When does a charge avoid making a charge and items for February 20, 2026

First, a quick note about the 2 stories that dominate the gossip level news today.

The arrest of Prince Andrew reminds me of something from my old Chess playing days. There is a term in Chess, a Gambit, which typically meant you would sacrifice an important piece if you could distract the opponent in a way that saved your King or allowed a player to move into position for a Checkmate against the opposing King. If this arrest is a Gambit, and it probably is, given the fully dialectical nature of the UK today, it is hard to know what the telos, or end game of this move is. It could be to destroy the Royal Family as it is perhaps the single oldest and most solid symbol of the British people, history, identity and culture. Bringing the monarchy down would be a goal of the COMINTERN. There is no way that cannot be true. So one has to wonder.

One more important variable in our opinion:

A tactic I see now across the board in the commonwealth when dealing with mostly counter-narrative thought criminals is making sure the charge has nothing to do with the actual events for which the arrests or charges are laid.

With Helen Grus, she is charged with insubordination, which is fully ludicrous and there is zero basis for that charge. But what the charge does do, is prevent her from talking about the real issue, which is babies being killed by their own mother’s milk as a consequence of having taken the mandatory mRNA injections.

This fact can be made obvious by the following event during her hearing in Ottawa by her lawyer who gave a public tax about it in 2025:

The judge actually prevented her from testifying. The only justification for such an action must be that the charges meant any relevant testimony could be disallowed since it isn’t relevant to the irrelevant charges.

The Royal, formerly known as the Prince, Is being charged with leaking state secrets. This would of course, prevent him from testifying about who and what COMINTERN agents or major UK political figures are involved with Epstein and his COMPROMAT operations, or whatever it is they are doing on that island beyond the obvious.

Also the Hillary Clinton BBC interview. She is purely tactical in that interview. Nothing she said is not serving a staggeringly transparent agenda of using any and all rhetorical devices and logical fallacies to shift the blame and damage the Epstein files represent to her, her husband and interests, to he who must be hated, Donald Trump. The contempt she shows to the general public by thinking people would believe much of what she says is pretty raw as well. Things like, “Donald Trump’s name is in the Epstein files a million times” “Where did it say that?” “on the internet!” There has to be a certain amount of sociopathy there to think she can go on BBC and get away with that level of sophistry, even if the BBC is the Brit equivalent of the CBC or CNN.

But wait… there’s more!

TWO whistleblower hearings are taking place in Ontario this week.

No, not hearings to look into the allegations of the whistleblowers. That only happens in a Republic/’Democracy’. In dialectically driven states like Canada and the UK, the Whistleblowers are brought to trial, or hearings on carefully crafted charges, such that the actual subject of the whistleblowing can never be entered as evidence. In other words, the charges brought against the whistleblower, or in Helen’s case, an investigation which challenges a state narrative, We watched this in real time.

Think of it this way.

A police officer, or a statistician for Health Canada, notices that statistics have been deliberately skewed in such a way that the public would make important choices on the stats which they would not have made had they been properly represented. The statistician, in this case, (and up to now a real thing but the following is for an analogy) then writes down all he sees on paper and goes home to publish his findings in order to alert the public they are being deceived.

The state then charges the statistician with stealing office supplies. The charge then has nothing to do with what he noticed or did, but can have very harsh punishment when found guilty. And of course no attempt to explain his actions will be allowed because the charge, of stealing office supplies when he brought a piece of paper home, has nothing to do with what was on it.

But in the real case, the charges concern damaging the reputation of a Government dept. during a pandemic.

In a republic, the state informs the public as best as it can in order that the public can make the best decisions for itself. The state does not have a right to declare a special set of conditions under which they have the right to lie to the public and knowingly do them harm.

During an alleged emergency, the state should be providing people with solutions if it has any, and giving the best information that it has such that citizens can actually make the best choices for themselves and their families. Therefore, a whistleblower like the statistician being charged, would be a national hero for exposing a truth that would have saved (and actually may have) many lives. Instead, he is charged with something, damaging the reputation of a government agency, which means he cannot even bring up the falsity of it’s data or the facts of his proper interpretation of that same government data.

In fact, he is fully guilty of exposing this government dept. to a loss of credibility. Because of the lies they told, of course, so in a more logically literate society the department itself would be charged with damaging it s own reputation. But in a more Soviet style state, exposing a truth that shows the gov’t department was being deceptive to the public is the crime. And that is where we are at. Once again, reading (or listening to the free audiobook on YouTube) of the Gulag Archipelago becomes quite instructive in decoding events taking place in Canada and the UK as the new normal.

And now to a Toronto police officer., as it happens, the husband of the daughter of Ontario Premiere, Doug Ford. He refused the injections. You can do the math from there. His trial is on today. One of the charges is insubordination. I think that is the same charge against Det. Helen Grus for looking into whether or not the mothers of nursing infants who had died had been made to take the mRNA injections.

Watch Donaldbest.ca for more on that. Donald is the man on Canadian and especially Ontario police matters. But it is easy to say already that if former Toronto police detective Donald Best is paying attention to these hearings, there is something wrong with the fundamentals of it, as it relates to law as the rest of us understand it.

On with a few items of interest:

1. Rupert Lowe seems to be one of the extremely rare people who has some grip on what is going on in the UK and what needs to be done.

While we are on about the UK:

2. This really should concern Canadians. This is meaningful.

The United States has made an alliance with Hungary such that Hungarians can now go to the US without a visa. Of course a lot of other important connections have been made, but focusing on that one thing for the moment… and contrasting it to the next item:

And Canada made a deal with China so that Canadians can travel to China without a Visa. Ok then…

There is an X Account by someone calling themselves, Liz Churchill making the claim that Chinese PLA members are able to fast track Canadian citizenship as the Canadian military now wants foreign trained members. This is not accurate. PLA members would not pass the security checks the new act demands. Unless that part of the act is written to be ignored. nothing is beyond possible. In fact the scale now reads, nearly certain to unlikely. Not impossible when it comes to Canadian government legislation which is meant to be destructive to Classical Canada. But at the moment the news about PLA members joining the Canadian forces appears to be agitprop.

3. You cannot hate CBC, CTV and Global enough. Conversely you cannot love the Trump administration enough.

One of the first VPNs was actually a project called the Tor browser. It may still be a thing, but It was initially created and operated by the US navy. Not as a tool of control, but a tool to avoid control. The idea was that people in authoritarian info-controlled states could use a TOR Browser and access information their own government had denied them,

Flash forward to now:

Grok fact checked this:

Yes, based on recent reports from multiple sources, the US State Department is indeed developing an online portal called freedom.gov to allow people in Europe and elsewhere to access content banned by their local governments, such as alleged hate speech or propaganda. This initiative is framed as a way to promote digital freedom and counter censorship, including under the EU’s Digital Services Act, though it has raised concerns about potential tensions with allies and the US appearing to encourage bypassing local laws. The project, which may include VPN-like features to mask user locations and avoid tracking, was delayed from an expected unveiling at the Munich Security Conference but is administered in part by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. A teaser page for the site exists with messaging like “Freedom is Coming” and a call to reclaim free expression, though the full portal isn’t live yet. Critics view it as a political tool to push US interests or protect American tech firms from European regulations, while supporters see it as a revival of efforts like Radio Free Europe.

Source: https://vladtepesblog.com/2026/02/20/when-does-a-charge-avoid-making-a-charge-and-items-for-february-20-2026/