The act of speaking the truth has been criminalised right before our eyes, says Neil Oliver

Millions upon millions of documents, deeply embarrassing and incriminating to those implicated in their content. The US government wants to take Julian Assange to the US and put him on trial, or at least to bury him forever out of sight and out of mind in their legal system.

In olden days, castles and jails had Oubliettes, bottle shaped dungeons accessed only via a trapdoor above. Oubliette is French and means a place of forgetting, since it's impossible to destroy the truth and those who tell it, or at least the memory of their truth telling, they, and it, must be put out of sight whenever necessary.

So far, the compelled forgetting of Julian Assange has not worked. Not quite. The material published by Assange and WikiLeaks was nothing more or less than information the powerful wanted kept in the dark. Assange thrust it impertinently into the light and has paid the price.

The allergic reaction of the powerful to the truth is as obvious as the symptoms of anaphylactic shock in years gone by.

The truth could be kept under lock and key, sealed in vaults, or more recently, on encrypted hard drives, along with everything else that money can buy. Global media was available to the highest bidder or perhaps the most manipulative buyer.

And so, rather than the unalloyed truth that has been propaganda, state sanctioned propaganda, that has dominated the pages and channels pushed into the faces of populations.

The advent of the Internet, and more recently the journalists of the independent media that the Internet inadvertently made possible, has meant the truth, to quote The X-Files TV series, is out there. The truth is the truth, even from the lips of people you might not like.

On Thursday, the world was invited to watch an interview by US journalist Tucker Carlson with Russian President Vladimir Putin. It was lengthy, over 2 hours. Anyone watching the content is free to draw their own conclusions about what Putin said and how he said it.

Some of it was only his opinion, which is, after all, what Tucker Carlson was after, at least in part. But there were also simple facts about the background to the ongoing war in Ukraine.

He cited, for example, the US fermented coup in 2014 when that nation pushed the removal of Moscow-friendly Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych and his replacement with Washington-friendly Petro Poroshenko.

We've had the opportunity to listen to the recording of a telephone conversation between Victoria and Newland, then US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Duration Affairs, and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, discussing who she would prefer to see as Prime Minister of Ukraine.

Without that leaked phone call, without independent journalists reminding the world of the history of Ukraine before February 2022, when Putin sent troops into that country, the wider public might have been induced to forget the past.

Induced to forget that in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union, the US and NATO made promises not to expand NATO so much as an inch closer to the Russian border.

Promises that were soon forgotten induced to forget the Minsk accords, agreed and signed by the interested parties settling the terms for the end of the civil war in Ukraine that followed events in 2014.

Anyone citing that past, that history was dismissed as a Putin apologist. And yet that history is the truth, however inconvenient it might be to the US, to NATO, to the West.

The deletion of the past in relation to events in Ukraine is made even more incongruous and ironical when the war between Israel and Gaza sees the invocation of history that goes back not years or decades, but all the way back to the Old Testament of the Bible.

On Thursday, Tucker Carlson's interview with the Russian President did no more and no less than give his audience the opportunity to watch and listen to a world leader stating his case, giving his opinion of events.

Listen to him, or don't, believe a word of what he says or don't. Tucker Carlson at least let us look into Putin's eyes, allowed us to consider his body language, to seek to weigh him up rather than merely demonising him as an irrational madman.

But the people of the West are being coerced into forgetting that opposing sides sitting down to listen to one another, to weigh one another's words and gestures, is the essence of the diplomacy the West used to pride itself upon.

Instead of diplomacy, what we get now is little more than petty name calling. I watched Hillary Clinton speaking on MSNBC, a mainstream channel in the US in advance of the broadcast of the Carlson-Putin interview before we had had the chance to hear so much of a word of what had been said, Clinton felt justified in eerily dismissing Carlson as a puppy dog and a useful idiot for Russian propaganda.

There are people in this country right now who are like a fifth column for Vladimir Putin. There is a yearning for leaders who can kill and imprison their opponents, destroy the press.

This is Hillary Clinton of the Democrat Party that has been moving heaven and earth and leaving no stone unturned in its efforts to imprison Donald Trump, arguably the most popular politician in America, and certainly the Democrats strongest political opponent.

This is the Hillary Clinton who plainly seeks to destroy the credibility of journalist Tucker Carlson, the most popular and arguably the most influential journalist in the US. They're describing him as nothing more than a useful idiot. elsewhere and even before the interview was broadcast, there were moves to have Carlson identified as a traitor to his homeland. There was talk, too, of the EU imposing sanctions on him, of denying him the right to travel through EU territory.

Hillary Clinton is, in that same context, still prepared to broadcast to the world about the inherent wrongness in the hearts of leaders who would imprison their opponents and seek to muzzle the free press is indicative either of a complete lack of self-awareness or of insincerity at best, and downright dishonesty at worst.

In advance of the broadcast, the parasite class was evidently in full panic mode. For fear of what Carlson might ask what Putin might say. It was impossible to listen to Clinton without thinking about all the things she might fear Carlson would tee Putin up to talk about.

About US sponsored bio labs in Ukraine. About the torrent of Western money flowing through Ukraine and back into the vaults of the military industrial complex. About the true source of Democrat National Committee emails published by Wikileaks. About disproven Democrat allegations of Trump colluding with Russia in return for power. That Clinton was out there all guns blazing about one US journalist seemed to speak volumes, or perhaps left volumes unsaid.

The irony is that President Joe Biden was in front of the US media last week as well, and gave a performance that once again made plain his cognitive challenges articulate and persuasive he was not, and that's only the truth. And that his handlers exposed him to the bright lights of media attention, at the same time Vladimir Putin was able to demonstrate, at the very least, fluency of speech and mental acuity seemed nothing less than cruel, or perhaps the inevitable early moves in preparing Democrat supporters for Biden's replacement with someone who can speak in intelligible sentences.

And that said, the chair of the DNC has been on hand to say any suggestion of Biden's failing competence is only foreign misinformation. The parasite class has been lying for years. We know it, they know we know it. While they felt their goal of total control was within their grasp, they demonstrably didn't care that we knew they were lying about the so-called pandemic, about a climate crisis, about war in Ukraine, war in the Middle East and war elsewhere.

But now it seems they would have us believe they do care. Closer to home, the EU puppets have been scuttling around as well, like bed bugs revealed beneath a flipped mattress. Before the US election in November, we can look forward to elections in the EU member states, and the potential removal of their snout from the through is focusing EU minds like nothing else ever could.

Last week, after months of protests by farmers in the face of all out war waged upon them by bureaucrats hell bent on driving them out of existence so they might seize control of their land and of the food upon which the world depends, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen deemed to concede that our farmers deserve to be listened to. Do you think so, Ursula? Ain't that the truth? Or at least for as long as it suits you and the rest of your kind, as well as making transparently election friendly noises about backing down on drastic cuts to the use of fertiliser that on its own makes possible the feeding of 8 billion people Eurocrat determination that we prove should eat less meat was also kicked into the long grass.

For now, at least, they're worried, those desk jockeys and sock puppet politicians in thrall to transnational corporations and entities like the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organisation. And so they should be. WHO Boss Tedros Gabresis has been out again, this time saying the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty is mission critical, and claiming most recently that young people have most to gain from what he called a stronger agreement, and urging them to raise their voice voices to counter lies on social media.

This is nothing more or less than yet more propaganda. Shamelessly seeking this time to harness the youngest members of our societies for the blatant efforts by a WHO funded most enthusiastically by the biggest private landowner in the US, multibillionaire salesman of so-called vaccines, Bill Gates, to destroy the sovereignty of the populations of the world and give total control to unelected unaccountable entities focused only on wealth and power.

Here's the thing, having exposed themselves so completely during the COVID era and having unwittingly kept the spotlight on their own anti human self seeking agenda, those chronic liars find they have no alternative finally but to seek to control that which they fear most of all, which is the simple truth they would demonise and then criminalise those who speak the truth with censorship and legislation. That much is plain to see. But as we have learned to say in recent years, the truth is a lion and needs no protection. We have only to set it free and it will take care of itself.