bring a separate civil claim against SYP to secure compensation, but the investigation is still being conducted by SYP itself.

The dossier, reported by the BBC, is harrowing. Victims speak of being raped from the age of 12 by a serving SYP officer in a marked police car. One woman, targeted by a grooming gang when she was 11, was sexually abused by hundreds of men over five years. She was also abused by two police officers, she says, one of whom repeatedly tracked her down and demanded sex.

“He knew where we used to hang out, he would request either oral sex or rape us in the back of the police car,” she told the BBC. If she tried to refuse, she said, he threatened to contact the gang himself. Being raped once, she said, was “just easier” than gang rape by “15… 20 guys one after another.”

When “Willow” (survivors are anonymised) was forced into an illegal abortion by the gang, her youth worker contacted social services and police. She was “destroyed,” she said, when one of the abusing officers turned up to interview her. He later ripped up her statement in front of her, and the matter went no further.

Survivors allege officers had sex with girls in exchange for drugs and money, and supplied illegal Class A drugs directly to the gangs. Three women reported being beaten up as children by officers, one in a police cell.

Another officer accused of abuse of children was allowed by SYP to retire. Harper called this “At best… a reputational covering exercise…. At worst, it was out and out corruption.”

SYP told the BBC that no former officer currently under inquiry “had an allegation of rape against them at the time of their retirement.”

The decision to hand investigative authority back to SYP is a calculated slap in the face, and 13 witnesses have withdrawn from the current investigation.

Switalskis said those survivors “have no faith that SYP will do a thorough job of investigating alleged abuse by their own officers.” It added that dealing with SYP continues to be “retraumatising,” and many survivors refuse to report offences “because they do not think they will be believed and because they were treated so badly in the past.” This is more than justified.

SYP have repeatedly rejected Switalskis’ requests that they hand the investigation to another force “due to the risk of potential conflict(s) of interest and survivor engagement.” The IOPC said they are “satisfied that there is no conflict of interest”.

Professor Jay told the BBC she was “shocked” SYP would be conducting the investigation into its own former officers, and called for the investigation to be handed to another police force or an independent body. She said there are “many, many legitimate causes for victims and survivors… to feel a total lack of trust in SYP.”

David Greenwood of Switalskis said he could not be confident there are not officers “burying evidence or just not finding evidence deliberately” because of knowledge of some of those involved. “I’m sure that the full truth in terms of the level of corruption and the extent of it in Rotherham has yet to come out.”

Jay’s report pointed to an escalating crisis fuelled by cuts to social provision. He noted that local authority funding cuts had led to a “dramatic reduction in resources available to Rotherham and neighbouring Councils.” A third of the children exploited had mental health problems, and two thirds emotional difficulties. A large number were supposedly “in care”—i.e., wards of the local authority. The spiralling growth in social inequality was accompanied by a bipartisan condemnation of a “feral,” undeserving “underclass.”

Another survivor, “Emma,” had been in care and ran away from children’s homes repeatedly. When found, she says, she was raped by a police officer in a squat. This officer targeted children in care because of their vulnerability. “He knew we wouldn’t be missed, he knew we wouldn’t be reported. He knew we wouldn’t be able to say anything. He knew that he had the upper hand.”

Original article:  www.wsws.org

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The Commission admitted to reviewing the texts weeks after the freedom of information request had been filed, yet still decided not to keep them.

Just when you thought EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen had already hit rock bottom in terms of dodging accountability in the Pfizergate scandal, she picked up a shovel and started digging.

The questionable strategy began with the Commission surprisingly deciding to let the deadline expire and not to appeal the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling against it earlier this week, announce instead that it would “comply” with the ruling by providing a “better explanation” for why it didn’t release the potentially incriminating text messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla all these years.

Then, on Friday, Brussels sent a letter to The New York Times—the outlet which broke the scandal and subsequently won against the Commission at the ECJ—explaining that it did review the texts in 2021, but since they contained only logistical and “short-lived” information regarding the multibillion vaccine deal, they weren’t considered worthy of registering as official documents. The president then changed phones multiple times, losing the texts in the process.

And that’s it, case closed. At least from the Commission’s perspective, which clearly wants us to believe that the NYT fought for nearly four years in the highest European court to learn what von der Leyen has been publicly saying all this time. That the texts had nothing interesting in them—which is only for Brussels to decide, apparently—and that they’ve been irreversibly lost.

But von der Leyen would be wrong to hope that there would be no more questions after this, as there seem to be multiple problems with how the Commission imagines “compliance” with the ECJ ruling.

First of all, the Commission said in the letter that von der Leyen’s chief of staff reviewed the texts during “the summer of 2021” before deciding not to archive them, while the first freedom of information request from the outlet was filed in May 2021. Meaning the Commission had the texts when the request was submitted, and decided not to keep them while knowing full well there was a legal obligation to provide them to the NYT as soon as possible.

Furthermore, the Court established several shortcomings on behalf of the Commission, the most important being that it was unlawful not to disclose the texts in the first place, and secondly, the Commission failed to give a sufficient explanation to the Court for why it didn’t or couldn’t.

So, if von der Leyen used the same argument in Court that she gave to the NYT now, it means it’s still not a sufficient explanation; therefore, the Commission still refuses to comply with the ruling.

But it would be even more puzzling if it turned out that she didn’t submit this explanation to the Court, even though it would have been enough for her to win the case. Or, from the other way around, if this explanation was enough, the fact that she lost suggests that she didn’t give it to the Court.

If that was the case, the Commission’s reason might have been trying to avoid admitting to the destruction of sensitive documents as well, which it practically did now anyway.

Whatever the truth, this explanation is hardly a “compliance” with the ECJ ruling, but von der Leyen knows that as well. Her strategy is clear: take it or sue me again, and we’ll see each other in another four years. Sadly, she’s right: if the EU Parliament couldn’t make her come clean—thanks to all mainstream parties rushing to her rescue—a journal will not either.

It’s a painful lesson for the European public as well, which rightfully feels that it deserves to know why von der Leyen bought 10 vaccine doses for each and every one of them out of their pocket, only for the vast majority to end up in landfills. But we know by now that we should not expect democratic accountability from an unelected official.

Original article:  europeanconservative.com