NATO’s most westerly European member, Portugal, has under its territory the mid-Atlantic Azores archipelago, home since the 1950s to a geographically strategic U.S. airbase. Portugal’s mainstream newspaper, O Expresso, recently reported that the Dutch NATO General Secretary, Mark Rutte, had paid a visit to Lisbon to notify the country it needed to spend more on the war he had declared on Russia – unless the Portuguese wanted to start learning Russian for when they would be invaded.
The article explained that an increase in Portugal’s defence spending to the three per cent of GDP demanded would amount to an extra 3.44bn Euros, or 604 Euros for every Portuguese, every year. O Expresso went on to inform the public that Portugal’s prime minister, Luis Montenegro, met the customary Dutch arrogance with equilibrium and – in diplomatic language – told Rutte to take a running jump.
More significant, however, is an article published in Estátua de Sal (Statue of Salt) by Portuguese former military attaché to the UN special representative on Kosovo, Major General Raul Luis Cunha, on how MI6-CIA operatives carried out NATO’s dirty work in Ukraine to provoke the proxy war against Russia. Under the title Provoked Invasion, the Major General writes that, despite all the loud noise to the contrary, ill-intended politicians, academics, commentators and journalists continue to propagate, falsify and distort the facts. He says this has resulted in the majority of people still accepting a war narrative fabricated to support the propaganda for NATO enlargement.
He explains that the spinners of the war narrative disingenuously point to February 2022 as the starting point of the conflict, knowing full well that it began with the coup d’état fomented by NATO in Kiev in 2014. In the interests of long-term peace, the Major General believes it is now vital to acknowledge that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was provoked by the west’s machinations. He explains that immediately after the coup in 2014, the U.S. installed a new government with a new head of communications whose very first move was to enrol the CIA and MI6 to start a secret war with Russia.
This was before Russia’s annexation of Crimea or the conflict in the Donbas. CIA bases were set up to spy, steal confidential technology and even make incursions into Russian territory. The Ukrainian population was then subjected to cultural suppression of Russian customs and traditions, in the form of being denied linguistic and religious rights. More than sixty per cent of the population communicated daily in Russian and practised the orthodox religion, while all political opposition parties and almost all the press and media were purged.
As for the Minsk accords of 2014 and 2015, truces brokered by Russia to put an end to the slaughter of Russians in East Ukraine by the Azov Battalion, the right-wing of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), western politicians and Ukrainians alike have admitted they never had any intention of implementing the accords. Their aim was to play for time to build a huge Ukrainian army. The main NATO powers modernised the AFU, supplying them with vast quantities of weaponry, particularly artillery, aerial and anti-tank defence. They intensified military exercises and simulated and prepared for war against Russia. Cunha emphasises that the efforts made by President Putin to negotiate a better security architecture for Europe and to get the Minsk accords honoured.
But the west, and Ukraine under its influence, was never in good faith, and Putin’s efforts were met with evasion and downright refusal. This, coupled with the Ukrainian president’s declarations that he wanted Ukraine to be admitted to NATO and have nuclear arms, led to a sharp rise in local tensions. Then the Ukrainian military exponentially increased its violence in the Donbas and began intense artillery fire, characteristic of preparing to attack – as witnessed and registered by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Finally, all of the above convinced Russia that it had to attack Ukraine to prevent the slaughter by the AFU of the populations of Donbas and Crimea, and even to prevent attacks on its own territory. Since then, lies have been endlessly repeated by our parliamentarians and media alike – that Russia made an ‘unprovoked’ attack on a ‘sovereign’, ‘democratic’ Ukraine that sparked the war. This raises the question: are they so ill informed, have such short-term memories, and are unable to see what has taken place? Or do they just believe that we, the people, are wholly gullible?
eturn to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
FIREFIGHTERS tackled a blaze that engulfed a number of lorries parked on the premises of battery recycling firm Portable Battery Recycling Ltd. (PBR) in Wythenshawe, Manchester. Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS) said the blaze broke out on Ennis Close, Wythenshawe, on Sunday February 23 and forced local residents to evacuate their homes.
The fire raged for over three hours and involved ten fire engines at its height, scaling back to four engines as it was brought under control after nearly three hours, GMFRS said. The fire service had advised local residents to keep their windows and doors closed and to avoid the area as huge plumes of black smoke hung over the vicinity. GMFRS said fire engines from across Greater Manchester were called to the blaze. A spokesperson said: “Crews arrived quickly” and worked hard to extinguish the fire.
Greater Manchester Police and North West Ambulance Service were also in attendance but confirmed there were no casualties. Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said a cordon had been put in place and its officers had helped evacuate nearby homes. Residents have since returned to their homes. PBR has an operating licence for five trucks and one trailer, and specialises in collecting, recycling and disposing of portable, household, industrial and automotive batteries. One user on X, previously known as Twitter, described seeing smoke and hearing explosions ‘popping off’ from what is thought to be a battery recycling plant at the Roundthorn Industrial Estate in Wythenshawe. They posted: ‘Reports of a huge fire at a battery recycling facility in Wythenshawe. Smoke visible and explosions popping off are audible from Altrincham, 2-3 miles away and a smell in the air.’
Others in the vicinity have reported hearing ‘explosions all morning’. Online videos show dramatic scenes of black smoke rising high into the air, obscuring the bright flames beneath. Further images depict emergency services at the scene, with police vehicles stationed outside the estate. An investigation into the cause of the huge fire in Wythenshawe continued the following day. Police and fire service experts returned to the scene of the blaze on the Roundthorn Industrial Estate.
The fire broke out at just after 8am. The next day, the blackened shells of vehicles destroyed in the blaze could be seen in the yard of the premises. On its website, the company describes itself as ‘the UK’s only specialist portable battery recycler, with an aim to transform the way portable batteries are collected and recycled across the UK, whilst providing the most competitive and compliant collection service.’ It adds: ‘We guarantee an efficient and cost-effective solution for the collection, storage, recycling and disposal of waste batteries, ensuring you are fully compliant with current legislation and regulations.’ The fire led to some homes in the area being evacuated and other residents were advised to keep doors and windows closed. A huge plume of black smoke could be seen for miles. A spokesperson for Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service said: “Shortly after 8.15am on Sunday 23 February, fire engines and specialist appliances from across Greater Manchester were called to attend a fire involving heavy goods vehicles and a commercial unit on Caldey Road, Manchester. “Crews arrived quickly and extinguished the fire using hose reel jets, an aerial ladder and other specialist equipment.” Comments on social media were scathing: ‘Another fire at a recycling facility! What are the safety standards for running these operations?’
Government and councils are very hot on environmental concerns at the moment; yet it can be argued that the impact on air, soil and water quality from any of these types of explosions and fires, whether from cars, lorries, buses or entire battery storage stations and processing facilities seems to be overlooked. Battery storage stations for solar plantations and battery storage and ‘recycling’ facilities have been exploding and catching on fire regularly in recent years, without much alarm from the media, who seem to keep us in fear over threats and problems which may or may not occur. There was a big fire in Liverpool in 2020, and another
in Glasgow in 2021, and this raised huge concerns over both the safety and environmental credentials of these so-called clean, green technologies. A large-scale explosion and fire similar to this one ocurred again in Glasgow, in 2024, at WEEE Solutions Ltd., and there have been several well-reported electric bus and car explosions in the past year. On page 5 in this issue, we expose the true science behind oil and why we proclaim it as a natural fuel – nobody can argue that it is much more efficient as a source of fuel, and therefore much, much cheaper.
In this race to Net Zero, the alternatives they are offering to cheap, natural fuels like oil and gas – lithium-ion batteries, huge solar plantations on prime farmland, and expensive, inefficient wind turbines which are also notorious for exploding and breaking – are devastating to the natural world and our health once they go wrong, and they seem to go wrong quite often. They also result in much higher bills, meaning that somebody, somewhere is getting very rich from government policy, rather than that policy benefitting all of the people. Does anyone expect anything else from government nowadays?
THERE are many of us who used to think that governments and media would keep us informed of important information, but we now find ourselves questioning that assumption and finding it to be false in many instances. It is an example of the vital importance of critical thought. Chances are that you remember the moment when your perspective shifted; when a long-held belief no longer made sense. For some, these moments can lead to difficult consequences – losing friends, alienating family members, even facing professional setbacks. So how can we avoid these traps in the future? How can we ensure that we’re making decisions based on reality, not on assumptions or misinformation?
Let’s test your thinking with a simple riddle. A father and son are involved in a tragic accident. The father dies, and the son is rushed into surgery. The surgeon looks at the boy and says: ‘I can’t operate on him, he’s my son.’ How is this possible? Believe it or not, only 15 per cent of people get this right. But why? Our unconscious beliefs, biases and processes cannot be switched off and most will realise only at the end that they have misinterpreted the information and need to re-read it, consciously, critically thinking. The surgeon is, of course, the boy’s mother. It illustrates how easily our judgment can be clouded and keep us from seeing the truth until we pause and think critically.
At its core, critical thinking is the skill of analysing and evaluating information to make sound decisions. It’s a mental toolkit that helps us make better choices, solve problems more effectively, and understand the world with greater clarity. We live in a world where media outlets, social networks, and even political leaders constantly bombard us with news and opinion, often in biased, selective, and self-serving ways. How do we filter out the noise and understand what’s truly important? How do we act in light of reason and sound evidence, rather than being manipulated by political and media elites? How do we make our informed opinions count, and build a truly free and selfgoverning society, even though many aspects of our lives seem to be dictated by states and giant corporations? Could critical thinking be the antidote to the trends in society towards technocracy, mind-numbing consumerism, authoritarian governance, and political polarisation? This is where your ability to think critically becomes vital – not just for personal growth, but for the health of your community, neighbourhood, city and/or nation. An effective and resilient political system depends on a strong civil society.
Civil society is strongest when individuals challenge assumptions, question the status quo, and demand truth and truthfulness from each other and from their institutions. Critical thinking is essential for participating in this process and for creating a society where freedom of thought can thrive. So, how can you sharpen your critical thinking?
Here are some powerful, research-backed strategies that can help:
1. Ask the right questions: when encountering new information, resist the urge to accept it at face value. Who is presenting the information? Do they have an interest in presenting it from a biased perspective? What evidence supports it? Are there alternative explanations you haven’t considered?
2. Look for hidden assumptions: every contribute to discussions that shape a better society. As the cornerstone of a thriving civil society, it’s not just about personal growth – it’s about creating a community that values truth, freedom, and reason.
3. Recognise your own biases: we all have biases whether we acknowledge them or not. The key is to recognise them and actively seek out different viewpoints. Being open to change when presented with new evidence is one of the hallmarks of critical thinking.
4. Evaluate sources carefully: with the rise of fake news and clickbait, it’s more important than ever to question the credibility of your sources. Research shows that people are more likely to believe information from familiar sources, even if it’s false. By checking the reliability of your sources, you can make better decisions.
5. Draw conclusions based on evidence, not emotion: critical thinking requires assessment of facts and evidence, not just relying on emotional reactions. The more you base your conclusions on reliable evidence, the more precise your thinking will be. By honing these skills, we can navigate life’s challenges more effectively and
contribute to discussions that shape a better society. As the cornerstone of a thriving civil society, it’s not just about personal growth – it’s about creating a community that values truth, freedom, and reason.
In a world full of manipulation, propaganda, and media spin, exercising critical thinking allows us to challenge those who spread misinformation and protect the integrity of our democratic systems. This is why it’s so important to invest time and energy into developing these skills. They’re not just useful for individual decisions – they are the foundation of a society where rational discourse can flourish and the public is empowered to make informed choices. If you want to thrive in a world where information is constantly changing, you need to sharpen your critical thinking skills. By doing so, you can contribute to a more informed, free-thinking society – one that challenges false narratives and promotes progress.
THE political project, UK Net Zero by 2050, was undemocratically adopted by the UK government in 2019. Yet the science of so-called greenhouse gases is well known and there is no reason to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O) because of radiation absorption rates. Adding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere will make little difference to the temperature or the climate. Water vapour (H2O) is claimed to be a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, CH4 or N2O, but cannot be regulated because it occurs naturally in vast quantities. Because of the nature of absorption of infrared radiation, most of the temperature change has already occurred, and increasing CO2, CH4, N2O concentrations will not lead to significant changes in air temperatures. This is because absorption is logarithmic (Beer-Lambert Law of attenuation) – a law of diminishing returns. And there are many other variables which affect temperatures.
The ocean is a huge heat sink (carrying heat away from the source) which moderates the global surface air temperature and absorbs CO2 (Henry’s Law). Cloud cover can have significant effects on air temperatures and provide negative feedback in the climate system, stabilising the temperature to some extent. And changes in the sun and solar radiation can have significant effects. All of this science has been empirically derived, either in the laboratory (e.g. Henry’s Law, Beer-Lambert Law of attenuation), observed in reliable proxies (solar cycles) or by direct observation (e.g. changes in the sun, changes in sunspots or changes in solar ‘wind’ radiation). These and many other influences on the surface air temperature of the Earth are not captured by the climate modellers, and so, faulty, inaccurate models are produced which provide projections (not forecasts) far into the future where uncertainties are huge.
However, if the models are so poorly designed, the output is not likely to be able to predict anything realistic. The real problem is that the data for these faulty models also suffers from poor quality, unjustified data adjustments, infilling missing data to make the data fit the theory, and merging of known poorquality weather-station data with good quality data. Tampering with data is fraudulent, and the known bad data should have been excluded, but this is apparently routinely used in climatology and raises questions from scientists with concerns about the climate change narrative. For example, some 96 per cent of U.S. weather stations were found to be incorrectly or poorly sited (e.g. near artificial sources of heat such as air conditioning outlets, on concrete pads, close to buildings or car parks in urban heat islands) leading to artificial increases in measured temperatures. Loss of Russian weather stations from the data set, instrument changes, relocation of weather stations, population growth and land-use changes artificially increased calculated global average surface-air temperatures.
These are basic mistakes in data collection, data handling and data analysis, and they are misleading. Yet most of our politicians seem unable to grasp these important basic scientific facts and simply concentrate on very expensive, unreliable, variable and intermittent so-called renewables and the non-existent hydrogen energy system by spending £22bn on carbon capture and storage. Is this the hole in the finances Labour spoke about? Net Zero is a pointless crusade which will achieve nothing for the climate but gives the government an excuse to harm our farmers, damage our electrical supply system and hike our energy bills, hurting us all. It is time for a rethink on Net Zero because the science does not support it in any way.
● Dr Mike Simpson has a PhD in physical chemistry.
Hidden science: Oil produced without organic matter by SALLY DEAN
I READ an article by Carol Brouillet in Off-Guardian recently and was intrigued by what she had to say about Marijn Poels, a Dutch documentary filmmaker. Carol talked in glowing terms about his latest film The Primordial Code – The Burning Essence. Her review immediately resonated with me. She said the film ‘looks deeply into where we have come from, who we are and where we are going, as a species.’ So having watched this beautiful film, I was inspired to look at the rest of his output.
In 2018, he released The Uncertainty Has Settled, in which he investigates the roots of agriculture and how globalisation and climate politics have created radical changes in modern times. As the film progresses, Poels starts to question the green agenda and pulls together arguments from both sides. It is a well-balanced exploration but by the end of the film, he realises that the justification for a transition to ‘alternative’ energy sources is based on a false premise. His final interview is with Prof. Vladimir Kutcherov, a Swedish-based Russian geologist who introduces Poels to the theory of the abiotic origin (i.e. not organic in nature) of oil and gas. At this point my ears pricked up, as it took me back to something a friend – someone who had worked as an engineer in the oil industry – had said a few years ago: “We all knew that oil was self-replicating.”
Wanting to know more at the time, I acquired a book by Dr Jerome Corsi, published in 2012 entitled: The Great Oil Conspiracy – How the US Government Hid the Nazi Discovery of Abiotic Oil from the American people. Corsi claims Germany’s fuel requirements began to move in the opening decade of the 20th century from coal to petroleum. Without its own reserves of oil, the country could not progress as a viable industrial economy. So, in the early 1920s, two German chemists, Franz Fishcher and Hans Tropsch, replicated the natural process of oil production, which they believed occurred under intense pressure in the deep layers of the Earth. What became known as the Fischer-Tropsch process enabled Germany to produce synthetic oil from coal. At the start of the war, Germany had 14 synthetic fuel plants in full operation and six more under construction, producing approximately campaign with Dino the Dinosaur as its logo. At the 1964 New York World’s Fair, Sinclair’s Dinoland exhibit was one of the main attractions, and here Dino and eight more (life-sized) representations of other species of dinosaurs were exhibited and animated. Dino is just as popular today and his image appears not to have changed since the 1930s. The myth that oil and gas are fossil fuels derived from former plant and animals/ dinosaurs persists, and the public are still led to believe that they are scarce resources.
Over in England in 1982, the astronomer Fred Hoyle made his own opinion known when he said: “The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or If oil is abiotic, then was ‘Peak Oil’ [the idea that it’s running out) just a marketing scheme? All hydrocarbon fuels are produced naturally in the mantle of the Earth on a continuous basis without the involvement of any organic material 95 per cent of the aviation fuel used by the Luftwaffe. Corsi says that ‘what remains even today locked away within the Fischer-Tropsch equations is an understanding that all hydrocarbon fuels are abiotic in origin, produced naturally in the mantle of the earth on a continuous basis without the involvement of any organic material whatsoever…it presents a direct challenge to the fossil fuel theory of the origin of oil.’
As an aside, a film called The Formula was released in 1980 starring Marlon Brando and George C Scott. The brief synopsis on IMDb reads: ‘The synthetic fuel production formula, invented by the Nazis at the end of World War Two, is sought by some who aim to sell it, and by others who wish to destroy it.’ Hidden in plain sight? In Russia, an outspoken proponent of the abiogenic origins of oil was Nikolai Kudryavtsev, a Russian petroleum geologist. By 1951, he had articulated what today has become known as the Russian/Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.
Dozens of Russian scientists have followed his lead, stating that the chemical processes by which hydrocarbons are produced were a natural product of the Earth itself, manufactured at deep levels where there never were any plants or animals. They concluded that abundant oil could be found in Russia if only wells were drilled deep enough. Two years after my initial investigation, I am listening to Poels talking to Kutcherov and my interest in this subject is reignited. Investigating further, I stumble upon Colonel L Fletcher Prouty, a Pentagon insider with 23 years’ military experience who, in various interviews following his retirement revealed some of the inner workings of the American government’s clandestine operations. He was fictionalised as ‘Mister X’ in Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK. In a 1994 interview, he emphatically states that oil is a self-replicating substance, it is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth, and no fossils were required to make it.
He goes on to state that no fossil is found below 16,000 ft and drilling for oil generally starts at 30,000 ft.
The concept of fossil fuels being derived from formerly living matter was cemented in the minds of the American public by oil companies such as Sinclair Petroleum. In the 1930s, it developed an advertising biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.” Returning to Poels’s interview with Kutcherov, which is where I began, the Russian geologist explains, with the help of a flip chart and pen, how infinite quantities of oil and gas are produced 100 to 200km below the surface of the Earth. Poels, a little bemused, states: “We could live in balance and peace with oil…which would economically and politically change the world on such a big scale I can’t imagine.” Kutcherov pauses for a moment and then says: “Correct.” Poels then asks: “Why am I not seeing this or reading this in the mainstream media?” Kutcherov smiles: “Your question is your answer.”
FURTHER READING The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, Thomas Gold Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, Jerome R Corsi and Craig R Smith The Great Oil Conspiracy: It has been known since the end of WWII that oil is not a fossil fuel; it is abiotic: https://tinyurl.com/48m369ua L. Fletcher Prouty: Oil is not a fossil fuel; it is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth: https://tinyurl.com/ysnvtn7c
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception
From Paul Cardin, a Falklands Conflict veteran. This is a biting commentary, told from the heart. Also included is a 1982 diary, written on location. This book forms a forensic inquiry into several conflict-related mysteries that have never been addressed or resolved - even after 40 years.