By Daniel Jupp
Credit should go to Christopher Roach at American Greatness, and to the UK’s James Delingpole, who have both had the courage to question the official narrative on the alleged Bucha Massacre. It takes tremendous strength of character these days to be even a marginally mainstream figure and to question anything on such an emotive topic where the media and western governments are utterly determined for everyone to have only one view of the event.
The official narrative is that the beastly Russians, who by now after relentless western propaganda to this effect we should all consider genetically predisposed to atrocities, tortured and murdered hundreds of civilians for shits and giggles in the period in which they were in control of Bucha. They then left the bodies on display when they retreated, because they are very stupid and do not understand that such acts would hardly aid their cause in Ukraine or elsewhere.
I’m not saying this scenario is impossible. It’s perfectly true that Russian forces can be brutal and stupid and commit atrocities. What we don’t admit is that this is true of any group of armed men, or indeed women. It might even be true, in fact I think it definitely is, to say that Russian forces are more prone to this than US forces or U.K. forces. Every nation there is, every armed force there has ever been, can break civilised standards of restraint, which after all are somewhat unnatural in the context of being trained to kill people. Military discipline has to be imposed all the time, or men being fired at quickly stop worrying about the rights of those who five minutes ago were trying to kill them and now kneel in the dust before them.
This is just human nature. Think of how many people turn feral when given the opportunity in cities that are supposedly peaceful. In war zones the natural logic of the environment is to behave in an uncivilised manner in order to survive. This is by the way one of the reasons that importing people from war zones in the misguided notion that you are simply rescuing innocents is generally a stupid policy. Many of those people have learned the lessons of a war zone. And some parts of the world have long been more brutal than others.
What Delingpole and Roach have been brave enough to note is that there are aspects of Bucha that don’t seem to fit. Why did the Russians make no attempt to disguise their crimes, when they retreated in an orderly fashion and could have done so? Why did the Mayor of Bucha, when celebrating its liberation, make no mention of bodies on the streets or an atrocity committed by the Russians? Why do images of the bodies show white armbands, traditionally the symbol of pro Russian Ukrainians? Why is western media so confident that Ukrainian forces, who have exactly the same kind of history in this regard as Russian forces, have not committed any atrocities in this conflict? Why does the timeline suggest continued Ukrainian shelling of Bucha after Russian withdrawal, but the body counts given by the Ukrainians don’t indicate any friendly fire casualties at all?
None of this is justifying Russia, either in invasion or in Bucha. It’s asking the questions and looking for the answers that the mainstream refuses to ask for or look for. It’s investigative journalism.
That’s not me.I don’t have a clue whether Bucha was the Russians or the Ukrainians. My focus is on the fact that we cannot trust our media to say a single honest thing about it, or our governments. My focus is on things which don’t require me to tramp around Ukraine looking at dead bodies. Call me lazy, but that’s beyond my abilities and not my inclination either. All we can do, ordinary citizens, is recognise things which are available to us based on logic and general knowledge, rather than media reporting which is a slurry of constant lies. And have the courage to question, even when we are told it is evil to do so, even when we are screamed at for doing so. Because I think the lies are eventually not about any specific thing. They are about conditioning you to live in a state of constant acceptance of an official narrative, of being terrified of straying from that, on anything. The lie is not to persuade you in that moment, but to control you in every moment to come.
When it’s not about Bucha, or Ukraine, for instance. When it’s about atrocities which happen on such a great scale that they seem part of the normal fabric of existence. When they can’t be seen, because they are everything up to and beyond the horizon. When they are so vast, so broad, so supported by so many, that the perpetrators are sitting there, boldly and without fear, telling us what an atrocity is, and who did it, telling us which atrocity to note, and which to ignore.
It is the fear of that wider, more existential threat that governs my thinking, and seeing the signs of that in our own media, our own culture, our own leaders. I can hardly fathom how people become outraged by evil when it is pointed out to them that this particular evil is the only one to notice. How can they not know that the whole of the society making such judgements is itself teetering on the edge of a moral abyss, and ruled by creatures who are soulless? When a liar says ‘let me tell you what truth is’, or when Satan says ‘let me tell you what is good and what is evil’, or when a howling emptiness says ‘this has substance, and this does not’ we are better off trudging forward by our own steps, in our own direction.