What if everything you think you know about Joseph Stalin isn’t true?
Similarly, what if the icon you perceive Winston Churchill to have been – is a mere illusion of history?
Anomalies in the way history is written is nothing new; the more or less objective truth is published many years later.
In this episode, Mikhail Poltoranin, former Head of the Government Committee on the Declassification of KGB Archives and Deputy Prime Minister (Wikipedia) talks about the way that the US air force bombed Soviet bases in 1950 – in reaction to Stalin’s power. But they didn’t stop until their mission was complete – that is the death of Stalin.
It’s even possible that others within the Soviet system were asked to take responsibility for his death – given the many theorists who took on that claim, as explained by Poltoranin.
Joseph Stalin has been attributed many crimes against humanity – the figures are in the hundreds of millions according to some liberal sources. In reality, contemporary Russian historians cannot account for even a fraction of the said deaths he is thought to have ordered.
That is not to say that he never did such a thing – the current figure is around 100,000 people over the course of his leadership (compared to many millions attributed to him in common text books.) But, in the words of President Putin himself – Stalin must be judged by the era that he lived in.
In a time when the country faced almost sure defeat, jeopardised by the fifth column – “enemies of the state” were done away with. Is this correct according to contemporary human rights law? Surely not – but I struggle to find an example of another country that faced the choice between survival, or its ultimate destruction at the hands of foreign powers and its internal accomplices in the most critical of times.
Stalin turned a mostly agrarian society into a force to be reckoned with in the defeat of Nazi Germany – albeit at a high human cost. But does that make him a dictator? For many Russians, it is a very personal question and is highly contested. Stalin is a figure about whom much is written – but not much of it is based on fact.
What remains, is that just 16 years after the USSR was reduced to rubble by the Germans – the Soviet Union won the space race, by launching the first man into space. Against a country that has never seen destruction on its own soil, together with the economy.
Very little about Stalin written in Western literature is true – you could test it now by doing a simple google search for “Stalin quotes”. Not one image that shows up is attributed to a real text. Why might the USSR not have publicised such crucial information earlier? Or even the modern Russian state?
In my personal opinion – nobody wants to admit defeat. If the MI6 was able to carry this out, this means the intelligence was somehow better equipped or more richly resourced to have been successful.
Of course that’s not hard, when international bankers have their bets on you.
In 1950, the U.S. Air Force attacked Soviet bases in Eastern Russia destroying over 100 Soviet aircraft.
Following these events Stalin was poisoned with cyanide leading to his untimely death.
In order to keep this secret, Stalin’s secretary, and even the corner that examined Stalin were killed and the house of the latter searched.
These events were carried out upon the orders of Churchill because he feared a strong USSR.
You were the head of the committee on declassifying KGB archives, tell us, is it true that the u.s. Air Force bombed are Soviet bases in the Far East in the 1950s?
-Yes it’s true.
-And we hid this from the rest of the world?
-We hid a lot of things. Actually, we live in a fog of historical myth…
-But you’ve seen the documents, so we will try to dispel some of those myths…
What did they bomb and when?
-Their group of fighter jets bombed our Naval bases…
-It was October 1950, and F80 group attacked our Naval bases
-How many of them?
-Four fighter jets
They bombed 5 of our bases…
-Where are these bases?
-30 km from Vladivostok. They destroyed a hundred and three aircraft.
-Yes, a hundred and three.
The Americans destroyed 103 of our aircraft, on our territory, when there wasn’t a war?
-Yes, in 1950.
-What was Stalin’s reaction?
-This actually has to do with why they killed Stalin…
-What do you mean they killed Stalin?
-It’s exactly what I mean.
-Was Stalin poisoned?
-Yes he was
-Are you making an official statement, as the person who used to head the committee on declassifying KGB archives, under Yeltsin?
-Joseph Stalin was poisoned?
-Joseph Stalin died an unnatural death… In 1981, the American, Stuart cahan who was the nephew of Lazar kaganovich, Stalin’s close associate, visited Lazar in Russia… Lazar described him how Stalin was killed…
-Lazar’s niece, Roza Kaganovich, was a Kremlin doctor. Stalin was (allegedly) given a pill-the equivalent of today’s medicine would be a thrombo ASS pill, to prevent blood clotting. But when you change the composition, it becomes poison. Like rat poison.
This is what Kaganovich himself bragged about to Kahan.
-So who was it that killed Stalin?
-But I didn’t believe this statement.
Then there were the statements of various officials – there was enverhoxha (Albanian president), when Mikoyan (Soviet statesman) came to visit A hoxha congress – he made a statement that the leadership of the USSR are ‘cynical conspirators’
So the likes of Mikoyan traveled the world and bragged about the way they (allegedly) killed Stalin. When I went to look into it myself, what actually happened…
-the archives themselves?
-yes, the materials themselves…
-So what’s being hidden from us? What’s being hidden from us is that Stalin was poisoned. That it was special operation, which was prepared over a long time.
Because by then, a new number of people from Stalin’s close circle had already been removed; Poskrebysheb (Stalin’s secretary), Vlasik (head of security), the Kremlin commandant (Kosynkin) strangely died
-who was very close to Stalin
Then (Lavrentiy) Beria appointed a new head of the Kremlin clinic, responsible for all medicines.
In February, 1953 – Stalin began to feel unwell at his holiday home. (It may have come) from a drink of water, or he used to wet his finger when he turned pages – he used to read a lot – maybe that’s how it got in… we don’t know…
But we do know what the blood and urine samples showed. Well, firstly there was an enlarged liver – this shows toxicity. His leucocytos were four times the norm. This is the white blood cell that fights against toxins.
-He experienced vomiting with blood in it, and his skin was a bright pink color with dark patches under the arms, etc…
-was it cyanide?
-What was the medicine he was given?
-We looked through his medical log, all his checkups were in it. He was a healthy guy – he had mild first stage hypertension and some rheumatism in his knees.
-And nothing else?
-And nothing else…
-And all of the sudden these symptoms are documented. But a conclusion whether he’s poisoned – it wasn’t written…
-But there was one person, professor Rusakov, who carried out the anatomical examination of Stalin’s body – and he wrote a report to the new head of the Kremlin clinic. The new one, that Beria had appointed…
-He wrote that Stalin was poisoned. Poisoned by cyanide, cyanic acid. All the symptoms pointed to that – and when the body was examined, his airways and mucus membranes were damaged with dots of cyanic acid.
Three days after the report – this person died.
-But not only did he die – his house was searched and all the documents in it were destroyed. But, through insufficient diligence, although the majority of his documents on Stalin were destroyed, Rusakov had another copy of the report.
-So a copy remained intact elsewhere? And you’ve had that in your own hands?
Yes, I read it with my own eyes. So there you go…
-So then the question is – why did they poison Stalin? What kind of act is this? So I started to research reports from the main headquarters of the intelligence services…
-We have a myth – that the USSR didn’t know war was coming. This is why we mentioned Richard Sorge (soviet spy, working as undercover German journalist) it was Richard Sorge that said that Germany will attack the USSR on 22 June, (1941)
-Well I looked at the reports of our agents from March – April… goodness! It said everything we needed to know.
-Hitler wanted to start the war in May – but Denmark and Belgium had a bad crop season. Hitler said “let them work the fields first in the USSR and then we will begin our offensive”
-So let them plant, but we will eat it!
-Yes, of course, it was in their own interest.
-I was most impressed by the work of our informant in aviation. He described everything – which cities would be attacked first, with which forces. Moreover – he even mentioned who the guy would appoint as Gauloiters (official governing district under Nazi rule)
-In Kiev, Minsk, even Moscow…
-Our intelligence worked well! Were there German agents in the USSR too in 1941?
-I can say that it was very difficult to be a foreign agent ( in the USSR) in Stalin’s time.
-It’s not that long ago that the theory arose, which said that powerful western forces were behind the death of Stalin.
-It’s true that the USSR victory over fascist Germany, raised the authority of the state in the world to unprecedented levels
-Communist parties had a widespread influence not only on countries of the socialist camp, but on Europe at large.
-Both Italy and France experienced a lot of good feelings toward the USSR. This did not sit right with the “global behind the scenes” who started this war…
-How to fix the situation? The simplest thing is to remove the leader of the victors. This required the bringing of Winston Churchill to the role of Prime Minister for the second time who was known for his antipathy toward Stalin.
-Two weeks after the death of Stalin – Winston Churchill was knighted with the order of the Gartor. (Nikolai Starikov, historian)
take note, we think of churchill of as one of the victors of world war two. But in May 1945 – Instead of honors – he was removed from office having apparently lost the elections. He didn’t receive any government honors.
-Because he had nothing to receive them for. As per the envisaged plan of the “global behind the scenes” and Britain, the war was supposed to end in the destruction of the USSR, then the destruction of Germany itself, leading to an entirely different configuration of political power on the world arena.
-Our tanks in Berlin didn’t fit into the plan of our British friends. So here you have a British Prime Minister – during the reign of which the USSR obtained half of Europe – of course wasn’t so popular with Britain’s elite.
-Churchill won his respect much later. A number of years later, his party wins the elections, and he once again becomes Prime Minister – “the second coming” of Churchill.
-The main task of his was to correct the mistake. What was the mistake of Churchill? It was Stalin’s Soviet Union. How can one fix it? By killing the leader, that is moving his country forward in the right direction and you can’t stop it, so long as Josef Stalin is at the helm.
-I am absolutely assured that the government coup, of which the aim was the murder of Stalin, relied on some internal forces – Khruschev of which was certainly won. But in equal measures it was done with the use of foreign powers, and most likely the British intelligence MI6.
New book reveals the true story of how the Oscars got their name | Culture
The most coveted trophy in cinema is called the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Award, but it was dubbed the Oscar several years after it was first presented on May 16, 1929, at the Roosevelt Hotel, just a block away from the gala’s current venue, the Dolby Theater.
The Hollywood Academy has it all on record. The nickname, the official name – the whole shebang. But where does the nickname come from? Well, from a “straight and tall” Norwegian sailor, in fact. A book on the first 50 years of the Academy, to be published in the US in October, mentions the origins of the name and singles out Academy assistant, Eleanore Lilleberg, as the creator of the alias.
Until now, it was commonly believed that Margaret Herrick had given the name to the award, which is not, in fact, solid gold, but britannia – an alloy of copper, tin and antimony – bathed in gold. This story had it that, in 1931, Herrick, who was then Margaret Gledhill, joined the Academy’s library and on her first day of work came across a statuette, of which she said, “It reminds me of my uncle Oscar.” According to the 1947/1948 Hollywood Academy Almanac, a journalist got wind of the anecdote and put it in print the following day.
In 1943, Herrick became executive director of the Academy and was the first to negotiate with a television network for the live broadcast of the gala in 1953. This gave the Academy financial independence, freeing it from reliance on membership fees, and allowed it to expand its educational programs and cultural activities.
But in the forthcoming book The Academy and the Award, due out in October, author Bruce Davis tells it differently and he should know, as for 22 years, he was the Academy’s executive director until his retirement in 2011. In other words, he has had access to the archives, which is what he has devoted himself to since leaving office. Davis is not just any executive either: some time ago, he came up with the idea of investing some of the Academy’s savings in the museum that has now become one of the jewels in its crown.
According to the website Deadline, which has had access to the 521-page tome, Davis’ research has been thorough. Regarding Herrick’s story, he found a 1938 Los Angeles Examiner report in which Herrick offered a different version of the tale, namely that she and her first husband, Donald Gledhill, used to have a private joke between them that went, “How’s your Uncle Oscar?”
In a bid to get to the bottom of the matter, Davis then brings in the 1970 memoirs of columnist Sidney Skolsky, Don’t Get Me Wrong – I Love Hollywood. Skolsky also took credit for the name, recalling that, under deadline pressure in 1934, he used it in mocking tribute to Vaudeville comedians who liked to say to the conductor of the orchestra, “Will you have a cigar, Oscar?”
However, on March 16, 1934, Skolsky himself wrote in the New York Daily News: “Among the profession, statuettes are called Oscars.” So, both Skolsky’s initial claim and Herrick’s claim were unseated, leaving that of actress Bette Davis.
In January 1941, Bette Davis became the first woman to preside over the Hollywood Academy, a position she resigned from a few months later after a stand-off between her and the board of directors. However, in her memoirs The Lonely Life, published in 1962, she maintained that she was the one who thought of the epithet when holding her first Oscar for Dangerous in 1936: “His back view was the spit of my husband’s. Since the ‘O’ in Harmon O. Nelson stood for Oscar, Oscar it has been ever since,” she wrote. When it was pointed out that the term had already been in use for two years by then, the actress recanted.
So, Bruce Davis kept digging. And he found that the Oscars were actually probably named by Eleanore Lilleberg, a secretary and office assistant in the early days of the Academy who was in charge of looking after the statuettes in the run-up to the ceremonies. She had been previously mooted as responsible for the name Oscar, though not how it came about.
But in a small museum in Green Valley, California, dedicated to Lilleberg and her gemologist brother Einar, Davis found Einar’s unfinished memoirs in which he explains that it was Eleanore who named the award Oscar, after a Navy veteran from Norway, the Lilleberg family’s country of origin. Together, they had met this sailor in Chicago and noted that, like the statuette, he “stood straight and tall.” A 1944 newspaper interview with a colleague and an oral account back up this theory.
Which puts this particular mystery to rest, though there are plenty more Oscar secrets in the book…
Back in Action: The return of Cameron Diaz, the once-highest-paid actress in Hollywood | Culture
In an interview with her close friend Gwyneth Paltrow, actress Cameron Diaz explained how it felt to leap from the Olympus of Hollywood into the abyss, leaving behind a career full of blockbuster movies. “I’m at peace. I got a peace in my soul. Because I was finally taking care of myself. I feel like my feet are on the ground. I’m lighter.” The actress starred in romantic comedies from the mid-1990s through the first decade of the 2000s, including the hit There’s Something About Mary. For several years, she was the best-paid actress in Los Angeles, making up to $20 million per film. But at age 40, with no warning, she decided to “semi-retire” from the industry. Diaz was focused on enjoying her personal life: she is married to musician Benji Madden, and she gave birth to her first daughter, Raddix, at age 47. But she never closed the door on a possible return. Now, eight years after her last movie, America’s blondest sweetheart is back.
“I’m excited, but I don’t know how to do this, you know?” Cameron Diaz admits in the video in which she announced the end of her retirement and confirmed her return to the industry. Simulating a call with her fellow cast member Jamie Foxx, the 49-year-old actress revealed that she will play the lead in a new action comedy for Netflix, titled Back in Action. In the clip, Foxx – who won an Oscar for the movie Ray – seeks help from football player Tom Brady, who this year announced his retirement and changed his mind a month later, in order to prepare Diaz for her return to the big screen. On social media, other entertainers, including Jennifer Aniston and Kim Cattrall, received the news with enthusiasm. Nancy Meyers, who directed Cameron Diaz in The Holiday, wrote: “Finally! Some good news!” Still, in keeping with her decision to avoid the buzz of stardom as much as possible, the Californian actress didn’t even share the news with her nearly 10 million Instagram followers.
Cameron I hope you aren’t mad I recorded this, but no turning back now. Had to call in the GOAT to bring back another GOAT. @CameronDiaz and I are BACK IN ACTION – our new movie with @NetflixFilm. Production starting later this year!! 🦊🐐 pic.twitter.com/vyaGrUmbWb
— Jamie Foxx (@iamjamiefoxx) June 29, 2022
During her time outside the public eye, Cameron Diaz, like peers such as Jessica Alba and Kate Hudson, has attempted to follow Gwyneth Paltrow’s path, using her platform to establish herself as a wellness guru. She published two books on well-being and longevity – The Body Book and The Longevity Book. She has also invested in emerging alternative medicine companies, including Modern Acupuncture and Lyra Health, which helps companies improve the mental health of their employees. In 2020, she also became the founder of the Avaline wine brand, which sells wines made with organic, pesticide-free grapes. The line includes eight varieties, and the starting price for a bottle is €23 ($23.6). “Avaline is the only day-to-day work that I’m doing other than being a wife and a mother. It really has been the most fulfilling part of my life so far,” she said in an interview last year.
The resurgence of the romantic comedy could be behind Diaz’s return to film. The genre reached its box office peak in the mid-1990s. Earlier this year, Sandra Bullock found unexpected success with her return to the genre in The Lost City. Andy Garcia and Gloria Estefan gave the latest remake of Father of the Bride a Latin twist. And in September, Julia Roberts will return to theaters in September after four years of absence: in Journey to Paradise, she will join George Clooney to play a divorced couple who team up to torpedo their daughter’s wedding in Bali. Meanwhile, Tom Cruise is enjoying the success of Top Gun: Maverick, Laura Dern and Sam Neill are returning to the Jurassic Park franchise, and Brad Pitt is preparing for the release of his new action film Bullet Train. After being slammed by the effects of the pandemics, movie theaters are finding that old stars are the best way to get viewers back in their seats.
During her hiatus, Diaz has avoided spotlights and red carpets, appearing only on programs hosted by colleagues such as Paltrow and Drew Barrymore. The actress has spoken unequivocally about the elements that have hampered her professional career, from the abuse of power exercised by Hollywood studios over their stars to the dictatorship of beauty standards. “Every day I sat in front of the mirror for hours. It ended up being toxic […] You start criticizing yourself and you think, why am I sitting here being mean to myself?” she said in a BBC podcast, calling herself a “victim of the objectification and social exploitation that women are subjected to.” In deciding to return to the spotlight, Diaz follows the example of other contemporaries who have recently come out of similar semi-retirements, such as Renée Zellweger, who won an Oscar for her portrayal of Judy Garland, and Lindsay Lohan, who will premiere a Christmas-themed movie on Netflix at the end of this year.
Today’s leading Tik Tok influencer creates fashion parodies from one of the world’s poorest islands | Culture
Shaheel Shermont Flair is 24 years old, and he wants to be a comedic actor. On his social media, where he showcases his talent for comedy through videos/reels, he describes himself as a “public figure” and “artist.” On June 20, he shared his latest witty idea online: a fashion show parody. “Fashion shows be like this,” he declared (alongside the emoji of a face crying with laughter). Then, barefoot and dressed in a T-shirt and sport shorts, he started walking like Linda, Naomi, or Christy through what looks like the backyard of his house. Each trip displayed a style created with all sorts of knickknacks, junk, utensils and household furnishings. In an unintentionally Rickowensian moment (or not), he even used his little sister, Riharika, who was accessorized and off to the side, as a complement. On TikTok, where he has been appearing as @shermont22 for a little more than a year, the short video has racked up over five million views and counting. He continues to gain followers as well; he has nearly 350,000 right now and 13 million or so “likes.” Viewers keep asking him for more. At popular request, he uploaded his most recent video a few hours ago. It is the ninth installment of a viral saga that, in reality, is not so ironic and hilarious.
By today’s standards, Shermont is already a star in terms of fame and glory. In a recent story on his Instagram profile (@shermont_22, which has considerably fewer followers, although one assumes that his viewership there will eventually grow), he confessed to having googled his name and was in disbelief about how far-reaching his performance was. “I’m in the news!” He was amazed and posted screenshots from different digital media, especially from Southeast Asian outlets. On Twitter, he is being hailed as the week’s hero for making fun of, mocking, and deriding that silly and increasingly absurd thing: fashion (of course).
The same thing happened just two months ago, when a video on Douyin (a social network) went viral on its Western counterpart, TikTok, giving rise to the turn-your-grandmother-into-an-international-supermodel challenge. In the video, a venerable elderly Chinese woman was dressed as the personification of Balenciaga, Gucci and Prada by a little boy (presumably her grandson) with what he had on hand in his yurt, including chicken. The results of the challenge—images done in the style of luxury advertising campaigns with brand logos superimposed on them—tell us that we are all Demna Gvasalia, Alessandro Michele, or the tandem Miuccia-Raf Simons, or at least we can be.
For a long time, people have complained repeatedly about how bad fashion is, now more than ever. Not only does fashion pollute the planet and exploit its workers, but it also mocks consumers. Are these designers crazy? No, they are just pulling our leg with so much aesthetic arbitrariness/ugliness/stupidity. It’s only fair, then, to return the favor in jaw-droppingly funny ways. In fact, trolling the fashion industry—like Shermont and the Chinese grandmothers (there are quite a few of them)—may be evidence of a certain social disgust with its three-ring circus and its trainers, illusionists, and clowns, whose extravagances are understood as nonsense and, even worse, insults or near-insults. Vetements’s DHL uniform. Virgil Abloh’s Ikea bag. JW Anderson’s broken-skateboard-encrusted sweater. Balenciaga’s shredded sneakers. All of Balenciaga, the brand inevitably referred to in comments on the young comedian’s reels. There are more than a few comments that also praise Shermont’s attitude and stylish model’s trot; they ask to see his fashion show in Paris and Milan already. And then there are those who attempt to be funnier and more sarcastic and ironic than the video itself, which is typical on Twitter. But none of the commenters have taken issue—or even tried to take issue—with the video’s deeper premise.
Shaheel Shermont Flair is a Fijian of Indian descent; his ancestors were Indian girmtyas who went to British-colonized Fiji in the mid-nineteenth century as slave labor. He is also gay. “Welcome the queen to Instagram,” he urged in April 2021, when he debuted on the social media site. In November, he posted that “[m]y sexuality isn’t the problem, your bigotry is.” In April of this year, he returned to the fray: “There are those who hate me for being different and not living by society’s standards, but deep down they wish they had my courage.” Before his phenomenal fashion show, he was already doing “low cosplay” of Indian women by using waste—toilet paper for the sari, a bottle cap for a nath on the nose, and a tea bag for the maang tikka on the forehead, for example—to create an Indian bride’s trousseau in the playful post, “Getting ready for my lover.” In another, he straps on two water-filled balloons as swaying breasts under his T-shirt. “The things I do for TikTok,” he wrote. Indeed, Shermont has made comedy his path to escape bullying and discrimination (prejudice is double in his case) and turned his social media accounts into a highway to heaven. Just like Apichet Madaew Atirattana did back in his day.
Except for its glamorous intent, everything about Shermont’s catwalk recalls that of the so-called Thai Dovima. In 2016, before Tik Tok’s one-track mind took over, a teenager from the rice-growing region of Isaan—one of Thailand’s poorest areas—astonished the world by turning everyday objects, twigs, and trash into fabulous outfits. He filmed himself modeling those clothes at different locations in his village; his grandmother acted as a styling assistant. Facebook and Instagram went wild over what was termed the “break down of barriers between gender identity, fashion and recycling.” At the time, Madaew (a nom de guerre) explained it this way: “I want people to see that ugly things that don’t fit in can be transformed into something beautiful. And that dressing well is not about money.” Just a few months later, Asia’s Next Top Model, the South Asian edition of the U.S. talent show, called him to be a guest designer during the program’s fourth season. The following year, Time magazine put him on its list of new generational leaders. His example spread. Soon, new stars made their appearance: Suchanatda Kaewsanga, a fellow Thai who is openly trans, and the Chinese Lu Kaigang, whose offerings for fashion shows in his village—located in Guangxi province—unironically included dresses made of garbage can lids and old air-conditioner bags.
Here, we have a response from the poor and marginalized to fashion’s global impact as a mass phenomenon ascribed to the culture of leisure/entertainment. It is a practice that resonates with the button-down politics of Patrick Kelly, the first African American designer to join the ranks of the Parisian ready-to-wear trade association in the mid-1980s; the clothing activities of the swenkas (workers of Zulu origin) and skhothanes (post-apartheid image-obsessed youth) in Johannesburg; and the young Ghanaians who exploit the city-sized textile dumps surrounding the capital, Accra, as sources for their creativity. The narratives of the designers who establish the industry’s current direction, amplified as never before by digital media, also show that it is indeed possible to dress as stylishly as Balenciaga, Gucci or Prada without breaking the bank. That’s why TikTok’s Chinese supermodel grandmothers reflect aspiration and not scorn; they are proof that fashion has something for everyone, even the most socially disadvantaged (one can’t miss the proud hashtag that usually accompanies them, #chinastreetstyle). That’s why Apichet Madaew Atirattana, Suchanatda Kaewsanga and Li Kaigang have made careers as creators, bloggers or influencers with hundreds of thousands of followers. They’ve come so far, propelled by the dreamy fuel that the magazines in village hair salons and satellite TV offer. “It’s very easy to blame fashion for all the problems it creates, but I’d like to think it’s also capable of helping people in many ways, in positive ways,” says Minh-Ha T. Pham, a professor of media studies at Pratt Institute in New York and the author of Asians Wear Clothes on the Internet (2016), an essay about the dynamics of race, gender and class among the young Asians who have found a way to express their identity through fashion, and in the process pushed the system to finally recognize them as a socioeconomic and cultural force. Shaheel Shermont Flair laughs, but he does fashion shows because he also knows what fashion can do for his ambition to become an actor.
Teenager saves baby from shipwreck during Mediterranean crossing | Global development
Bridie Connell: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) | Comedy
Maurice Investments sell London office building for €30.3m (GB)
The 1915 Armenian Genocide and its Russophobic Origins
What’s artificial intelligence best at? Stealing human ideas | Technology
The Religious Roots of Russia’s Mistrust towards the West
Technology1 week ago
I saw first-hand how the tech giants seduced the EU – and undermined democracy | Georg Riekeles
Current1 week ago
Crossbay acquires German logistics portfolio
Technology1 week ago
Google reportedly hopes to keep political emails out of spam • The Register
Global Affairs1 week ago
Bolivia’s corrupt system failed to stem femicide. Now, feminists are fighting back | Women’s rights and gender equality
Global Affairs5 days ago
WHO concerned about first cases of monkeypox in children | Science & Tech
Technology1 week ago
ESA’s contribution to NASA’s Orion on the return to Moon • The Register
Culture1 week ago
Ramón Estévez regrets his name change to Martin Sheen | Culture
Technology1 week ago
US unicorn Front to expand Dublin presence after raising $65m