Disinfo: The “lovely” face of liberalism: “We should be open to cannibalism if it means fighting conservatism and climate change”


A Swedish liberal, Magnus Soderlund, a professor of the Stockholm School of Economics has suggested “we should eat human flesh”. According to professor Soderlund, “conservative taboos could change over time if people simply tried eating human flesh”. The liberals have gone so insane that not eating human flesh is now considered “conservative” in their depraved libtard minds.


A pro-Kremlin attempt to forward a narrative about the decaying values of the Western society. Professor Söderlund has never advocated cannibalism. He is a specialist in marketing, and is studying the dynamics behind various food taboos: insects, maggots - and human flesh. In the widely spread interview with Swedish TV channel TV4, he suggest that times might come when we might have to re-examine our taboos.

The interview can be found here (in Swedish).

Similar cases can be found here.


  • Reported in: Issue 165
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 17/09/2019
  • Language/target audience: English
  • Country: Sweden
  • Keywords: Western values
  • Outlet: Fort Russ News
see more

The West organised the Maidan coup to make Ukraine an anti-Russian state

Those forces in the West that made the Maidan coup possible are still in important positions. Through the military industrial complex, party bureaucracies, NGOs, think tanks and the media, they continue to exert great influence on government decisions; so even with frequent cabinet changes, politics remains constant. In some capitals, such as Berlin, the Maidan supporters are still in power.

These forces want to see Ukraine as a mono-ethnic country with EU and US affiliations and a nationalistic ideology influenced by Western Ukraine. In this scenario, the country should ideally be de-russified down to the last corner by bending and breaking.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the belligerent West and its involvement in the war in Ukraine, stating that the 2013-14 Euromaidan protests resulted in an illegal coup; painting Ukraine as a failing state incapable of making its own policy choices and painting the West as the puppet-master of Ukrainian politics and Ukraine as an anti-Russian project.

There was no coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014. The spontaneous onset of the Euromaidan protests was not provoked from outside. The demonstrations were an organic reaction by numerous parts of the Ukrainian population to former President Yanukovych’s sudden departure from the promised Association Agreement with the European Union in November 2013. See the full debunk of this disinformation claim here.

The West has targeted Russia with sanctions to make a regime-change in Russia possible

Since 2014, the West has targeted Russia with sanctions with the aim of slowing economic growth in order to create discontent among the Russian population, which should make a regime change possible.


This claim is a conspiracy consistent with recurring pro-Kremlin narratives about the West's anti-Russian activities and sanctions.

Since March 2014, the EU has progressively imposed restrictive measures against Russia, however, the aim of the sanctions is not to make a regime-change in Russia possible. The measures were adopted in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and the deliberate destabilisation of Ukraine.

The shift of all blame for WWII outbreak at the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact the best example of manipulation of history

The shift of all blame for WWII outbreak at the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is the best example of manipulation of history. It is important to remember the existence of the Pilsudski-Hitler pact signed in 1934 (Non-Aggression Pact between Poland and Germany). Signing of this pact gave Hitler time to re-equip his army.


This message is part of the Kremlin’s policy of historical revisionism and an attempt to erode the disastrous historical role of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact by stating that other European countries signed various international agreements with Germany after 1934. See other examples referring to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact here, here and here.

First of all, it is impossible to compare the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact - it was a standard international agreement aimed at mutual recognition of borders and a declaration that existing political contradictions would be solved through diplomatic tools. There is no historical evidence that this pact contained any secret protocols, which assumed common aggressive actions of Germany and Poland against the USSR or other countries. Moreover, the pact of 1934 did not include any agreements on advanced political, economic and military relations between Poland and Germany - it was a basic agreement between two neighbouring states.